ArticlePloS one2022
Critical evaluation of in situ analyses for the characterisation of red pigments in rock paintings: A case study from El Castillo, Spain.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paint technology, namely paint preparation and application procedures, is an important aspect of painting traditions. With the expansion of archaeometric studies and in situ non-destructive analytical methods, a renewal of technological studies is being observed in rock art. In situ analyses have several limitations that are widely discussed in the literature, however. It is not yet clear whether they provide accurate information on paint technology, except under certain conditions. Here, we evaluated digital microscopic and pXRF in situ analyses for the characterisation of a large set of red and yellow paintings from the El Castillo cave, Cantabria, Spain. We have set experiments and used statistical methods to identify differences between paint components and determine factors impacting pXRF measurements. We found that the compositional heterogeneity of the paintings' environment, especially variations in secondary deposits, was responsible for most of the differences observed between the pXRF signals recorded on the paintings. We concluded that the El Castillo cave environment is not suitable for non-destructive technological studies, but that more favourable contexts might exist. Following previous works and our own results, we advocate a combination of both in situ and laboratory invasive analyses for the study of paint composition and paint technology. Our research protocol, based on the comparison of rock paintings, their substrate, experimental paintings and Fe-normalisation of the signals can improve the reliability of pXRF results. We also propose to include more systematic characterisation of rock wall heterogeneity and the use of microscopic analyses in non-destructive approaches.
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.