ArticleScientific reports2024
A community of practice approach to the management of metal resources, metalworking and hoarding in Bronze Age societies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The burial of metals in hoards is a trademark phenomenon of prehistoric Europe that may be counterintuitive to perceptions of value nowadays. For the first time here, we establish detailed biographies of a large corpus of hoarded metal objects, providing new insights into how societies in the second millennium BC engaged with their convertible material wealth. We move beyond previous research on prehistoric hoarding commonly focussing on separate questions such as what was placed in hoards, who selected the objects, what were the origins of materials, and where and when they were buried. Analysing ca. 200 metal tools and weapons, we use data reduction methods to define technological pathways in the long biographies of hoarded objects extending across the sourcing of materials, production, use, decommissioning, and deposition in the Carpathian Basin. We show how the differential treatment of materials and objects was strongly biased by social decisions across artefact types. We identify shared, standardised signature treatments that crossed over social-spatial boundaries. Our findings bring new insights on the interface between communal and elite wealth management at the intersection of technological reasoning and cultural beliefs in prehistoric communities.
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.