The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 16 of the 33 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language
Open accessAbstract
The relationship between lithic technology, learning and language is a topic of growing interest in human evolution studies, and has therefore been the subject of numerous scientific papers in recent years. To evaluate the role of language in the social transmission of lithic technology, we designed and developed an experimental protocol through which we compared the acquisition of knapping skills in thirty non-experts in the early stages of learning, by means of three mechanisms of social transmission: imitation-emulation, gestural communication, and verbal communication. All the apprentice knappers carried out the experimental task with blanks that were equal in shape and size, and were requested to replicate what the expert knapper was doing: the alternating method, a sufficiently simple, but systematic technique for detaching flakes from a core. We analysed each participant’s actions, including those of the master knapper, the final products (flakes and cores), and the knapping sequences, by analysing the refits. Our results show that the apprentices improved their knapping skills in teaching conditions -both gestural and verbal communication-, and specially through the latter. In conclusion, our study supports the hypothesis of co-evolution between lithic technology and social learning, which could have favoured the emergence of verbal language.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
An experimental study with 30 non-expert knappers compared learning the alternating method through imitation-emulation, gestural communication, or verbal communication. Teaching improved knapping skill, and verbal communication was especially effective for retaining the method, supporting a co-evolutionary/pedagogical hypothesis linking lithic technology and language.
Key findings
- Imitation-emulation apprentices made far more percussions (n = 3,041) than gestural (n = 1,744) or verbal (n = 1,369) learners. Efficacy Index was highest for the expert (23.04), then verbal (13.99), gestural (10.43), and imitation-emulation (5.98); differences between imitation-emulation and both taught groups were significant (K-W I-E-G p = 0.0239; K-W I-E-V p = 0.0003382), while gestural vs verbal was not (p = 0.07205).
- Alternating flakes produced: verbal = 229, gestural = 112, imitation-emulation = 13; expert = 584. In Phase 2 retention, the paper reports verbal learners had more than 66% success compared with Phase 1, gestural about 9%, and imitation-emulation showed about a 63% drop.
- Products from the verbal group were most similar to the expert’s: no significant differences in width, thickness, carenate index, or platform thickness. Extracted Mass Index means were expert = 0.76, verbal = 0.71, gestural = 0.63, imitation-emulation = 0.53, with significant differences between imitation-emulation and verbal (ANOVA p = 0.01407) and imitation-emulation and expert (p = 0.001407).
- The expert and verbal learners knapped 90–100% of core perimeter in all cases; in the imitation-emulation group four cores had less than 60% of their perimeter knapped.
Methods
- 30 volunteers aged 20–42 with no prior knapping experience were randomly divided into three groups of 10: imitation-emulation, gestural communication, and verbal communication. Each participant had Phase 1 with the same expert knapper (5–15 min) and Phase 2 alone 30 min later (5–10 min), using identical commercial brick blanks (134 × 131 × 44 mm) and hammerstones.
- Participants were asked to reproduce the alternating method: bifacial reduction with core turning after each removal and use of the previous negative as the next percussion platform. Sessions were video-recorded; actions, products, and refitted knapping sequences were analyzed.
- Analyses included percussion types (P, D, E, F), Efficacy Index, flake dimensions and platform attributes, core perimeter, Extracted Mass Index, cortical surface/mass ratio, and sequence criteria. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, ANOVA, and correspondence analysis were used with Past v.2.17c and ImageJ.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: the experiment used a relatively short timeframe for learning; prehistoric knapping transmission would have been daily, and long-term experiments are needed to see whether initial differences persist, reduce, or increase with experience.
- Stated in the paper: in a single training session, no learner reached the expert knapper’s results on number of blows, percussion success, or Efficacy Index.
- Evident from the text: the sample was small (30 non-experts, 10 per group), used one expert knapper, artificial brick blanks rather than stone, and brief laboratory sessions, which limits generalization to prehistoric social learning.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
16 of 33 cited sources checked · 10 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, some ethnographic studies have reinforced the relationship between lithic technology and language, emphasising the social character of knapping in current human communities28–33.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28] Bril, B., Roux, V. & Dietrich, G. Stone knapping: Khambhat (India), a unique opportunity? in Stone knapping: the necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour (eds Roux, V. & Bril, B.) 53–71 (Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2005).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [29] Roux, V. Peut-on interpréter les activités lithiques préhistoriques en termes de durée d’apprentissage? Apport de l’ethnologie et de la psychologie aux études technologiques in 25 ans d'études technologiques en Préhistoire. XIe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, pp. 47–56. Juan-les-Pins: Éditions APDCA. (1991).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [30] Roux, V. Cornaline de l’Inde. Des pratiques techniques de Cambay aux techno-systèmes de l’Indus. (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 2000). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The book’s overview describes studying present-day carnelian bead-making in Cambay, and section II addresses the skills involved in knapping chalcedony beads. These passages support its use as a study of knapping in a current community, but the passages found do not establish a relationship between lithic technology and language or explicitly describe knapping’s social character. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Roux, V., Bril, B. & Dietrich, G. Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping: the case of stone-bead knapping in Khambhat, India. World Arch. 27, 63–87 (1995). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] Stout, D. Skill and cognition in stone tool production. Cur. Anthr. 43, 693–720 (2002). source
- Not matchedcites [33] Stout, D. The social and cultural context of stone-knapping skill acquisition in Stone knapping: the necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour. (eds Roux, V. & Bril, B.) 331–340 (Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2005).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Ohnuma et al.34 and Putt et al.38 found that verbal language did not represent an advantage over gestural communication.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [34] Ohnuma, K., Aoki, K. & Akazawa, T. Transmission of tool-making through verbal and non-verbal communication: preliminary experiments in Levallois flake production. Anthropol. Sci. 105, 159–168 (1997). source
The Methods describe instruction by gesture and visual demonstration in the non-verbal group. The Concluding Remarks report no significant difference between the verbal and non-verbal groups in acquiring the Levallois technique or producing flakes. This supports the claim as applied to Ohnuma et al.’s preliminary experiment, not to tool-making generally. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [38] Putt, S. S., Woods, A. D. & Franciscus, R. G. The role of verbal interaction during experimental bifacial stone tool manufacture. Lithic Technol. 39, 96–112 (2014). source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Language, the fastest and most efficient way to transmit information, could have lent hominins a great competitive advantage79 by favouring the social transmission of knowledge related to lithic technology39,40.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [79] Corballis, M. C. From mouth to hand: Gesture, speech, and the evolution of right-handedness. Behav. Brain Sc. 26, 199–260 (2003). source
- Supportedcites [39] Morgan, T. J. H. et al. Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language. Nat. Commun. 6, 6029 (2015). source
The Discussion says language effectively transmitted abstract stone-knapping concepts and that increasingly complex communication would have enabled the more effective spread of stone-tool knowledge. The Abstract likewise reports improved transmission of Oldowan tool-making skills with language. The claim’s separate description of language as the fastest and most efficient means, and its reference to competitive advantage, are attached to citation 79 rather than this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [40] Whiten, A. Experimental studies illuminate the cultural transmission of percussive technologies in Homo and Pan. Phi. Trans. R. Soc. B. 370, 20140359 (2015). source
The citation to this source is attached to the claim that language could favour social transmission of lithic knowledge, not to the separate claim about competitive advantage. Section 6 reports that verbal teaching was particularly effective in transmitting stone-knapping skills, while noting that the experiments do not directly establish what happened among ancient hominins. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Language is the fastest and most efficient way to transmit information.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, hominin dependence on lithic technology would have generated a selective process favourable to the development of a more complex social transmission mechanism, allowing more effective diffusion of technical knowledge24,39.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [24] Csibra, G. & Gergely, G. Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 366, 1149–1157 (2011). source
In §4, the authors link early hominin stone-tool production to difficult skills likely to require cultural transmission and expert participation. In §5, they propose that technological knowledge made natural pedagogy—a communicative knowledge-transmission adaptation—necessary. The citing sentence fairly paraphrases that evolutionary proposal. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [39] Morgan, T. J. H. et al. Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language. Nat. Commun. 6, 6029 (2015). source
The Discussion (page not supplied) states that hominin reliance on stone technology would have selected for increasingly complex communication that enabled more effective transmission of stone-tool knowledge. This directly supports the citing sentence’s paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“our results lend weight to the pedagogical hypothesis of language6, according to which lithic knapping and language may have co-evolved5,39,76.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] Stout, D. & Chaminade, T. Stone tools, language and the brain in the human evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 367, 75–87 (2012). source
Section 3 says similarities between handaxe production and language processing extend the plausible context for co-evolutionary interactions between technological and linguistic capacities. The Conclusion also describes a technological pedagogy hypothesis. The citing authors’ statement about their own results is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not matchedcites [5] Stout, D. Possible relations between language and technology in human evolution in Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition. (eds Nowell, A. & Davidson, I.) 159–184. (Univ. Press of Colorado, 2010).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [39] Morgan, T. J. H. et al. Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language. Nat. Commun. 6, 6029 (2015). source
The citation supports the co-evolutionary hypothesis, rather than the citing authors’ statement about their own results. In the Discussion (page not supplied), the source says its findings support an account in which stone-tool manufacture generated selection favouring teaching and language. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of the expert knapper the flakes are dominated by non-cortical platforms (83.62%), with few completely cortical platforms (9,86%).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the imitation-emulation group, completely cortical platforms predominated in both Phase 1 (Co: 52.23%) and Phase 2 (Co: 63.59%)”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas in the verbal communication group completely non-cortical platforms predominated in both phases (Phase 1 Nco: 74.59%; Phase 2 Nco: 60%)”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the greatest decrease occurred in the gestural communication group, falling from 58.86% of alternating flakes in Phase 1 to just 5.23% in Phase 2 (representing a relative drop of 91.1%).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the number of actions performed in each knapping session was related to the mass extracted from the corresponding core (Efficacy Index - EfI), the expert knapper displayed a significantly higher mean than the apprentices (EfI EK = 23. 04), indicating his greater effectiveness in reducing the core (Fig. 2).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Technical capabilities
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 39
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, the results of Morgan et al. indicate that gestural communication, and especially verbal communication, are more effective than non-teaching conditions (reverse engineering or imitation-emulation)39.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [39] Morgan, T. J. H. et al. Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language. Nat. Commun. 6, 6029 (2015). source
The Results (Performance across conditions) report that gestural and verbal teaching improved stone-knapping performance relative to reverse engineering, while imitation/emulation showed little evidence of improvement. They also report strong evidence that verbal teaching improved performance relative to gestural teaching. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The imitation-emulation volunteers produced flakes with thinner platforms, while the flake platforms of the verbal and gestural communication groups were thicker, more like to those of the skilled knapper. This may indicate that more adequate percussion platforms were selected by these groups compared with the imitation-emulation knappers73.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Products
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [73] Lewis, H. M. & Laland, K. N. Transmission fidelity is the key to the build-up of cumulative culture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 367, 2171–2180 (2012). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“although it is well known that the initial morphology of a blank strongly influences the final products41,42.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Guardiola, M., Morales, J. I. & Vergès, J. M. From blunt to cutting: Distinguishing alternating method flakes in early stages on rounded blanks. Quat. Intern. 411, 378–385 (2016). source
- Partly supportedcites [42] White, M. J. & Ashton, N. M. Lower Paleolithic core technology and the origins of the Levallois method in North-WesternEurope. Cur. Anthr. 44, 598–609 (2003). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) says biface surface forms depend in part on the blank type used, supporting an influence of the starting blank on the resulting form. It does not establish that initial blank morphology strongly influences final products generally; the same section describes whether blank shape dictates certain core techniques as debatable. (LLM, conf=0.80)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This body of study comprises evidence supporting the technological hypothesis of the origin of language, and particularly the technological pedagogy hypothesis6, which contends that intentional pedagogical demonstration may have spurred the evolution of the verbal communication24.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] Stout, D. & Chaminade, T. Stone tools, language and the brain in the human evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 367, 75–87 (2012). source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Partly supportedcites [24] Csibra, G. & Gergely, G. Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 366, 1149–1157 (2011). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this regard, the results of our study and other research39 indicate that teaching, especially by means of verbal communication, is the most effective social transmission mechanism for learning lithic knapping, and is especially helpful for acquiring and retaining concepts such as core rotation and turning, using negatives of previous blows as percussion platforms for subsequent extractions.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Sequences
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [39] Morgan, T. J. H. et al. Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language. Nat. Commun. 6, 6029 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Performance across conditions; page unavailable) find that teaching, particularly verbal teaching, improved transmission of Oldowan flaking skills. The Discussion (page unavailable) names demonstrating core rotation as a teaching technique and says verbal instruction transmitted abstract concepts such as platform angle. The paper does not establish improved acquisition or retention of core turning or the use of negatives from earlier blows as percussion platforms. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This would have allowed limited transmission among individuals maintaining long-term duration contacts, but would restrict the emergence of innovations and the dissemination speed39 of more organised methods of core reduction.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [39] Morgan, T. J. H. et al. Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language. Nat. Commun. 6, 6029 (2015). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) suggests that low-fidelity transmission could have slowed the spread of Oldowan technology and prevented innovations from spreading; it also says observation alone is an inefficient way to acquire stone-tool-making skills. It does not address transmission specifically among people with long-term contacts or the spread of more organised core-reduction methods, and it presents the restriction on innovation as a possibility rather than a certainty. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“It would also have been beneficial for developing skills requiring coordinated actions by multiple individuals, such as collective defence80.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [80] Laland, K. N. The origins of language in teaching. Psychon Bull Rev. 24, 225–231 (2017). source
The passage labeled Abstract explicitly includes collective defense among skills whose teaching would benefit from verbal instruction, and says some of those skills required coordinated actions by multiple individuals. This supports the citing sentence’s qualified claim. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pattern in both phases is the same: the expert knapper is closely related to successful extractions, while the imitation-emulation group is characterized by percussions without extraction. Both the gestural and verbal communication groups are in an intermediate range, with no clear differences between them (see Fig. 1).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Technical capabilities
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Besides the gestural and verbal communication groups show similar striking platforms, there are statistical significant differences between the verbal communication group and the imitation-emulation and gestural communication groups, either in the thickness of the flakes (K-W IE-V (p) = 0.003855; K-W G-V (p) = 0.005541), and the carenate index (K-W IE-V (p) = 0.000000433; K-W G-V (p) = 0.001969).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Products
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we found no clear differences in core perimeter, the expert knapper exploited the cores more fully, that is, he extracted more mass per core, as shown by the mean of the Extracted Mass Indexes obtained for his cores (EMI EK) = 0.76). The verbal communication group produced the EMI most similar to that of the expert knapper (EMI V = 0.71), followed by the gestural communication group (EMI”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Products
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Striking differences arise when differentiating the results according to the phase of the experiment in which they were produced: although the general tendency in all groups was to produce fewer alternating flakes in Phase 2 than in Phase 1, there were differences in the intensity of these decreases.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The verbal group showed a slight decrease from 88.40% in Phase 1 to 80% in Phase 2, getting in both phases a percentage very similar to the expert (90% of consecutive flakes) (Fig. 3B).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correlation between the cortical surface remaining in the cores and the extracted mass –that is, working out the area of the removals regarding the total surface of the core-, inform about how invasive (marginal or deep) are the flakes relative to the extracted mass. This correlation shows further differences between the skilled knapper and the apprentices, as well as between the different”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Products
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the gestural group, there was a decrease from 85.14% of consecutive flakes in Phase 1 to 52.91% in Phase 2, the latter being very similar to the imitation-emulation group (48.15% in Phase 1 and 54.36% in Phase 2).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our results show that the apprentices improved their knapping skills in teaching conditions -both gestural and verbal communication-, and specially through the latter.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All three groups started with identical blanks, and we found no clear differences in the general morphology of the final products (flakes). On the other hand, the most evident differences were seen during the knapping process: in technical abilities (reflected in the number of percussions and extractions made), and in the knapping sequences.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Products
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 1674 flakes and 90 cores were produced during the experiment. The skilled knapper generated 629 flakes and 30 cores; the imitation-emulation apprentices produced 357 flakes; the gestural communication apprentices generated 347 flakes; and the verbal communication apprentices obtained 341flakes (Fig. 4). Each learning group produced 20 cores (Fig. 5).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Products
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the three learning groups, on average, the participants in the verbal communication group achieved a higher EfI (EfI V = 13.99) than the members of the gestural communication group (EfI G = 10.43), although these differences are not statistically significant (K-W G-V (p) = 0.07205).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Technical capabilities
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of the K-W test indicate that the differences between the verbal and gestural communication groups and the imitation-emulation group are statistically significant (K-W I-E-G (p) = 0.0239; K-W I-E-V (p) = 0.0003382).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Technical capabilities
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, non-cortical platforms predominated in Phase 1 in the gestural group (Nco: 55.43%), while in Phase 2 completely cortical platforms predominated (Co: 59.3%) (Fig. 3c).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regardless of the type of social transmission, in this work we show that trainees never reached the level of results obtained by the expert knapper in terms of: 1) the number of hits performed to reduce the core; 2) the low percentage of percussions without extraction compared to the total number of percussions; 3) the relative weight of percussions with successful extractions; and finally, 4) the”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Technical capabilities
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the differences between these groups and the imitation-emulation group are statistically significant in the number of percussions without extraction, both in the mean (Kruskal-Wallis test (p) <0.05) and distribution of values (Kolmogorov-Smirnov (p) <0.05) (Supplementary Material Table S4).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Technical capabilities
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study of flake-core refitting and the subsequent reconstruction of the knapping sequences verified that the verbal communication group produced the highest number of alternating flakes (229), followed by the gestural group (112). In contrast, the imitation-emulation group produced only 13 alternating flakes (Table 2).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When comparing the results from both faces of the cores, the skilled knapper tended to make more invasive removals in the first percussion face (face A, or second face of exploitation). This is established by the mean of the ratio between the cortical surface and the remaining mass on this face, which is much lower than that of the second face of percussion. In the gestural and verbal”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Products
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most interesting difference among the learning groups is that while the verbal and gestural communication participants show thicker striking platforms, similar to those of the skilled knapper (K-W G-EK (p) = 0.9257; K-W V-EK (p) = 0.3566), the imitation-emulation group produced thinner percussion platforms, striking closer to the edge of the core.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Products
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, verbal communication plays a major role in the retention of knowledge on lithic knapping and the successful achievement of the alternating method, since the apprentice knappers enjoyed more than a 66% success rate in Phase 2 compared to Phase 1.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, in the early stages of apprenticeship, learning by imitation-emulation results in a limited success in flake production through a simple but systematic method, such as alternating knapping, and a little of the scarce knowledge acquired is retained, as the pronounced drop in learned information between Phase 1 and Phase 2 (about 63%) shows.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Learning by gestures is a successful method for replicating the alternating method under the tuition of a master knapper, but it proves to be a somewhat inefficient mechanism of social transmission when it comes to retaining the information received (c. 9% of success in Phase 2 compared with Phase 1).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirdly, the gestural and verbal communication groups selected their percussion platforms in much the same way that the skilled knapper did, whereas the imitation-emulation group did not.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, some authors claim that the application of the alternating method generates more invasive flakes, that is to say, flakes that penetrate more deeply towards the inside of the blank, allowing for the extraction of more cortical surface42,49.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Products
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] White, M. J. & Ashton, N. M. Lower Paleolithic core technology and the origins of the Levallois method in North-WesternEurope. Cur. Anthr. 44, 598–609 (2003). source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [49] Moore, M. W. Australian aboriginal biface reduction techniques on the Georgia River, Camooweal, Queensland. Austral. Arch. 56, 22–34 (2003). source
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, our study supports the hypothesis of co-evolution between lithic technology and social learning, which could have favoured the emergence of verbal language.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Experimental results from modern non-expert participants learning a specific knapping method in a short laboratory setting can be generalized to prehistoric hominin social transmission and language evolution.
- Rests on an assumption: The three experimental learning conditions (imitation-emulation, gestural communication, verbal communication) adequately represent the social transmission mechanisms available to early hominins.
- Rests on an assumption: A short experimental learning period is sufficient to reveal processes relevant to the evolution of language.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the “core rotation” and, particularly, “cortical area of the flake percussion platforms” variables best reflect the decreasing number of alternating flakes during the reduction process.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Results > Sequences
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, a complete reduction process, such as Levallois or bifacial knapping, actually includes various knapping methods and different ways of managing faces and sides. All of this leads to a huge diversity of options, making the chaînes opératoires very difficult to compare.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Introduction
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, we found no clear differences between the verbal and gestural communication groups at the technical capability level. Both communication types allowed the apprentice to focus on key gestural aspects of lithic knapping (such as percussion angle, percussion force, and so on). In contrast, the imitation-emulation group struggled to generate successful blows. This difficulty had an”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Technical capabilities
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the apprentice knappers carried out the experimental task with blanks that were equal in shape and size, and were requested to replicate what the expert knapper was doing: the alternating method, a sufficiently simple, but systematic technique for detaching flakes from a core.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This could be why the gestural and verbal communication groups exploited the blanks to a greater degree and more effectively, than the apprentices in the imitation-emulation group. In addition, the communication groups presented lower ratios of cortical area/mass surface, because they produced more invasive flakes. Therefore, the gestural and verbal communication apprentices managed the blanks”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Products
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This underscores the need for more information about reduction processes, in order to determine the core reduction strategies used, and hence identify a knapper’s degree of experience from the archaeological record.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Products
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the participants had prior experience of lithic knapping, and all had the same objective: to reproduce what the expert knapper was doing, i.e., the alternating method (Supplementary Material Table S1).”
- Also stated in: § Experimental design · plain
“None of them had prior experience of lithic knapping.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Introduction
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Experimental design · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our experimental programme involved 30 participants, ranging in age between 20 and 42, randomly divided into three groups of ten individuals each, according to the learning conditions to be imposed during the experiment: 10 volunteers for the imitation-emulation condition, 10 volunteers for the gestural-communication condition and 10 volunteers for the verbal communication condition.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Introduction
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is more effective because much more information is transmitted; and more efficient because it achieves results in less time.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, very few studies have focused on identifying significant attributes of this method in flakes41.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Guardiola, M., Morales, J. I. & Vergès, J. M. From blunt to cutting: Distinguishing alternating method flakes in early stages on rounded blanks. Quat. Intern. 411, 378–385 (2016). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beyond this, verbal communication, unlike gestural communication, allows for the use of concepts such as “percussion platform”, which facilitates the understanding and retention of this knowledge, thereby favouring its subsequent use by the apprentices.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This effectiveness lies in the fact that both mechanisms (gestural and verbal) facilitate learning by centring the learner’s attention both on the gestural aspects of lithic knapping (i.e., flaking paths, percussion angles, and so on), and theoretical aspects (i.e., understanding and applying the alternating method).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These were randomly divided into three groups of 10 individuals each, to study the knapping techniques through imitation-emulation, gestural-communication, and verbal-communication.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Materials and Methods > Experimental design
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the raw material was identical for each volunteer and all volunteers had the same opportunities.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Materials and Methods > Experimental design
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As Morgan et al., suggest the relative simplicity and duration of the knapping processes from the early technocomplexes, such as the Oldowan, may indicate learning by direct observation.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Morgan et al.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We decided to use commercial bricks as raw material because they display conchoidal fracture, allow the variables of the initial blank morphology to be controlled, and are safe for inexperienced knappers.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Materials and Methods > Experimental design
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, identifying the alternating method in the archaeological record is difficult without the presence of refits.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, lithic technology is not the only area in which more effective social transmission would have been advantageous.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, language would have been beneficial for the acquisition of other key knowledge in terms of subsistence, including hunting, scavenging, food processing, control of raw materials and water supplies.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Discussion > Relationship between lithic technology and language
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each participant was briefed on the experimental procedure and their consent for the participation in the study and the publication of images of the procedure was required to proceed.”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Materials and Methods > Experimental design
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the experiments were performed following the institutional guidelines and regulations for ethical approval (IPHES-URV sim. PGPRL-04-01).”
§ Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language > Materials and Methods > Experimental design
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Experimental results from modern non-expert participants learning a specific knapping method in a short laboratory setting can be generalized to prehistoric hominin social transmission and language evolution.
“In conclusion, our study supports the hypothesis of co-evolution between lithic technology and social learning, which could have favoured the emergence of verbal language.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The three experimental learning conditions (imitation-emulation, gestural communication, verbal communication) adequately represent the social transmission mechanisms available to early hominins.
“we compared the acquisition of knapping skills in thirty non-experts in the early stages of learning, by means of three mechanisms of social transmission: imitation-emulation, gestural communication, and verbal communication.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A short experimental learning period is sufficient to reveal processes relevant to the evolution of language.
“Beside the fact that the timeframe for processing the new knowledge of knapping techniques used in our experiment was relatively short, and considering that transmission of knapping techniques during prehistory would have been daily53–56, our results provided relevant insight into the role of language during the early stages of lithic knapping knowledge acquisition.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Language is the fastest and most efficient way to transmit information.
“Language, the fastest and most efficient way to transmit information, could have lent hominins a great competitive advantage79 by favouring the social transmission of knowledge related to lithic technology39,40.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Gestural-group consecutive-flake total conflicts with phase percentages
MinorThe stated phase percentages applied to the gestural group's 175 and 172 flakes imply 149 and 91 consecutive flakes, respectively-a total of 240, not the reported 249.
“the gestural communication group performed a total of 184 and 249 consecutive removals, respectively. In the gestural group, there was a decrease from 85.14% of consecutive flakes in Phase 1 to 52.91% in Phase 2”
“| App. | G | 1 | 103 | 10.3 | 4.66 | 72 | 7.2 | 5.37 | 175 | 17.5 | 2.36 | | App. | G | 2 | 9 | 0.9 | 1.91 | 163 | 16.3 | 6.68 | 172 | 17.2 | 5.97 |”
Citations
Cites
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230 · Cited by 7,433
The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition
Tomasello, M. (2009) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvjsf4jc · Cited by 6,368
Cattaneo, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (2009) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneurol.2009.41 · Cited by 3,137
Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2011) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0319 · Cited by 970
Greenfield, P. M. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00071235 · Cited by 893
Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model
Mellars, P. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0510792103 · Cited by 560
d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C. S., Lawson, G., Vanhaeren, M., Tillier, A.-M., Soressi, M., Bresson, F., Maureille, B., Nowell, A., Andrinua, J. A. L., et al. (2003) · Journal of World Prehistory · doi:10.1023/a:1023980201043 · Cited by 536
Broca's area and the language instinct
Musso, M., Moro, A., Glauche, V., Rijntjes, M., Reichenbach, J. R., Büchel, C., & Weiller, C. (2003) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1077 · Cited by 485
Stout, D., Toth, N. P., Schick, K., & Chaminade, T. (2008) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0001 · Cited by 477
Typologie du paléolithique : ancien et moyen
Bordes, F. (1988) · Presses du CNRS eBooks · Cited by 470
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Holloway, R. Evolution of the human brain in Handbook of human symbolic evolution (eds Lock, A. & Peters, C. R.) 74–116 (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996).
- Heilman, K. M. & Valenstein, E. Clin. Neuropsych. Oxford University Press, New York. (2002).
- Bril, B., Roux, V. & Dietrich, G. Stone knapping: Khambhat (India), a unique opportunity? in Stone knapping: the necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour (eds Roux, V. & Bril, B.) 53–71 (Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2005).
- Roux, V. Peut-on interpréter les activités lithiques préhistoriques en termes de durée d’apprentissage? Apport de l’ethnologie et de la psychologie aux études technologiques in 25 ans d'études technologiques en Préhistoire. XIe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, pp. 47–56. Juan-les-Pins: Éditions APDCA. (1991).
- Stout, D. The social and cultural context of stone-knapping skill acquisition in Stone knapping: the necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour. (eds Roux, V. & Bril, B.) 331–340 (Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2005).
- Boëda, E. Le concept laminaire: rupture et filiation avec le concept Levallois in L’Homme de Neandertal. Vol. 8: La Mutation (ed. Otte, M.) 41–59. (Liège: Études et recherches archéologiques de l’université de Liège 31, 1988).
- Boëda, E. Le concept Levallois et evaluation de son champ d’application in L’Homme de Neandertal. Vol. 4: La technique (ed. Otte, M.) 13–26. (Liège: Études et recherches archéologiques de l’université de Liège 31, 1988).
- Ashton, N. The role of refitting in the Bristish Lower palaeolithic: a time for reflection. Lith. S. Soc. Occasional Paper. 8, 57–64 (2004).
- Pelegrin, J. Réflexions sur le comportement technique in La signification culturelle des industries lithiques (ed. Otte, M.) 72–91 (Oxford: BAR International, 1985).
- Gibson, K. R. Social Transmission of Facts and Skills in the Human Species: Neural Mechanism in Mammalian Social Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspectives (eds Box, H. O. & Gibson, K. R.) 351–366 (Cambridge Univ., 1999).
- Wynn, T. Layers of thinking in tool behaviour in Tools, language and cognition in human evolution (eds Gibson, K. R. & Ingold, T.) 389–406 (Cambridge Univ., 1993).
- Stout, D. Oldowan tool-making and hominin brain evolution: theory and research using positron emission tomography (PET). In The Oldowan: case studies into the Earliest Stone Age. (ed. Toth, N. & Schick, K. D.) 267–306 (Bloomington, Indiana: Stone Age Institute Press, 2006).
- Stout, D. & Semaw, S. Knapping skill of the earliest stone toolmakers: insights from the study of modern human novices in The Oldowan: case studies into the Earliest Stone Age. (eds Toth, N. & Schick, K. D.) 307–320 (Bloomington, Indiana: Stone Age Institute Press, 2006).
- Toth, N. & Schick, K. D. Early stone industries and inferences regarding language and cognition in Tools, language and cognition in human evolution (eds Gibson, K. R. & Ingold, T.) 346–362 (Cambridge: Univ., 1993).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pargeter, J., Khreisheh, N., & Stout, D. (2019) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.05.010 · Cited by 138
Early knapping techniques do not necessitate cultural transmission
Snyder, W. D., Reeves, J. S., & Tennie, C. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo2894 · Cited by 97
The origins of gestures and language: history, current advances and proposed theories
Prieur, J., Barbu, S., Blois‐Heulin, C., & Lemasson, A. (2019) · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1111/brv.12576 · Cited by 62
Semiotics and the Origin of Language in the Lower Palaeolithic
Barham, L. S., & Everett, D. L. (2020) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-020-09480-9 · Cited by 48
Courtenay, L. A., Herranz‐Rodrigo, D., Huguet, R., Maté‐González, M. Á., González‐Aguilera, D., & Yravedra, J. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240328 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Lombao, D., Guardiola, M., & Mosquera, M.
- Affiliations
- Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (ES)
- University of Geneva (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Lombao, D.
- ORCID
- Lombao, D.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2017-10-31
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14394-14394
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5663762
- OpenAlex
- W2767137183
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 63.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Rovira & Virgili repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Centres de Recerca de Catalunya
- Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (2014SGR-899)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Keywords
- origin of language, lithic technology, social learning, gestural communication, verbal communication, experimental archaeology, alternating method
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Biological Evolution, Gestures, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Language, Learning, Models, Theoretical, Random Allocation, Social Behavior, Technology, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review