↓ Skip to main content

Two million years of flaking stone and the evolutionary efficiency of stone tool technology

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
182 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Two million years of flaking stone and the evolutionary efficiency of stone tool technology
Published in
Nature Ecology & Evolution, March 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41559-018-0488-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Željko Režek, Harold L. Dibble, Shannon P. McPherron, David R. Braun, Sam C. Lin

Abstract

Temporal variability in flaking stone has been used as one of the currencies for hominin behavioural and biological evolution. This variability is usually traced through changes in artefact forms and techniques of production, resulting overall in unilineal and normative models of hominin adaptation. Here, we focus on the fundamental purpose of flaking stone-the production of a sharp working edge-and model this behaviour over evolutionary time to reassess the evolutionary efficiency of stone tool technology. Using more than 19,000 flakes from 81 assemblages spanning two million years, we show that greater production of sharp edges was followed by increased variability in this behaviour. We propose that a diachronic increase in this variability was related to a higher intensity of interrelations between different behaviours involving the use and management of stone resources that gave fitness advantages in particular environmental contexts. The long-term trends identified in this study inform us that the evolutionary efficiency of stone tool technology was not inherently in advanced tool forms and production techniques, but emerged within the contingencies of hominin interaction with local environments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 182 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Student > Master 11 11%
Professor 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 8 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 34 35%
Social Sciences 20 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 14%
Psychology 4 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 16 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 141. 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 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#142,024
of 15,864,224 outputs
Outputs from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#328
of 1,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,309
of 279,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#30
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,864,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 148.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 279,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.