ArticleScientific reports2026
Strengths and constraints in ivory provenance research: La Beleña (Córdoba, Spain) as a case study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study presents a multidisciplinary analysis of 119 osseous and ivory fragments from the necropolis of La Beleña (Córdoba, Spain) dating between the second half of the 4th and the beginnings of the 3rd Millennium BC, aiming to assess the effectiveness and limitations of current methods used for identifying ivory provenance in prehistoric contexts. Traditional macroscopic and microscopic techniques were supplemented with biomolecular analyses, including Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS), Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), and ancient DNA extraction (aDNA). Our results reveal significant challenges in raw material identification when based solely on morphological criteria, particularly in highly fragmented assemblages. FTIR analysis showed limited discriminatory capacity between ivory and bone, or between elephantid species. Ancient DNA yielded insufficient endogenous material for analysis. In contrast, ZooMS successfully identified all ivory samples as deriving from African elephants (Loxodonta) and corrected several prior misidentifications. Technological analysis indicates that both transverse and longitudinal tusk exploitation were used, with manufacturing techniques likely involving copper saws and bending. Ivory items were deposited as decorated finished objects, consistent with funerary practices at other Iberian Chalcolithic sites. These findings underscore the need to revise current protocols for ivory identification and provenance, and to expand open-access reference databases. The integration of biomolecular methods—especially proteomics—offers a more reliable path for tracing prehistoric exchange networks and understanding the cultural significance of ivory.
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.