ArticleScientific reports2024
A pre-Campanian Ignimbrite techno-cultural shift in the Aurignacian sequence of Grotta di Castelcivita, southern Italy.
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 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.
- Article
- New insights from the application of ZooMS to Late Pleistocene fauna from Grotta di Castelcivita, southern Italy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Open Aurignacian Project: 3D scanning and the digital preservation of the Italian Paleolithic record.Scientific data · 2025Article
- The Uluzzian and Châtelperronian: No Technological Affinity in a Shared Chronological Framework.Journal of paleolithic archaeology · 2025Article
- Chronometric data and stratigraphic evidence support discontinuity between Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens in the Italian Peninsula.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A pre-Campanian Ignimbrite techno-cultural shift in the Aurignacian sequence of Grotta di Castelcivita, southern Italy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Aurignacian is the first European technocomplex assigned to Homo sapiens recognized across a wide geographic extent. Although archaeologists have identified marked chrono-cultural shifts within the Aurignacian mostly by examining the techno-typological variations of stone and osseous tools, unraveling the underlying processes driving these changes remains a significant scientific challenge. Scholars have, for instance, hypothesized that the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) super-eruption and the climatic deterioration associated with the onset of Heinrich Event 4 had a substantial impact on European foraging groups. The technological shift from the Protoaurignacian to the Early Aurignacian is regarded as an archaeological manifestation of adaptation to changing environments. However, some of the most crucial regions and stratigraphic sequences for testing these scenarios have been overlooked. In this study, we delve into the high-resolution stratigraphic sequence of Grotta di Castelcivita in southern Italy. Here, the Uluzzian is followed by three Aurignacian layers, sealed by the eruptive units of the CI. Employing a comprehensive range of quantitative methods-encompassing attribute analysis, 3D model analysis, and geometric morphometrics-we demonstrate that the key technological feature commonly associated with the Early Aurignacian developed well before the deposition of the CI tephra. Our study provides thus the first direct evidence that the volcanic super-eruption played no role in this cultural process. Furthermore, we show that local paleo-environmental proxies do not correlate with the identified patterns of cultural continuity and discontinuity. Consequently, we propose alternative research paths to explore the role of demography and regional trajectories in the development of the Upper Paleolithic.
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.