↓ Skip to main content

Relative Importance of Modularity and Other Morphological Attributes on Different Types of Lithic Point Weapons: Assessing Functional Variations

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Relative Importance of Modularity and Other Morphological Attributes on Different Types of Lithic Point Weapons: Assessing Functional Variations
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0048009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rolando González-José, Judith Charlin

Abstract

The specific using of different prehistoric weapons is mainly determined by its physical properties, which provide a relative advantage or disadvantage to perform a given, particular function. Since these physical properties are integrated to accomplish that function, examining design variables and their pattern of integration or modularity is of interest to estimate the past function of a point. Here we analyze a composite sample of lithic points from southern Patagonia likely formed by arrows, thrown spears and hand-held points to test if they can be viewed as a two-module system formed by the blade and the stem, and to evaluate the degree in which shape, size, asymmetry, blade: stem length ratio, and tip angle explain the observed variance and differentiation among points supposedly aimed to accomplish different functions. To do so we performed a geometric morphometric analysis on 118 lithic points, departing from 24 two-dimensional landmark and semi landmarks placed on the point's contour. Klingenberg's covariational modularity tests were used to evaluate different modularity hypotheses, and a composite PCA including shape, size, asymmetry, blade: stem length ratio, and tip angle was used to estimate the importance of each attribute to explaining variation patterns. Results show that the blade and the stem can be seen as "near decomposable units" in the points integrating the studied sample. However, this modular pattern changes after removing the effects of reduction. Indeed, a resharpened point tends to show a tip/rest of the point modular pattern. The composite PCA analyses evidenced three different patterns of morphometric attributes compatible with arrows, thrown spears, and hand-held tools. Interestingly, when analyzed independently, these groups show differences in their modular organization. Our results indicate that stone tools can be approached as flexible designs, characterized by a composite set of interacting morphometric attributes, and evolving on a modular way.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 5%
United States 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 39 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 23%
Arts and Humanities 8 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 9%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 October 2012.
All research outputs
#5,376,254
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#65,228
of 193,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,420
of 176,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,133
of 4,783 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 176,091 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,783 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.