Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41306735›Full record

ArticleJournal of archaeological method and theory2026

Snakes and Ladders: A technological approach to tool maintenance byproducts using module flake categories.

David Nora, Ariel Malinsky-Buller, Boris Gasparyan, Artur Petrosyan, Ellery Frahm

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of archaeological method and theory, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

David NoraHuman-Environment Dynamics Laboratory (HUMENDY), Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-2948-776X
Ariel Malinsky-BullerHuman-Environment Dynamics Laboratory (HUMENDY), Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-0447-6949
Boris GasparyanInstitute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences of the Replubic of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia.
Artur PetrosyanInstitute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences of the Replubic of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia.
Ellery FrahmDepartment of Anthropology & Council On Archaeological Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7858-3523

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study of retouching, reshaping, and rejuvenation in lithic technology has traditionally focused on finished tools, overlooking the byproducts of these processes, particularly microdebitage. This emphasis has led to an incomplete understanding of the dynamic behaviours associated with tool maintenance and a lack of crucial information about prehistoric technological strategies. In this study, we address this knowledge gap. Specifically, we introduce a classification system for lithic byproducts resulting from retouching, reshaping, and rejuvenation techniques, categorising them into five modules (M0 through M4) based on lithic technological analysis. This methodology integrates the

Indexed as

CurationLithic technologyMicrodebitageModule flakesTechnological organisationTool maintenance

Identifiers

PMID41306735
PMCPMC12644156

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.