ArticleJournal of archaeological method and theory2021
Materiality, Agency and Evolution of Lithic Technology: an Integrated Perspective for Palaeolithic Archaeology.
Article in Journal of archaeological method and theory, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opaque Social Instruments: A Cultural Evolutionary Approach to Pleistocene Symbolic Artifacts.Evolutionary anthropology · 2026Article
- Specialised and persistent raw material procurement by humans in the Middle Pleistocene.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Multi-species entanglements and stable isotope signals (Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- A quantitative analysis of Final Palaeolithic/earliest Mesolithic cultural taxonomy and evolution in Europe.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Technological Condition of Human Evolution: Lithic Studies as Basic Science.Journal of paleolithic archaeology · 2021Article
- Where innovations flourish: an ethnographic and archaeological overview of hunter-gatherer learning contexts.Evolutionary human sciences · 2020Review
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
Abstract
Considerations of materiality and object-oriented approaches have greatly influenced the development of archaeological theory in recent years. Yet, Palaeolithic archaeology has been slow in incorporating this emerging body of scholarship and exploring its bearing on the human deep past. This paper probes into the potential of materiality theory to clarify the material dynamics of the Plio-Pleistocene and seeks to re-articulate the debate on the evolution of our species with materiality discourses in archaeology and the humanities more broadly. We argue that the signature temporalities and geospatial scales of observation provided by the Palaeolithic record offer unique opportunities to examine the active role of material things, objects, artefacts and technologies in the emergence, stabilisation and transformation of hominin lifeworlds and the accretion of long-term trajectories of material culture change. We map three axes of human-thing relations-ecological, technical and evolutionary-and deploy a range of case studies from the literature to show that a critical re-assessment of material agency not only discloses novel insights and questions, but can also refine what we already know about the human deep past. Our exploration underscores the benefits of de-centring human behaviour and intentionality and demonstrates that materiality lends itself as a productive nexus of exchange and mutual inspiration for diverging schools and research interests in Palaeolithic archaeology. An integrated object-oriented perspective calls attention to the human condition as a product of millennial-scale human-thing co-adaptation, in the course of which hominins, artefacts and technologies continuously influenced and co-created each other.
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.