Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36584160›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Particle size distribution: An experimental study using southern African reduction methods and raw materials.

Paloma de la Peña, Marc Thomas, Tumelo R Molefyane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paloma de la PeñaMcDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9731-7001
Marc ThomasUMR 5608 TRACES, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, Toulouse, France.
Tumelo R MolefyaneGuías de Espeleología y Montaña (GEM), Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We experimentally created a particle size dataset that is based on reduction sequences and raw materials typical of the Middle and Later Stone Age in southern Africa. The reason for creating this new dataset is that current particle size frameworks are based, almost exclusively, on flint and western European knapping methods. We produced the dataset using knapping methods and raw materials frequently encountered in the southern African archaeological record because we wanted to test whether it has the same distribution as particle size datasets experimentally created in Europe, and to initialise the production of a database for use in the analysis of lithic assemblages from southern African Late Pleistocene deposits. We reduced 117 cores of quartz, quartzite, jasper, chalcedony, hornfels, and rhyolite. The knapping methods selected were unidirectional, discoidal, Levallois recurrent and bipolar flaking. In this article we compare this new particle size distribution dataset with the results obtained from previous experiments. We found that the southern African dataset shows a wider size range distribution, which seems to be explained by differences in knapping methods and raw materials. Our results show that there is overlap between the distribution of the southern African experimental knapping dataset and the sorting experiment conducted by Lenoble on flint artefacts in a runoff context. This article shows that a particle size analysis is not sufficient on its own to assess the perturbation of an archaeological assemblage and must be coupled with other analytical tools.

Indexed as

ArchaeologyTechnologyAfrica, SouthernEuropeFossilsParticle Size

Identifiers

PMID36584160
PMCPMC9803312

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.