ArticlePloS one2021
Elephant bones for the Middle Pleistocene toolmaker.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- The earliest elephant-bone tool from Europe: An unexpected raw material for precision knapping of Acheulean handaxes.Science advances · 2026Article
- A bone tool used by neanderthal for flaying carcasses at the Abri du Maras (France).Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- From meat to raw material: the Middle Pleistocene elephant butchery site of Casal Lumbroso (Rome, central Italy).PloS one · 2025Article
- First identification of a Neanderthal bone spear point through an interdisciplinary analysis at Abric Romaní (NE Iberian Peninsula).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The use of bones as tools in Late Lower Paleolithic of Central Italy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Bone tools, carnivore chewing and heavy percussion: assessing conflicting interpretations of Lower and Upper Palaeolithic bone assemblages.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Article
- Technological and functional analysis of 80-60 ka bone wedges from Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa).Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A Middle Pleistocene wolf from central Italy provides insights on the first occurrence of Canis lupus in Europe.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Neural correlates of perceiving and interpreting engraved prehistoric patterns as human production: Effect of archaeological expertise.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of bone as raw material for implements is documented since the Early Pleistocene. Throughout the Early and Middle Pleistocene bone tool shaping was done by percussion flaking, the same technique used for knapping stone artifacts, although bone shaping was rare compared to stone tool flaking. Until recently the generally accepted idea was that early bone technology was essentially immediate and expedient, based on single-stage operations, using available bone fragments of large to medium size animals. Only Upper Paleolithic bone tools would involve several stages of manufacture with clear evidence of primary flaking or breaking of bone to produce the kind of fragments required for different kinds of tools. Our technological and taphonomic analysis of the bone assemblage of Castel di Guido, a Middle Pleistocene site in Italy, now dated by 40Ar/39Ar to about 400 ka, shows that this general idea is inexact. In spite of the fact that the number of bone bifaces at the site had been largely overestimated in previous publications, the number of verified, human-made bone tools is 98. This is the highest number of flaked bone tools made by pre-modern hominids published so far. Moreover the Castel di Guido bone assemblage is characterized by systematic production of standardized blanks (elephant diaphysis fragments) and clear diversity of tool types. Bone smoothers and intermediate pieces prove that some features of Aurignacian technology have roots that go beyond the late Mousterian, back to the Middle Pleistocene. Clearly the Castel di Guido hominids had done the first step in the process of increasing complexity of bone technology. We discuss the reasons why this innovation was not developed. The analysis of the lithic industry is done for comparison with the bone industry.
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.