Here, we present a new method to scan a large number of lithic artefacts using three-dimensional scanning technology. Despite the rising use of high-resolution 3D surface scanners in archaeological sciences, no virtual studies have focused on the 3D digitization and analysis of small lithic implements such as bladelets, microblades, and microflakes. This is mostly due to difficulties in creating reliable 3D meshes of these artefacts resulting from several inherent features (i.e., size, translucency, and acute edge angles), which compromise the efficiency of structured light or laser scanners and photogrammetry. Our new protocol StyroStone addresses this problem by proposing a step-by-step procedure relying on the use of micro-computed tomographic technology, which is able to capture the 3D shape of small lithic implements in high detail. We tested a system that enables us to scan hundreds of artefacts together at once within a single scanning session lasting a few hours. As also bigger lithic artefacts (i.e., blades) are present in our sample, this protocol is complemented by a short guide on how to effectively scan such artefacts using a structured light scanner (Artec Space Spider). Furthermore, we estimate the accuracy of our scanning protocol using principal component analysis of 3D Procrustes shape coordinates on a sample of meshes of bladelets obtained with both micro-computed tomography and another scanning device (i.e., Artec Micro). A comprehensive review on the use of 3D geometric morphometrics in lithic analysis and other computer-based approaches is provided in the introductory chapter to show the advantages of improving 3D scanning protocols and increasing the digitization of our prehistoric human heritage.

No abstract

This protocol presents the first detailed step-by-step pipeline for the 3D scanning and post processing of large batches of lithic artefacts using a micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scanner (i.e., a Phoenix v-tome-x S model by General Electronics MCC, Boston MA) and an Artec Space Spider scanner (Artec Inc., Luxembourg). This protocol was used to scan more than 700 lithic artefacts from the Protoaurignacian layers at Fumane Cave in north-eastern Italy (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6362150). For this study several costly scanners and proprietary software packages were employed. Although it is not easy to find a low-budget alternative for the scanners, it is possible to use free and open-source software programs, such as 3D-Slicer (https://www.slicer.org/) or MorphoDig (https://morphomuseum.com/morphodig), to process CT data as well as MeshLab (Cignoni et al. 2008) to interact with the 3D models in general. However, if alternative software is used, the steps and their order described in this protocol might diverge significantly. A cost-effective alternative to create 3D models is digital photogrammetry using commercial cameras and freely available software like Meshroom (https://alicevision.org). Although photogrammetry is an affordable technique to create accurate 3D models of objects, this method might not be useful when scanning large batches of artefacts, as it will require a lot of computation time and processing capacity. Likewise, it could be difficult to generate accurate 3D models of very small and/or detailed tool shapes using 3D surface scanners because stone tools are often much smaller than the recommended minimum field of view. Similarly, the resolution of conventional medical CT scanners might not be sufficient to capture minor details of stone tools, such as the outline or dorsal scars. This protocol aims at providing the first detailed procedure dedicated to the scanning of small lithic implements for further three-dimensional analysis. Note that some of the steps must be repeated at different working stages throughout this protocol. In cases where a task must be done in the exact same way as described in a previous step, a reference to that step is provided. When slight changes were made, the step was modified and reported entirely. This protocol contains a few red and green colours (e.g., arrows or within-program colours) which might be perceived differently by people with dyschromatopsia. However, the display of these colours has been kept to a minimum. We recommend the reader to go over the entire protocol carefully, even if only some specific parts are required. A few points are in fact interdependent, and some of them must be applied simultaneously. Content: Part 1 – Styrofoam preparation Part 2 – Micro-CT scanning Part 3 – 3D model extraction of CT scanned stone artifacts using Avizo Part 4 – Cropping extracted surface model to separate Face A and B in Artec Studio Part 5 – Cropping Face A to separate the lines in Artec Studio Part 6 – Cropping each stone artefact from the lines in Artec Studio Part 7 – Virtually control measurements in MeshLab Part 8 – Artec scanning of larger artifacts Part 9 – Export meshes as non-binary ply models for successive analysis in geomorph Three-dimensional example (in ply format) of the effectivity of the StyroStone Protocol: You can download an example of one Styrofoam line in 3D obtained using our protocol to appreciate the result that can be achieved. We have selected a line where objects are characterized by different metric and morphological attributes. Notice the retouching well visible in the last five smaller artifacts (counting from the left when artifact are oriented with the dorsal face in front of the observer and the butt down), as well as the platforms and bulbs of all artifacts. The rest of the 3D meshes available on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6362150).

This protocol presents the first detailed step-by-step pipeline for the 3D scanning and post processing of large batches of lithic artefacts using a micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scanner (i.e., a Phoenix v-tome-x S model by General Electronics MCC, Boston MA) and an Artec Space Spider scanner (Artec Inc., Luxembourg). This protocol was used to scan more than 700 lithic artefacts from the Protoaurignacian layers at Fumane Cave in north-eastern Italy (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6362150). For this study several costly scanners and proprietary software packages were employed. Although it is not easy to find a low-budget alternative for the scanners, it is possible to use free and open-source software programs, such as 3D-Slicer (https://www.slicer.org/) or MorphoDig (https://morphomuseum.com/morphodig), to process CT data as well as MeshLab (Cignoni et al. 2008) to interact with the 3D models in general. However, if alternative software is used, the steps and their order described in this protocol might diverge significantly. A cost-effective alternative to create 3D models is digital photogrammetry using commercial cameras and freely available software like Meshroom (https://alicevision.org). Although photogrammetry is an affordable technique to create accurate 3D models of objects, this method might not be useful when scanning large batches of artefacts, as it will require a lot of computation time and processing capacity. Likewise, it could be difficult to generate accurate 3D models of very small and/or detailed tool shapes using 3D surface scanners because stone tools are often much smaller than the recommended minimum field of view. Similarly, the resolution of conventional medical CT scanners might not be sufficient to capture minor details of stone tools, such as the outline or dorsal scars. This protocol aims at providing the first detailed procedure dedicated to the scanning of small lithic implements for further three-dimensional analysis. Note that some of the steps must be repeated at different working stages throughout this protocol. In cases where a task must be done in the exact same way as described in a previous step, a reference to that step is provided. When slight changes were made, the step was modified and reported entirely. This protocol contains a few red and green colours (e.g., arrows or within-program colours) which might be perceived differently by people with dyschromatopsia. However, the display of these colours has been kept to a minimum. We recommend the reader to go over the entire protocol carefully, even if only some specific parts are required. A few points are in fact interdependent, and some of them must be applied simultaneously. Content: Part 1 – Styrofoam preparation Part 2 – Micro-CT scanning Part 3 – 3D model extraction of CT scanned stone artifacts using Avizo Part 4 – Cropping extracted surface model to separate Face A and B in Artec Studio Part 5 – Cropping Face A to separate the lines in Artec Studio Part 6 – Cropping each stone artefact from the lines in Artec Studio Part 7 – Virtually control measurements in MeshLab Part 8 – Artec scanning of larger artifacts Part 9 – Export meshes as non-binary ply models for successive analysis in geomorph Three-dimensional example (in ply format) of the effectivity of the StyroStone Protocol: You can download an example of one Styrofoam line in 3D obtained using our protocol to appreciate the result that can be achieved. We have selected a line where objects are characterized by different metric and morphological attributes. Notice the retouching well visible in the last five smaller artifacts (counting from the left when artifact are oriented with the dorsal face in front of the observer and the butt down), as well as the platforms and bulbs of all artifacts. The rest of the 3D meshes available on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6362150).