Retouchers at the centre: quantifying attention bias and methodological change in middle palaeolithic bone-tool research in Europe

Abstract Research on Palaeolithic bone tools has increasingly emphasised methodological refinement and interdisciplinary approaches, yet systematic quantitative assessments of scholarly attention and bias remain limited. This study presents a quantitative synthesis of 137 publications aimed at analysing patterns in tool-type focus, geographic coverage, and methodological change in European Palaeolithic bone-tool research. Within the Middle Palaeolithic context, retouchers emerge as the continuously foregrounded discrete category, while other artefact categories, often characterised by subtler traces or more ambiguous manufacturing and use traces, remain marginal. Using descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact tests, and logistic regression, we identify a pronounced and persistent attention bias: retouchers constitute a dominant focus and are more likely to be analysed with functional methods (use-wear, experimentation, 3D imaging). Geographically, research is heavily concentrated in Western Europe, with France and Italy accounting for nearly half of all studies, while Spain shows a distinct association with retoucher-focused work. Temporally, we document a measurable shift from typological description toward techno-functional and interdisciplinary analysis, a trend that is statistically significant but unevenly distributed across tool types and regions. These findings underscore how research priorities, validation strategies, and regional academic traditions shape the archaeological narrative of early bone technology. Over time, this imbalance may narrow reconstructions of Palaeolithic bone technology toward activities closely aligned with lithic production, inadvertently downplaying other domains of bone use such as hide processing, plant working, composite tool manufacture, or percussive tasks unrelated to stone-tool maintenance. The issue is therefore not simply one of bias, but of epistemic filtering: certain behaviours become more visible because they align with dominant validation strategies, while others remain under-represented. We argue that future studies should extend high-resolution functional analyses beyond retouchers, broaden geographic and chronological representation, and adopt more standardised reporting to advance a more balanced understanding of Palaeolithic bone-tool behaviours.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
Published
2026-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-026-02588-1
Primary Topic
Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Retouchers at the centre: quantifying attention bias and methodological change in middle palaeolithic bone-tool research in Europe

Marco Peresani, Eva Francesca Martellotta, Kalangi Rodrigo
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
article

Retouchers at the centre: quantifying attention bias and methodological change in middle palaeolithic bone-tool research in Europe

Marco Peresani, Eva Francesca Martellotta, Kalangi Rodrigo
article en

Abstract

Abstract Research on Palaeolithic bone tools has increasingly emphasised methodological refinement and interdisciplinary approaches, yet systematic quantitative assessments of scholarly attention and bias remain limited. This study presents a quantitative synthesis of 137 publications aimed at analysing patterns in tool-type focus, geographic coverage, and methodological change in European Palaeolithic bone-tool research. Within the Middle Palaeolithic context, retouchers emerge as the continuously foregrounded discrete category, while other artefact categories, often characterised by subtler traces or more ambiguous manufacturing and use traces, remain marginal. Using descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact tests, and logistic regression, we identify a pronounced and persistent attention bias: retouchers constitute a dominant focus and are more likely to be analysed with functional methods (use-wear, experimentation, 3D imaging). Geographically, research is heavily concentrated in Western Europe, with France and Italy accounting for nearly half of all studies, while Spain shows a distinct association with retoucher-focused work. Temporally, we document a measurable shift from typological description toward techno-functional and interdisciplinary analysis, a trend that is statistically significant but unevenly distributed across tool types and regions. These findings underscore how research priorities, validation strategies, and regional academic traditions shape the archaeological narrative of early bone technology. Over time, this imbalance may narrow reconstructions of Palaeolithic bone technology toward activities closely aligned with lithic production, inadvertently downplaying other domains of bone use such as hide processing, plant working, composite tool manufacture, or percussive tasks unrelated to stone-tool maintenance. The issue is therefore not simply one of bias, but of epistemic filtering: certain behaviours become more visible because they align with dominant validation strategies, while others remain under-represented. We argue that future studies should extend high-resolution functional analyses beyond retouchers, broaden geographic and chronological representation, and adopt more standardised reporting to advance a more balanced understanding of Palaeolithic bone-tool behaviours.

Archaeological and Anthropological SciencesVol. 18(11)
Griffith University (AU), Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL), University of Ferrara (IT), University of Oxford (GB), Institute of Environmental Geology and Geoengineering (IT)
European Commission, Università degli Studi di Ferrara
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon