Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34437571›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Elephant bones for the Middle Pleistocene toolmaker.

Paola Villa, Giovanni Boschian, Luca Pollarolo, Daniela Saccà, Fabrizio Marra, Sebastien Nomade, Alison Pereira

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readHistorical Article
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
36.0field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Paola VillaUniversity of Colorado Museum of Natural History, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9831-5443
Giovanni BoschianDipartimento di Biologia, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Luca PollaroloSchool of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Daniela SaccàDipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Fabrizio MarraIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy.
Sebastien NomadeLaboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
Alison PereiraLaboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
University of Pisa · ITCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia · ITMuseum of Boulder · USUniversité Paris-Saclay · FRUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsArchaeologyBone and BonesDiaphysesElephantsFossilsHistory, AncientHominidaeHumansIndustryManufactured MaterialsTechnology

Identifiers

PMID34437571
PMCPMC8389514
OpenAlexW3196007951

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.