Taphonomic Markers and 3D-Modelling - A Non-Intrusive Method for Micromorphological Distinction of Metal and Stone Butchering Tools
(2021) ARKM23 20211Historical Osteology
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Digital tools in (zoo)archaeology have great potential for education, mediation, and research. Microphotogrammetric 3D-modeling offers new non-intrusive analytical approaches to old problems and questions. This thesis aimed to perform morphological differentiation between cut marks made from lithic and metal tool using qualitative and statistical quantitative approaches (Principal Component Analysis).
Osteoarchaeological material with cut marks from three Swedish sites were used: Huseby Klev (Mesolithic), Gamla Skogsby (Iron Age), and Falsterbo (Medieval). Modern material from lamb (Ovis aries) were subjected to experimental cutting (slicing action) using a steel knife, unretouched flint, uniface flint, and biface flint. All specimens... (More) - Digital tools in (zoo)archaeology have great potential for education, mediation, and research. Microphotogrammetric 3D-modeling offers new non-intrusive analytical approaches to old problems and questions. This thesis aimed to perform morphological differentiation between cut marks made from lithic and metal tool using qualitative and statistical quantitative approaches (Principal Component Analysis).
Osteoarchaeological material with cut marks from three Swedish sites were used: Huseby Klev (Mesolithic), Gamla Skogsby (Iron Age), and Falsterbo (Medieval). Modern material from lamb (Ovis aries) were subjected to experimental cutting (slicing action) using a steel knife, unretouched flint, uniface flint, and biface flint. All specimens were modelled using a digital camera with a macro lens, resulting models of the archaeological and modern material were compared to each other. Models of the modern material cut with flint tools were unusable for comparison, only steel cut marks yielded useful results. The archaeological material was
qualitatively distinct from each other and from the steel knife cut marks. The PCA results demonstratesthis distinction, displaying clear data clustering between the archaeological and modern specimens. The qualitative results also confirmed the archaeological cut marks to be the outcome of chopping action, not slicing action.
Despite a small sample size, inability to compare modern lithic tools, as well as acquisitional and experimental parameters which should be further refined to produce usable models, it is demonstrated that microphotogrammetry can be a viable method for differentiating cut marks made from different materials. It is a suitable analytical tool for sites and contexts in
which metal and lithic cutting instruments may overlap. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9066941
- author
- Bello Cifuentes, Gianni LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- ARKM23 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- Osteology, Experimental Archaeology, 3D-modelling, Photogrammetry, Microphotogrammetry, Taphonomy, Bone Surface Modification, Cut Marks, Butchery Patterns, Digital Visualisation, Digital Zooarchaeology, Digital Osteology
- language
- English
- id
- 9066941
- date added to LUP
- 2022-02-03 15:45:37
- date last changed
- 2022-02-03 15:45:37
@misc{9066941,
abstract = {{Digital tools in (zoo)archaeology have great potential for education, mediation, and research. Microphotogrammetric 3D-modeling offers new non-intrusive analytical approaches to old problems and questions. This thesis aimed to perform morphological differentiation between cut marks made from lithic and metal tool using qualitative and statistical quantitative approaches (Principal Component Analysis).
Osteoarchaeological material with cut marks from three Swedish sites were used: Huseby Klev (Mesolithic), Gamla Skogsby (Iron Age), and Falsterbo (Medieval). Modern material from lamb (Ovis aries) were subjected to experimental cutting (slicing action) using a steel knife, unretouched flint, uniface flint, and biface flint. All specimens were modelled using a digital camera with a macro lens, resulting models of the archaeological and modern material were compared to each other. Models of the modern material cut with flint tools were unusable for comparison, only steel cut marks yielded useful results. The archaeological material was
qualitatively distinct from each other and from the steel knife cut marks. The PCA results demonstratesthis distinction, displaying clear data clustering between the archaeological and modern specimens. The qualitative results also confirmed the archaeological cut marks to be the outcome of chopping action, not slicing action.
Despite a small sample size, inability to compare modern lithic tools, as well as acquisitional and experimental parameters which should be further refined to produce usable models, it is demonstrated that microphotogrammetry can be a viable method for differentiating cut marks made from different materials. It is a suitable analytical tool for sites and contexts in
which metal and lithic cutting instruments may overlap.}},
author = {{Bello Cifuentes, Gianni}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Taphonomic Markers and 3D-Modelling - A Non-Intrusive Method for Micromorphological Distinction of Metal and Stone Butchering Tools}},
year = {{2021}},
}