A Comparison of Châtelperronian and Protoaurignacian Core Technology Using Data Derived from 3D Models

Abstract

This study uses data extracted from 3D models to compare blade cores from the Châtelperronian and Protoaurignacian stone tool industries. These technocomplexes are at the center of the debate surrounding the interactions between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans approximately 45 to 40,000 years ago. We created 3D models of lithic cores from the sites of Roc de Combe and Les Cottés using a standardized photogrammetry protocol. We then used data derived from these 3D models to make quantitative comparisons of artifact attributes that have previously been argued to distinguish the two stone tool industries in question. These attributes include the angle between the platform and flaking surfaces, the shape of core cross sections, and the angle between core axes. The conception of this study was not to privilege the use of new technological and statistical approaches over more traditional or qualitative forms of lithic analysis. Rather, our aim was to experiment with using digital tool to develop nuanced, reproducible ways to describe variability in lithic artifacts. Our results support the hypothesis that there is a difference in the angle between core surfaces between these two industries. Our analysis also indicates a difference in the angle between core axes, although we are more cautious in interpreting these results. An elliptical Fourier analysis of core cross section shape was inconclusive. We discuss what archaeological and methodological factors may have contributed to our results, and the roles of both qualitative and quantitative observations in archaeological research. 3D artifact models generated for this study are included as supplemental data and are available for use by other researchers.

Practical and technical aspects for the 3D scanning of lithic artefacts using micro-computed tomography techniques and laser light scanners for subsequent geometric morphometric analysis. Introducing the StyroStone protocol

“…This will permit researchers to focus not only on macro-tools but also to explore the small-sized component that characterizes many late Pleistocene and early Holocene technocomplexes. We believe that 3D scanning and 3D GM will contribute to a better understanding of our prehistory, although these methods should always be considered complementary tools to more traditional methods of analysis [ 21 , 73 ]. Lastly, 3D scanning will allow researchers to create open-access repositories of archaeological artefacts that can be accessed worldwide, encouraging more collaborative studies across academic institutions and enhancing Open Science practices in archaeological sciences.…”

The contribution of integrated 3D model analysis to Protoaurignacian stone tool design

“…EFA is able to deconstruct the outline into a series of closed curves (harmonics) to accurately capture the outline shape of an object. Several studies have used this method in archaeology and proved its effectiveness [e.g., 47 , 59 , 92 – 98 ]. Various tools and software exist to automate the extraction of the outline coordinates [ 59 , 99 – 101 ].…”

Identifying Local Learning Communities During the Terminal Palaeolithic in the Southern Levant: Multi-scale 3-D Analysis of Flint Cores

“…In many cases, attention is paid to global features that characterize the artifacts as a whole, including center of mass (Grosman, Goldsmith & Smilansky 2011; Grosman, Smikt & Smilansky 2008), artifact symmetry (Chacón et al 2016;Feizi, Vahdati Nasab & Wynn 2018;, outline roughness , geometric morphometrics (Archer et al 2015(Archer et al , 2016Delpiano & Uthmeier 2020;Herzlinger & Goren-Inbar 2019a, 2019bLycett & Von Cramon-Taubadel 2013;Presnyakova et al 2018;Shott & Trail 2010), distribution of thickness (Weiss et al 2018), and planar symmetry (Gingerich et al 2014;Ranhorn et al 2019;Sholts et al 2012Sholts et al , 2017. In contrast to these global features, local features have been measured based on relevant points, lines, and areas on the artifact surface of digital 3-D models (Archer et al 2016(Archer et al , 2018Bretzke & Conard 2012;Delpiano & Uthmeier 2020;Morales, Lorenzo & Vergès 2015;Porter, Roussel & Soressi 2019;Presnyakova et al 2018;Ranhorn et al 2019;Valletta et al 2020;Viallet 2019;Weiss et al 2018;Zaidner & Grosman 2015). While these data are more precise than those based on manual measurements, their objectivity and repeatability is limited by possible ambiguities in artifact positioning and/or in the surface segments on which the measurement is performed.…”