Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T09:33:38.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three-Dimensional Alternatives to Lithic Illustration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Matthew Magnani
Matthew Magnani*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Museum, Room 325, 3260 South Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although alternatives have become available, pen and ink drawings of stone tools dominate archaeological publications. Despite the existence of a conventional illustration framework, the work produced by illustrators can be inconsistent and hinges on skill level and time commitment. Discussions going back to the 1880s critically question the use of illustrations for the purpose of scientific publication. Alternatives, such as laser scanning and photogrammetric modeling, are now available for displaying lithics. These alternatives can remove the subjectivity involved in artistic rendering, creating replicable results, regardless of who is collecting the data. In addition to creating more regularized and objective representations, there are a significant number of analytical and other benefits to adopting novel imaging techniques to depict stone tools in publications. A set of three-dimensional (3D) models are presented here to demonstrate the capabilities of laser scanning and, potentially, photogrammetric modeling as replacements for lithic illustration.

A pesar de que existen alternativas más objetivas, los dibujos en papel y tinta de objetos líticos predominan en publicaciones académicas. Aunque existen convenciones de ilustración, el trabajo de los ilustradores puede ser variable y depende de la habilidad y el tiempo empleado. Los problemas acerca la ilustración científica no son nuevos, ya que discusiones desde 1880 cuestionan críticamente la objetividad de las ilustraciones para publicaciones científicas. Algunas alternativas como el escáner láser y la fotogrametría están ahora ampliamente disponibles para las ilustraciones de lítica. Estas alternativas eliminan la subjetividad que implica un diseño artístico, generando resultados que son replicables más allá de quien haya producido los datos. Además de crear representaciones más objetivas, hay un número amplio de ventajas analíticas al adoptar nuevas técnicas de ilustración de lítica. Los investigadores pueden potencialmente realizar nuevos análisis digitales en 3D, ahorrar en su investigación, además de facilitar el acceso a colecciones excavadas globalmente. El artículo presenta una serie de modelos 3D que demuestran la potencialidad del escaneado láser y de la fotogrametría como reemplazos del dibujo lítico. Los modelos de escaneado láser son un sustituto ideal para las ilustraciones, mientras que los modelos fotogramétricos son en muchos casos inadecuados, pero presentan otras ventajas que han de ser tenidas en cuenta.

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , November 2014 , pp. 285 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Abel, Richard L., Parfitt, Simon, Ashton, Nick, Lewis, Simon G., Scott, Beccy, and Stringer, Chris 2011 Digital Preservation and Dissemination of Ancient Lithic Technology with Modern Micro-CT. Computers & Graphics 35:878–884.Google Scholar
Addington, Lucile R. 1986 Lithic Illustration: Drawing Flaked Stone Artifacts for Publication. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Adkins, Lesley, and Adkins, Roy 1989 Archaeological Illustration. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ahmed, Namir, Carter, Michael, and Ferris, Neal 2014 Sustainable Archaeology through Progressive Assembly 3D Digitization. World Archaeology 46:137–154.Google Scholar
Betts, Matthew W., Maschner, Herbert D.G., Schou, Corey D., Schlader, Robert, Holmes, Jonathan, Clement, Nicholas, and Smuin, Michael 2011 Virtual Zooarchaeology: Building a Web-Based Reference Collection of Northern Vertebrates for Archaeofaunal Research and Education. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:755–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretzke, Knut, and Conard, Nicholas J. 2012 Evaluating Morphological Variability in Lithic Assemblages Using 3D Models of Stone Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 3741–3749.Google Scholar
Bruno, Fabio, Bruno, Stefano, De Sensi, Giovanna, Luchi, Maria-Laura, Mancuso, Stefania, and Muzzupappa, Maurizio 2010 From 3D Reconstruction to Virtual Reality: A Complete Methodology for Digital Archaeological Exhibition. Journal of Cultural Heritage 11:42–49.Google Scholar
Callahan, Errett 1987 Metallic Powder as an Aid to Stone Tool Photography. American Antiquity 52:768–772.Google Scholar
Chase, Philip G. 1985 Illustrating Lithic Artifacts: Information for Scientific Illustrators. Lithic Technology 14(2):57–70.Google Scholar
Clarkson, Chris 2013 Measuring Core Reduction Using 3D Flake Scar Density: A Test Case of Changing Core Reduction at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:4348–4357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, Chris, and Hiscock, Peter 2011 Estimating Original Flake Mass from 3D Scans of Platform Area. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:1062–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Datson, Loraine, and Galison, Peter 1992 The Image of Objectivity. Representations 40:81–128.Google Scholar
Dauvois, Michel 1976 Précis de dessin dynamique et structural des industries lithiques préhistoriques. P. Fanlac, Périgueux.Google Scholar
De Reu, Jeroen, Plets, Gertjan, Verhoeven, Geert, De Smedt, Philippe, Bats, Machteld, Cherretté, Bart, De Maeyer, Wouter, Deconynck, Jasper, Herremans, Davy, Laloo, Pieter, Van Meirvenne, Marc, and De Clercq, Wim 2013 Towards a Three-dimensional Cost-Effective Registration of the Archaeological Heritage. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:1108–1121.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Rezek, Zeljko 2009 Introducing a New Experimental Design for Controlled Studies of Flake Formation: Results for Exterior Platform Angle, Platform Depth, Angle of Blow, Velocity, and Force. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1945–1954.Google Scholar
Dillon, Brian D. 1985 The Student's Guide to Archaeological Illustrating. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Douglass, Matthew J. 2010 The Archaeological Potential of Informal Lithic Technologies: A Case Study of Assemblage Variability in Western New South Wales, Australia. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Grosman, Leore, Smikt, Oded, and Smilansky, Uzy 2008 On the Application of 3-D Scanning Technology for the Documentation and Typology of Lithic Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:3101–3110.Google Scholar
Guptill, Arthur L. 1976 Rendering in Pen and Ink. Edited by Meyer, S. E.. Watson-Guptill, New York.Google Scholar
Holdaway, Simon, and Stern, Nicola 2004 A Record in Stone: The Study of Australia's Flaked Stone Artefacts. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.Google Scholar
Koutsoudis, Anestis, Vidmar, Blaž, and Arnaoutoglou, Fotis 2013 Performance Evaluation of a Multi-Image 3D Reconstruction Software on a Low-Feature Artefact. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:4450–4456.Google Scholar
Lin, Sam C.H., Douglass, Matthew J., Holdaway, Simon J., and Floyd, Bruce 2010 The Application of 3D Laser Scanning Technology to the Assessment of Ordinal and Mechanical Cortex Quantification in Lithic Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 694–702.Google Scholar
Lopes, Dominic M. 2009 Drawing in a Social Science: Lithic Illustration. Perspectives on Science 17(1):5–25.Google Scholar
Manuel, Will, Parkinton, John E., Kandel, Andrew W., and Conard, Nicholas J. 2013 Coastal Adaptations and the Middle Stone Age Lithic Assemblages from Hoedjiespunt 1 in the Western Cape, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 64:518–537.Google Scholar
Martingell, Hazel, and Saville, Alan 1988 The Illustration of Lithic Artefacts: A Guide to Drawing Stone Tools for Specialist Reports. Association of Archaeological Illustrators & Surveyors and the Lithic Studies Society, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Moore, Mark W. 2005 Review of A Record in Stone: The Study of Australia's Flaked Stone Artefacts . Lithic Technology 30:70–75.Google Scholar
Odell, George H. 2005 Review of A Record in Stone: The Study of Australia's Flaked Stone Artefacts . Archaeology in Oceania 40(1):23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokop, Ernst 1985 A Method to Photograph Stone Tools. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:251–255.Google Scholar
Rezek, Zeljko, Lin, Sam, Iovita, Radu, and Dibble, Harold L. 2011 The Relative Effects of Core Surface Morphology on Flake Shape and Other Attributes. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:1346–1359.Google Scholar
Richardson, Eitan, Grosman, Leore, Werman, Michael, and Smilansky, Uzy 2011 Extracting Scar and Ridge Features from 3D-Scanned Lithic Artifacts. Proceedings of the 40th Conference in Computer Applications in Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, March 26-30, Southampton, UK.Google Scholar
Rovner, Irwin 1974 A Simpler Simplified Procedure for Photographing Obsidian. American Antiquity 39:617.Google Scholar
Scerri, Eleanor M. L. 2013 The Aterian and Its Place in the North African Middle Stone Age. Special issue, Quaternary International 300:111–130.Google Scholar
Selden, Robert Z. Jr., Perttula, Timothy K., and O’Brien, Michael J. 2014 Advances in Documentation, Digital Curation, Virtual Exhibition, and a Test of 3D Geometric Morphometrics: A Case Study of the Vanderpool Vessels from the Ancestral Caddo Territory. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2:64–79.Google Scholar
Sholts, Sabrina B., Wärmländer, Sebastian K.T.S., Flores, Louise M., Miller, Kevin W.P., and Walker, Phillip L. 2010 Variation in the Measurement of Cranial Volume and Surface Area Using 3D Laser Scanning Technology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 55(4):871–876.Google Scholar
Sholts, Sabrina B., Stanford, Dennis J., Flores, Louise M., and Wärmländer, Sebastian K.T.S. 2012 Flake Scar Patterns of Clovis Points Analyzed with a New Digital Morphometrics Approach: Evidence for Direct Transmission of Technological Knowledge across Early North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:3018–3026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Trail, Brian W. 2010 Exploring New Approaches to Lithic Analysis: Laser Scanning and Geometric Morphometrics. Lithic Technology 35:195–220.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Trail, Brian W. 2012 New Developments in Lithic Analysis: Laser Scanning and Digital Modeling. The SAA Archaeological Record 12(3):12–17.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2014 Digitizing Archaeology: A Subtle Revolution in Analysis. World Archaeology 46:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, Dietrich, Apel, Jan, Commander, Julia, and Roberts, Mark 2014 Late Acheulean Technology and Cognition at Boxgrove, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science 41:576–590.Google Scholar
Sumner, Alexandra T., and Riddle, Andrew T.R. 2008 A Virtual Paleolithic: Assays in Photogrammetric Three-Dimensional Artifact Modelling. PaleoAnthropology:158–169.Google Scholar
Topper, David R. 1996 Towards an Epistemology of Scientific Illustration. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Zweifel, Frances W. 1961 A Handbook of Biological Illustration. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar