Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41627398›Full record

ReviewAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026

Towards robust identification of Pleistocene adhesives: a critical review of current analytical approaches.

Anika Lokker, Pierre-Hugues Stefanuto, Dries Cnuts, Veerle Rots, Jean-François Focant

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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.

Anika LokkerOrganic and Biological Analytical Chemistry Group (OBiAChem), Molsys Research Unit, University of Liège, Sart-Tilman, Allée du 6 Août 11, Quartier Agora, 4000, Liège, Belgium. alokker@uliege.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1867-3820
Pierre-Hugues StefanutoOrganic and Biological Analytical Chemistry Group (OBiAChem), Molsys Research Unit, University of Liège, Sart-Tilman, Allée du 6 Août 11, Quartier Agora, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
Dries CnutsTraceoLab/Prehistory, University of Liège, Place du 20-Août 7, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
Veerle RotsTraceoLab/Prehistory, University of Liège, Place du 20-Août 7, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
Jean-François FocantOrganic and Biological Analytical Chemistry Group (OBiAChem), Molsys Research Unit, University of Liège, Sart-Tilman, Allée du 6 Août 11, Quartier Agora, 4000, Liège, Belgium.

Funding

University of Liege ARC-project GLUE
6 · The paper itself

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

Analytical chemistryGas chromatographyHaftingPrehistoric adhesivesQA/QCStone tools

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.