Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 51 No. 1 (2024): CAA2024 Across the Horizon. Proceedings of the 51st Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology

From Scar to Scar: Reconstructing Operational Sequences of Lithic Artifacts using Scar-Ridge-Pattern-based Graph Models

DOI
https://doi.org/10.64888/caaproceedings.v51i1.725
Submitted
September 9, 2025
Published
2025-09-17

Abstract

Motivated by the importance of lithic artifacts in the development of our ancestors, this study introduces a novel method combining 3D mesh segmentation and graph modelling to determine distinct features of operational sequences being relevant for creating lithic technology analyses. 

For analysing the operational sequence of scars, manual scar segmentation was utilized on 3D meshes from both open-access and in-house datasets, to construct directed graph models. These models allow the examination of adjacency and sequential relations among scars, represented as nodes and edges in the graph. Our approach, verified against manual graph models, demonstrates the potential for analysing artifacts digitally and enhancing the understanding of early human technological advancements. 

Building on existing practices, we created an approach for determining the relative order of scars. We focus on parameters that are approximations of archaeologically used attributes. For the approximations, we used Multi Scale Integral Invariants (MSII) curvature values, integral invariants of polylines, and a MSII curvature sampling method along the polylines. In addition, we used parameters derived from either the meshes, like surface area, or the graph models, such as node degree or betweenness centrality. 

The method’s accuracy was tested on various archaeological samples, including Upper Palaeolithic blades and cores from Grotta di Fumane, a Bronze Age blade and an experimental knapping series. Preliminary results for high-resolution 3D models are promising, although the overall accuracy varies. While the results now highlight the need for real ground truth data with low interpretation bias and for improvements of the overall approach, they also demonstrate the potential of graphs modelling operational sequences to predict the temporal relations between adjacent scars. Further, this approach is a step to make the analysis of operational sequences quantifiable, reproducible and reliable beyond the scope of visual comparisons. 

References

  1. Bastian M, S Heymann, and M Jacomy (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: Third international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media.
  2. Blender Online Community (2018). Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering package. Blender Foundation. Amsterdam.
  3. Brown CT (2001). The Fractal Dimensions of Lithic Reduction. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 619–631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2000.0602
  4. Brughmans T (2013). Thinking Through Networks: A Review of Formal Network Methods in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20, 623–662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-012-9133-8
  5. Bullenkamp JP, T Kaiser, F Linsel, S Krömker, and H Mara (2024). it - Information Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2023-0027
  6. Bullenkamp JP, F Linsel, and H Mara (2022). Lithic Feature Identification in 3D based on Discrete Morse Theory. In: Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage. Ed. by Ponchio F and Pintus R. The Eurographics Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20221224
  7. Cignoni P, M Callieri, M Corsini, M Dellepiane, F Ganovelli, and G Ranzuglia (2008). MeshLab: an Open-Source Mesh Processing Tool. In: Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference, pp. 129–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2312/LocalChapterEvents/ItalChap/ItalianChapConf2008/129-136
  8. Clarkson C (2002). An Index of Invasiveness for the Measurement of Unifacial and Bifacial Retouch: A Theoretical, Experimental and Archaeological Verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 65–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2001.0702
  9. Dauvois M (1976). Précis de dessin dynamique et structural des industries lithiques préhistoriques. Périgueux: Pierre Fanlac.
  10. Delpiano D, M Peresani, and A Pastoors (2017). The contribution of 3D visual technology to the study of Palaeolithic knapped stones based on refitting. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 4, 28–38. ISSN: 2212- 0548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.02.002
  11. Falcucci A, NJ Conard, and M Peresani (2020). Breaking through the Aquitaine frame: A re-evaluation on the significance of regional variants during the Aurignacian as seen from a key record in southern Europe. en. J Anthropol Sci 98, 99–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4436/JASS.98021
  12. — (2017). A critical assessment of the Protoaurignacian lithic technology at Fumane Cave and its implications for the definition of the earliest Aurignacian. PLOS ONE 12, 1–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189241
  13. Falcucci A and M Peresani (2018). Protoaurignacian Core Reduction Procedures: Blade and Bladelet Technologies at Fumane Cave. Lithic Technology 43, 125–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2018.1439681
  14. — (2023). The Open Aurignacian Project. Volume 1: Fumane Cave in northeastern Italy. Version 2.1.1. Zenodo. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7664308
  15. Grosman L (2016). Reaching the Point of No Return: The Computational Revolution in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 45, 129–145. ISSN: 1545-4290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-095946
  16. Gunn J and R Mahula (1976). The Sollberger Distribution: analysis and application of a tool reduction sequence. La Tierra 3, 2–8.
  17. Higham T, F Brock, M Peresani, A Broglio, R Wood, and K Douka (2009). Problems with radiocarbon dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy. Quaternary Science Reviews 28, 1257–1267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.12.018
  18. Houska P, A Masur, S Kloiber, S Lengauer, S Karl, and R Preiner (2024). Computer-Assisted Collaborative Fragment Matching of Incomplete Stone Artifacts. In: Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage. Ed. by Corsini M, Ferdani D, Kuijper A, and Kutlu H. The Eurographics Association. ISBN: 978-3-03868-248-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20241244
  19. Huang QX, S Flöry, N Gelfand, M Hofer, and H Pottmann (2006). Reassembling fractured objects by geometric matching. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 569–578. ISSN: 0730-0301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1141911.1141925
  20. Kot M (2016). Technological analysis of bifacial leafpoints from Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transitional industries: Technologische Untersuchungen an bifaziellen Blattspitzen aus Technokomplexen am Übergang vom Mittel zum Jungpaläolithikum. Quartär 63, 61–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7485/QU63_4
  21. Kot M, J Tyszkiewicz, and N Gryczewska (2024). Can we read stones? Quantifying the information loss in flintknap ping. Journal of Archaeological Science 161, 105905. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2023.105905
  22. Linsel F, JP Bullenkamp, and H Mara (2023). 3D Data Derivatives of Grotta di Fumane: GigaMesh-processed, Annotations and Segmentations. Version 1.0.0. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8288967.
  23. — (2024). Linking Scars: Topology-based Scar Detection and Graph Modeling of Paleolithic Artifacts in 3D. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10477448
  24. Mahaney RA (2014). Exploring the complexity and structure of Acheulean stoneknapping in relation to natural language. PaleoAnthropology 2014, 586–606.
  25. Mara H and S Krömker (2013). Vectorization of 3D-Characters by Integral Invariant Filtering of High-Resolution Triangular Meshes. In: 2013 12th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pp. 62–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAR.2013.21
  26. Mara H, S Krömker, S Jakob, and B Breuckmann (2010). GigaMesh and Gilgamesh 3D Multiscale Integral Invariant Cuneiform Character Extraction. In: VAST: International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage. Ed. by Artusi A, Joly M, Lucet G, Pitzalis D, and Ribes A. The Eurographics Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2312/VAST/VAST10/131-138
  27. Pastoors A, Y Tafelmaier, and GC Weniger (2015). Quantification of late Pleistocene core configurations: Application of the Working Stage Analysis as estimation method for technological behavioural efficiency. Quartär 62, 62– 84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7485/QU62_3
  28. Richardson E, L Grosman, U Smilansky, and M Werman (2014). Extracting Scar and Ridge Features from 3D-scanned Lithic Artifacts. Archaeology in the Digital Era: 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), 83–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048519590-010
  29. Richter J (2016). Leave at the height of the party: A critical review of the Middle Paleolithic in Western Central Europe from its beginnings to its rapid decline. Quaternary International 411. Middle Palaeolithic in North-West Europe: Multidisciplinary Approaches, 107–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.01.018
  30. Richter J (2004). Copies of flakes: operational sequences of foliate pieces from Buran-Kaya III level B1. The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea 3, 233–247.
  31. Sánchez-Martínez J, K Calmet, J Martínez Moreno, and XR Gilabert (Aug. 2024). Virtual reconstruction of stone tool refittings by using 3D modelling and the Blender Engine: The application of the ”ReViBE” protocol to the archaeological record. en. PLoS One 19, e0309611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611
  32. Soressi M and JM Geneste (2011). The history and the efficacy of the chaîne opératoire approach to lithic analysis. Paleo Anthropol., 334–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4207/PA.2011.ART63
  33. Soto P de (2019). Network Analysis to Model and Analyse Roman Transport and Mobility. In: Finding the Limits of the Limes: Modelling Demography, Economy and Transport on the Edge of the Roman Empire. Ed. by Verhagen P, Joyce J, and Groenhuijzen MR. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 271–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04576-0_13
  34. Tafelmaier Y, G Bataille, V Schmid, A Taller, and M Will (2022). Working Stage Analysis. In: Methods for the Analysis of Stone Artefacts : An Overview. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 37–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39091-4_5
  35. Tsesmelis T, L Palmieri, M Khoroshiltseva, A Islam, G Elkin, OI Shahar, G Scarpellini, S Fiorini, Y Ohayon, N Alali, S Aslan, P Morerio, S Vascon, E Gravina, MC Napolitano, G Scarpati, G Zuchtriegel, A Spühler, ME Fuchs, S James, O Ben-Shahar, M Pelillo, and AD Bue (2024). Re-assembling the past: The RePAIR dataset and benchmark for real world 2D and 3D puzzle solving. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.24010 [cs.CV]
  36. Weninger B and D Easton (2014). The Early Bronze Age Chronology of Troy (Periods I-III): Pottery Seriation, Radiocar bon Dating and the Gap. In: Western Anatolia before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millenium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisces Museum Wien Vienna, Austria, 21-24 November, 2012. Ed. by Horejs B and Mehofer M. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
  37. Yang X, K Konno, F Chiba, and S Yokoyama (2019). Visualization of Flake Knapping Sequence with Analyzing As sembled Chipped Stone Tools. The Journal of the Society for Art and Science. DOI: http://doi.org/10.3756/artsci.18.40
  38. Yang X, K Matsuyama, and K Konno (2016). A New Method of Refitting Mixture Lithic Materials by Geometric Matching of Flake Surfaces. The Journal of the Society for Art and Science 15, 167–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3756/artsci.15.167