ArticleScientific reports2024
Automatic analysis of the continuous edges of stone tools reveals fundamental handaxe variability.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Is the Acheulean?Evolutionary anthropology · 2026Article
- The Open Aurignacian Project: 3D scanning and the digital preservation of the Italian Paleolithic record.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Late Acheulian stone-working by the riverbank: Patterns of continuity and change reflected in Jaljulia lithic assemblages, Israel.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The edges of stone tools have significant technological and functional implications. The nature of these edges-their sharpness, whether they are concave or convex, and their asymmetry-reflect how they were made and how they could be used. Similarly, blunt portions of a tool's perimeter hint at how they could have been grasped or hafted and in which directions force could be applied. However, due to the difficulty in accurately measuring the complex 3D geometry of tool edges with traditional methods, their attributes are often overlooked. When they are analyzed, they have traditionally been assessed with visual qualitative categories or unreliable physical measurements. We introduce new computational 3D methods for automatically and repeatably measuring key attributes of stone tool edges. These methods allow us to automatically identify the 3D perimeter of tools, segment this perimeter according to changes in edge angles, and measure these discrete edge segments with a range of metrics. We test this new computational toolkit on a large sample of 3D models of handaxes from the later Acheulean of the southern Levant. Despite these handaxes being otherwise technologically and morphologically similar, we find marked differences in the amount of knapped outline, edge angle, and the concavity of their edges. We find many handaxes possess blunt portions of perimeter, suitable for grasping, and some handaxes even possess more than one discrete sharp edge. Among our sample, sites with longer occupations and more diverse toolkits possessed handaxes with more diverse edges. Above all, this paper offers new methods for computing the complex 3D geometry of stone tool edges that could be applied to any number of artifact types. These methods are fully automated, allowing the analysis and visualization of entire assemblages.
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.