↓ Skip to main content

Functionality and Morphology: Identifying Si Agricultural Tools from Among Hemudu Scapular Implements in Eastern China

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Functionality and Morphology: Identifying Si Agricultural Tools from Among Hemudu Scapular Implements in Eastern China
Published in
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10816-015-9271-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liye Xie, Xuejiao Lu, Guoping Sun, Weijin Huang

Abstract

Most Chinese archaeologists assume that the scapular implements used in the Hemudu culture in eastern China (7000-5000 BP) were the si agricultural implements (tools for breaking ground and turning soils over to assist in seeding) recorded in ancient Chinese literatures and, accordingly, assume the Hemudu culture was a farming society. However, ethnographic and historical literatures worldwide have suggested inconclusive functions for similar implements. We conducted a range of experiments under realistic conditions, including hide and plant processing and earth-working, followed by use-wear analysis, to identify the functions of the Hemudu scapular implements. The results suggest that no more than half of the implements were employed as si and that their penetrability and durability were rather limited. These findings help explain why Hemudu should not be labeled as a farming society. Through experimentation and use-wear analysis, we produced relatively large datasets that make a significant contribution to the identification of soil-derived wear patterns on bone tools. We also included quantitative measurements of soil properties to ensure similarities in use contexts between our experimental and archaeological analogies in order to reach reliable functional identifications. Our approaches and results, therefore, provided a solid base for re-evaluating previous research as well as building a standardized database of scientific value for future evaluation and adjustment, even if that future research is done in isolation and in different soil contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 45%
Researcher 1 9%
Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 5 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Psychology 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,786,754
of 25,721,020 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#108
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,755
of 402,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,721,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 402,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.