Open glossary for wood technologies
Wood technology: a Glossary and Code for analysis of archaeological wood from stone tool cultures
Recommendation: posted 15 May 2022, validated 16 May 2022
Blasco, R. (2022) Open glossary for wood technologies. Peer Community in Archaeology, 100015. 10.24072/pci.archaeo.100015
Wood is a widely available and versatile material, so it is not surprising that it has been a key resource throughout human history. However, it is more vulnerable to decomposition than other materials, and its direct use is only rarely recorded in prehistoric sites. Despite this, there are exceptions (e.g., [1-5]  and references therein), and indirect evidence of its use has been attested through use-wear analyses, residue analyses (e.g., ) and imprints on the ground (e.g., ). One interesting finding of note is that the technology required to make, for example, wooden spears was quite complex , leading some authors to propose that this type of tool production represented a cognitive leap for Pleistocene hominids . Other researchers, however, have proposed that the production process for wooden tools could have been much easier than is currently thought . Be that as it may, in recent years researchers have begun to approach wood remains systematically, developing analyses of natural and anthropogenic damage, often with the help of experimental reference samples.
In this work, the authors elaborate a comprehensive glossary as a first step towards the understanding of the use of wood for technological purposes in different times and places, as there is still a general gap in the established nomenclature. Thus, this glossary is a synthesis and standardisation of analytical terms for early wood technologies that includes clear definitions and descriptions of traces from stone tool-using cultures, to avoid confusion in ongoing and future studies of wood tools. For this, the authors have carried out a detailed search of the current literature to select appropriate terms associated with additional readings that provide a wide, state-of-the-art description of the field of wood technology.
An interesting point is that the glossary has been organised within a chaîne opératoire framework divided into categories including general terms and natural traces, and then complemented by an appendix of images. It is important to define the natural traces –understanding these as alterations caused by natural processes–because they can mask those modifications produced by other agents affecting both unmodified and modified wood before, during or after its human use.
In short, the work carried out by Milks et al.  is an excellent and complete assessment and vital to the technological approach to wooden artifacts from archaeological contexts and establishing a common point for a standardised nomenclature. One of its particular strengths is that the glossary is a preprint that will remain open during the coming years, so that other researchers can continue to make suggestions and refinements to improve the definitions, terms and citations within it.
 Oakley, K., Andrews, P., Keeley, L., Clark, J. (1977). A reappraisal of the Clacton spearpoint. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43, 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00010343
 Thieme, H. (1997). Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature 385, 807-810. https://doi.org/10.1038/385807a0
 Schoch, W.H., Bigga, G., Böhner, U., Richter, P., Terberger, T. (2015). New insights on the wooden weapons from the Paleolithic site of Schöningen. Journal of Human Evolution 89, 214-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.08.004
 Aranguren, B., Revedin, A., Amico, N., Cavulli, F., Giachi, G., Grimaldi, S. et al. (2018). Wooden tools and fire technology in the early Neanderthal site of Poggetti Vecchi (Italy). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115, 2054-2059. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716068115
 Rios-Garaizar, J., López-Bultó, O., Iriarte, E., Pérez-Garrido, C., Piqué, R., Aranburu, A., et al. (2018). A Middle Palaeolithic wooden digging stick from Aranbaltza III, Spain. PLoS ONE 13(3): e0195044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195044
 Milks, A. G., Lehmann, J., Böhner, U., Leder, D., Koddenberg, T., Sietz, M., Vogel, M., Terberger, T. (2022). Wood technology: a Glossary and Code for analysis of archaeological wood from stone tool cultures. Peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/x8m4j
 Nugent, S. (2006). Applying use-wear and residue analyses to digging sticks. Mem Qld Mus Cult Herit Ser 4, 89-105. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.890092331962439
 Allué, E., Cabanes, D., Solé, A., Sala, R. (2012). Hearth Functioning and Forest Resource Exploitation Based on the Archeobotanical Assemblage from Level J, in: i Roura E. (Ed.), High Resolution Archaeology and Neanderthal Behavior: Time and Space in Level J of Abric Romaní (Capellades, Spain). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 373-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3922-2_9
 Ennos, A.R., Chan, T.L. (2016). "Fire hardening" spear wood does slightly harden it, but makes it much weaker and more brittle. Biology Letters 12. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0174
 Haidle, M.N. (2009). How to think a simple spear?, in: de Beaune S.A., Coolidge F.L., Wynn T. (Eds.), Cognitive Archaeology and Human Evolution. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 57-73.
 Garofoli, D. (2015). A Radical Embodied Approach to Lower Palaeolithic Spear-making. Journal of Mind and Behavior 36, 1-26.
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article. The authors declared that they comply with the PCI rule of having no financial conflicts of interest in relation to the content of the article.
Evaluation round #2
DOI or URL of the preprint: https://osf.io/x8m4j
Version of the preprint: v3
Author's Reply, 12 May 2022
Decision by Ruth Blasco, posted 25 Apr 2022
We have carried out a new review round so that the referees could assess the changes made to the manuscript. All three reviewers have positively assessed the modifications and think that the manuscript is practically ready to be accepted pending a few small changes.
Reviewed by Oriol López-Bultó, 23 Apr 2022
Reviewed by Eva Francesca Martellotta, 22 Mar 2022
Reviewed by Paloma Vidal-Matutano, 18 Mar 2022
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the preprint: https://osf.io/x8m4j
Author's Reply, 15 Mar 2022
Decision by Ruth Blasco, posted 04 Jan 2022
We have received comments from four reviewers on your manuscript. You will see that, while they find your work of interest, they have raised some points that need to be addressed by a revision.
Please pay special attention to the clarifications that the reviewers make on the definitions, as well as some relevant points to include in the Introduction (e.g., irreversible damage during the recovery-conservation period and the differences in woodworking according to the different types of societies). Please also consider doing a more extensive bibliographic review of the studies of wooden artifacts, in addition to those carried out at European sites.
My congrats because all reviewers agree the manuscript will be a useful tool for all specialists working on wood technology and could become a basic starting point for a unified terminology.