I’m posting this article here not because it is about a ground-breaking new study but as an example of the communication problem archaeology still has.
It’s a worthy project, but the thing about this study is that it is completely mundane. It uses techniques invented in the 1950s and widely used in prehistoric studies since the 1990s (especially in French research, which might also be a factor here), namely controlled experimental archaeology, micro wear studies and chaîne operatoire.
That the author thinks this is really cool is good (because it is), but it shows that public perception of the practice of archaeology beyond “we found the oldest/most expensive/most mysterious example of x” is lagging behind by decades.
