Use-wear evidence confirms the earliest hafted chipped-stone adzes of Upper Palaeolithic in northern China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chipped-stone adze-shaped objects (ASOs) were identified from a few Upper Palaeolithic sites in northern China. Its morpho- logical form resembles to ground-stone type-specific adze, but the function of the ASO has never been assessed. The objective of this study is to investigate the use function of this particular tool type recovered from the Hutouliang site in the Nihewan Basin of northern China. In this study, the lithic use-wear analysis is applied to examining microscopically edge-damages and sur- face-rounding of the tools in order to assess how they were employed. The result suggests that the ASO might have been used as woodworking tools with a hafted shaft, providing evidence for the appearance of the earliest hafted chipped-stone adzes prior to 10000 years ago in northern China. This study also demonstrates that the use-wear technique is an innovated and effective analytic appraoch to the study of stone tool functions that has been conventionally treated by typo-technological analyses. Stone tool use-patterns revealed by use-wear evidence would shed new insights on prehistoric adaptive strategies of modern human in northern China.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".