ReviewAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026
Towards robust identification of Pleistocene adhesives: a critical review of current analytical approaches.
Review in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chemical identification of adhesive remains on prehistoric stone tools is of great interest for archaeologists, as the residues contain interesting information on tool use and the exploitation of natural resources by hominins. Adhesives were used to form a wrapping around the stone tool to protect the hand from the sharp edges and improve grip, or to secure a handle out of organic material to the stone tool. This invention, of adding a handle to a stone tool, marks a fundamental change in prehistoric technology. Adhesives can be manufactured from readily available exudates, like pine resin, but could also be man-made, in the case of birch tar that is obtained by dry distillation of birch bark. The glueing properties of the adhesives could be enhanced with the addition of an additive (e.g. charcoal, ochre, beeswax). Given that adhesive manufacture is considered to indicate planning abilities and complex thought, its identification in archaeological assemblages is important for understanding the evolution of human cognition. However, given long-term burial, organic residues on stone tools are generally significantly degraded, which raises numerous chemical challenges and interpretative difficulties that need to be tackled through close collaboration between archaeologists and chemists. Without this interaction between two vastly different research fields, studies can suffer from an overinterpretation of analytical data or a lack of understanding of the archaeological context. This review discusses the main pitfalls encountered in the chemical analysis of prehistoric adhesives and offers analytical recommendations to avoid them. Applying the analytical practices as proposed here will increase the reliability and credibility of the analytical results and allow a strong chemical foundation for the archaeological interpretations. The main focus is on the use of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for the chemical identification of prehistoric adhesives; however, other commonly used analytical techniques are also briefly discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41627398What 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.