ArticlePloS one2021
Quantitative use-wear analysis of stone tools: Measuring how the intensity of use affects the identification of the worked material.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natufian sickle blades (ca. 15,000-11,700 cal. BP) reveal cereal cultivation ca. 4.5 millennia before domestication.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning approaches to dietary classification from dental microtexture in primates.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Classifying polish in use-wear analysis with convolutional neural networks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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 mind & muscles: Introducing a validated EEG/EMG protocol for recording cognitive-muscular interactions in experimental archaeology.PloS one · 2025Article
- Let the Stones Shine: Assessing the Potential of Microwear Analysis on Flint Artifacts to Refine the Post-depositional History of Paleolithic Sites.Journal of paleolithic archaeology · 2025Article
- Harvesting cereals at Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and the introduction of farming in Northeastern Iran during the Neolithic.PloS one · 2023Article
- Technological and functional analysis of 80-60 ka bone wedges from Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa).Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Optimization of use-wear detection and characterization on stone tool surfaces.Scientific reports · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification of the use of stone tools through use-wear analysis was one the major methodological advances in Prehistoric Archaeology during the second half of the 20th century. Studies of use-wear analysis have decisively contributed to a better understanding of the cognitive capacities and the socio-economic organization of Prehistoric societies. Among use-wear traces, microwear polish is the most relevant evidence, as it allows the identification of the worked materials (i.e. wood, antler, hide, bone, stone…). This identification is currently carried out through the qualitative and visual comparison of experimental and archaeological tools. During the last decade, confocal microscopy is allowing the quantitative identification of the worked material through the texture analysis of microwear polish. Previous tests have accounted for the variability of use-wear traces as caused by different types of worked material. However, how the intensity of use, which is widely recognized as an important factor conditioning microwear polish characteristics, affects our capacity to identify the worked materials is poorly understood. This research addresses the dynamic nature of microwear polish through confocal microscopy and texture analysis. This research shows that use-wear polishing is a dynamic process and surface texture evolves continuously during the working time. The evolution fits a logarithmic function, so most texture modification takes place during the first phases of work. The way in which polish texture evolves through time differs from one contact material to the other. We demonstrate that, despite the dynamic nature of use-wear polish, different worked materials can be discriminated. However, some overlapping between used and unused surfaces and between worked materials occurs in the first stages of use. Moreover, polishes of similar characteristics (i.e. bone and antler) can show similar texture at advanced stages of use. These problems in identification can be in good measure overcome by creating dynamic models of polish texture in which not only the worked material but also the time of use is considered.
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.