Lithic Technology

ISSN: 0197-7261 (Print) 2051-6185 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ylit20

Exploring New Approaches to Lithic Analysis: Laser

Scanning and Geometric Morphometrics

Michael J. Shott & Brian W. Trail

To cite this article: Michael J. Shott & Brian W. Trail (2010) Exploring New Approaches to Lithic
Analysis: Laser Scanning and Geometric Morphometrics, Lithic Technology, 35:2, 195-220, DOI:
10.1080/01977261.2010.11721090

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2010.11721090

Published online: 01 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ylit20

Download by: [George Mason University] Date: 13 June 2016, At: 21:19
 EXPLORING NEW APPROACHES
TO LITHIC ANALYSIS:
LASER SCANNING AND
GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRieS

Michael J. Shott
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016

Brian W. Trail

ABSTRACT

However they measure stone tools, archaeologists typically use orthogonal-

mutually perpendicular-dimensions like length and width. Although useful,
orthogonal dimensions do not capture the geometric corifiguration ofspecimens.
We describe an alternative approach to lithic analysis that involves three-
dimensional laser scanning andgeometn"c morphometn"cs. 11zis approach preserves
much geometn"c informah"on and generally is morefaithfol to whole-obfectform.
Using landmarks-points at equivalent posih"ons on different specimens-it also
exploits poweiful analyh"cal techniques not traditionally used in lithic analysis. We
z1/ustrate the approach and its ana/yh"calpotential in the study ofa small collection
ofPaleoindianjlutedpoints.

"Palaeolithic archaeology has been slow to adopt methods that enable the comparative
morphometric analysis of lithic variability... " (Lycett 2009:79).

Michael J. Shott and Brian W. Trail, Department of Classical Studies, Anthropology and Archaeology, University of
Akron, Akron, OH, USA 44325-1910. shott@uakron.edu ; bwt7@uakron.edu
 19§
Laser scanning technology was developed with
industrial and medical applications in mind. But
it offers exciting prospects for archaeology as well,
not least in the analysis of stone tools. Lithic
analysts are just beginning to use laser-scanning
technology and associated analytical techniques.
Befitting the growing range of applications,
instrumentation and software for laser scanning
span a wide range of technical specifications and
prices. As archaeologists begin to use it, naturally
their own applications occupy much of this range.
Yet, even now, comparatively few scanning
applications in archaeology have appeared in print.
This brief report has two purposes. First, we
review recent developments in lithic analysis that
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
involve scanning technology and geometric
morphometries. Second, we describe one variant
of scanning technology and explore its potential for
lithic analysis in the detailed morphometric
characterization of stone tools.
THEORY AND METHOD IN
UTHIC ANALYSIS
As in any science, theory explains patteming in
the variation found in lithic assemblages in
culturally or behaviorally meaningful terms.
Method serves theory by supplying the means to
acquire the data whose variation is measured and
explained. But method is not mere adjunct to
theory such that, for instance, theory specifies the
evidence that method then acquires and
characterizes. Instead, method and theory exist in
dynamic tension, each influencing the other. As
methods change and improve, often independently
of theory, they can alter the way that data are
characterized, thereby begging questions that
available theory may not answer or even imagine.
A textbook example is the development of
radiocarbon dating, a theoretical accomplishment
in physics that became a valuable method in
archaeology. It stimulated improved methods to
collect datable organics and better chronometric
control that in turn allowed archaeologists to revise
interpretations of the past (e.g., Renfrew 1973).
Lithic analysis addresses questions about past
cultures that their use of stone reveals. Because
stone is implicated in many aspects of ancient
cultures' functioning, analysis necessarily
addresses a wide range of questions from a range
Lithic Jec:bnologg, volume 35, 2
of theoretical perspectives and using a range of
methods. Yet measurement of stone tools is a
common practice that facilitates many approaches
to lithic analysis. Measurement is intended to
characterize tools at once by size.and form. Lithic
analysts have developed many measurement
schemes that vary with the questions they ask of
tools and assemblages.
ORTHOGONALI'IY
Despite their diversity, most measurement
schemes involve linear dimensions, usually
orthogonal (i.e., mutually perpendicular) to one
another and to Cartesian axes. At a minimum,
these include length, width and thickness. There
is no doubting the value of standard measurement
schemes, which capture basic information about
specimen size and form. Yet orthogonal
measurement schemes have limitations, or at least
are not ideal for all purposes.
Three shortcomings are particularly acute.
First, orthogonal dimensions reduce complex
wholes to relatively crude stick-figure caricatures;
for instance, they reduce whole-tool length,
complete with variation in other dimensions and
changes in outline form along the longitudinal axis,
to a single scaled line. Second, orthogonal measu-
rement preserves little information about the
spatial or geometric relationship between dimen-
sions such as length, width and thickness. In
common practice, of course, these dimensions are
defined as mutually orthogonal; to that limited
extent, orthogonal dimensions preserve geometric
information. But they preserve only direction, not
location, because the positions of maximum width
or thickness relative to length are not specified.
Instead, each dimension is treated as isolated or
disembodied. While whole-object geometry can be
approximated by, for instance, noting the position
of maximum width along the longitudinal axis,
approximations tend to be crude, limited models
of object form. Figure 1 shows the data reduction
and loss of geometric information typical of
orthogonal coding schemes. Third, some funct-
ional characteristics of stone tools can be difficult
to capture using orthogonal dimensions. Tip acuity
and cross-section (both form and area) are
important characteristics in theory (Hughes 1998)
and analysis (Shea 2005:824; Moncel etal2009)
that linear dimensions capture poorly, if at all.
 Shott and Trail- EJu>lorin& New Ap_proacbes to Uthlc Analysis: ... 197

1\
l \

n
\ I \

i
I
I
I '( =>
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016

Figure 1. Data reduction and loss of geometric information in conventional orthogonal measurement. The left
pair of figures shows common orthogonal dimensions superimposed upon a point's plan and section.
The center pair shows the same dimensions without superimposed plans, indicating data reduction from
whole-object outline form to stick-figure orthogonal dimensions. The set of isolated orthogonal dimen-
sions (right) show the loss of geometric information.

Mindful of the limitations of orthogonal (2003) also used polar coordinates to

schemes, a few pioneering studies have explored
alternatives. Holmer (1978:7-8) manually digitized
two-dimensional coordinates of positions on the
outline of Great Basin points to define
mathematical functions that distinguished types.
Gero and Mazzullo (1984) used Fourier series to
model stone tool outlines. In a neglected classic
study that illustrated the typological implications
of pattern and extent of resharpening, Hoffman
(1985) characterized the outlines of southeastern
U.S. points by vectors of varying length and angle
emanating from a central position, using a polar-
coordinate template. Wynn and Tierson (1990)
used a similar approach to measure size and outline
form of Acheulean bifaces. Henton and Durand
(1991) used raster methods to capture scaled
outlines of points and compared outlines for
symmetry and other purposes. And Morrow and
Morrow's (1999) hybrid approach used some
orthogonal dimensions in a broader, morphometric
context.
More recently, Bradbury and Carr (2003)
studied Early Archaic bifurcate-base types from the
Tennessee Valley. They, too, usedoutlineformand
polar coordinates, but also CAD technology, to
evaluate (and question) the formal integrity of
several defined types and to distinguish functional
modes based in part on blade symmetry. Shott
reconceptualize a sequence of defined Illinois
Valley triangular-point types as a complex
continuum of multivariate variation in a single
morphotype. Instead of a sequence of successive
appearance and decline of discrete formal types,
the approach focused attention on the longer-term
rate and direction of change in that morphotype.
In these and perhaps other studies, conventional
orthogonal dimensions would not have revealed the
patterns of variation found.
Whatever the virtues of these approaches, most
remain variations on orthogonal themes. Until
recently, it has been impractical to capture more
geometric information without disproportionate
investment of coding effort by use of dozens of
variables that inter-correlate to provide largely
redundant information. Whole-object form has
proven much easier to appreciate than to measure.
GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRICS
Beginning in the 1990s, biologists and biological
anthropologists adopted geometric morphometric
(GM) approaches to the description and analysis
of complex whole objects (e.g., O'Higgins andJones
1998; Slice 2005b). "Morphometric" means
measurement and description simultaneously of
 198
size and shape, capturing the spatial or geometric
relationship between measured dimensions or
plotted points. GM data, in technical terms, "can
be mapped back into physical space to achieve
...visualizations that are frequently not possible
with alternative methods" (Slice 2oosa:s). Put
differently, GM records more detailed information
about whole-object form along dimensions and at
points that may not fall along common axes, and
facilitates the treatment and analysis of such
detailed, geometric data.
First and most important among its virtues is
that GM preserves and records inherently
geometric information, viz. the relative positions
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
of the coded points, called "landmarks." Depending
on the breadth and detail oflandmark designation,
and unlike orthogonal approaches, GM preserves
outline form, three-dimensional form, some
aspects of cross-section form, and other inherently
geometric information. By comparison, orthogonal
schemes record only the value of particular
dimensions, preserving no information on the
geometric relationship between dimensions or
points along them (Tompkins 1993; Crompton
2007).
Besides its fundamental geometric character,
GM possesses other virtues. It permits detailed
description of object size and shape, and controls
for size variation by scaling all objects under study
to a constant size. Controlling for size is useful for
typological and other, but not all, purposes, because
"variation in artefact shape is usually associated
with artefact size" (Crompton 2007:2). Ironically,
its ability to control for size makes GM an especially
powerful means of allometric analysis. GM uses
thin-plate splines for graphical expression of
differences in forms between specimens or types.
For these reasons, GM is a promising analytical
approach to variation in three-dimensional size and
form of stone tools.
GM of stone tools is difficult without either
scanning or similar digitizing technology.
Accordingly, in recent years archaeologists have
begun to use scanning or digitizing and GM
methods to study form in a range of lithic types.
To date, most studies involve GM or similar
analysis of two-dimensional (2D) images.
Tompkins' (1993) neglected pioneering study
involved a continental sample of Clovis-age points,
many of them replica casts in the University of
Lithic Technology, volume 35, 2
Arizona collection. Thulman (2006) analyzed
Clovis and southeastern Suwanee points by
calculating mostly standard orthogonal dimensions
from digital images. Castifieira et al. (2007)
analyzed outline form of Fluted Fishtail points from
Uruguay and Argentina. Cardillo (2oo6)
conducted a similar analysis on mid-Holocene
points from Patagonia. Burnett and Otarola-
Castillo (2008) studied progressive modification
after retouch in a set of experimental Elko Corner-
Notched specimens. Buchanan's (2006; Buchanan
and Collard 2007; Buchanan and Hamilton 2009)
is the most ambitious and detailed of recent 2D
research, involving a wide-ranging North American
sample of Clovis, Folsom and other bifaces. These
scholars defined a set of dimensions that links
landmark points at the tip, base corners and other
locations of specimens. Clearly, GM has
considerable potential to redefine lithic analysis by
replacing relatively few orthogonal dimensions
with more, and more detailed, non-orthogonal
ones.
Three-dimensional (3D) approaches are more
recent. Riel-Salvatore et al (2002) explored the
potential of 3D visualization for core-refitting.
Lycett et al (2006; see also Lycett 2009) used a
variety of contact digitizers to capture landmark
points on Acheulian bifaces. Crompton (2007) and
Moncel et al (2009) analyzed Middle Paleolithic
tools considered projectile points, in part by 3D
characterization of tip form. Grosman et al (2008)
used 3D laser scanning to model Lower Paleolithic
handaxe form and to eliminate measurement error
from ambiguity in the orientation of specimens
relative to orthogonal axes. Sumner and Riddle
(2oo8) modeled Acheulian tools using
photogrammetry, not laser scanning, to produce
3D digital models. These studies used 3D digital
data as models of specimen size or form for the
kinds of analyses discussed at length below. In
addition, Lin et al (2010) measured cortical surface
area on flakes, demonstrating the value of 3D
digital models for other, equally valid, analytical
purposes.
2D models possess the virtue of smaller size and
simplicity and the vice of reducing 3D objects to
2D approximations. Their comparative economy
of data capture is a great practical advantage. Yet
3D methods are progressing rapidly, and
comparative advantages in time, cost and model
complexity diminish through time. What is more,
 Sbott and TraU - Explorini New Approaches to Lithic Analysis: ...
2D and 3D variables do not always correlate
strongly (e.g., Archer and Braun 2010:2070). To
that extent, 3D methods and variables measured
using them are preferable because they are more
faithful to the shape and dimensionality of the
original objects.
3D approaches include contact digitizing, which
captures only selected landmark points on
specimens, so use of such data by other researchers
is limited. They also include laser-scanning, which
produces complete, closed ("water-tight") digital
models on which analysts may choose any number
of analytical points which can change or increase
in number as analytical goals change.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
GEOMEI'RICMORPHOMEI'RICS IN
THEORY AND PRACTICE
GM arose in biology and paleobiology, so it owes its
founding concepts and terminology to those fields. Like
many approaches, GM has evolved a distinctive
vocabulary that must be mastered in order to
communicate clearly. Hence this briefsemantic primer,
whim follows Slice (2oos:a3-4). Slzapeis all geometric
properties ofobjects that are unrelated to location, scale
and orientation. S)U>isproperties ofobjects that pertain
to distance or dimension. Fonn refers simultaneously
to properties that involve both size and shape. Thus,
"shape" and "form" have different meanings in GM.
Shape is form without regard to size; alternatively, form
is shape scaled to size. Most biological GM analyses
concern shape alone. But size and form can be very
important in lithic analysis, not least in the study of
allometric resharpening of retouched tools (e.g., Iovita
2009; Shott et al. 2007).
GM analyzes the geometric configuration of points,
called landmarks, located on the surfaces of 2D or 3D
objects. There are two somewhat opposed views on the
nature and validity oflandmarks. One, associated with
Bookstein (1991), defined three types of landmarks.
Central to this approach is the concept of biological
homology, shared ancestiy or derivation of anatomical
constructs between taxa. MacLeod(1999, 2008)tooka
broader topological, not strict biological, view to
homology.
Bookstein
Following Bookstein (1991:63-65; see also Slice
20053:9), Type Ilandmarks are biologically discrete
199
anatomical features like cranial suture intersections or
the tips of dorsal fins. Type .Dlandmarks are maxima
of cwves "associated with local structures usually with
biomechanical implications" (Slice 2005a:9). To
O'Higgins and Jones, Type 11 landmarks may be
homologous in "geometric rather than compositional"
respects (1998:255). Typemlandrnarks are geometric
extremes or endpoints, for instance, the extreme point
of entire bodies, limbs or organs. They are "deficient"
(O'HigginsandJones2oo6;Slice2oosa:9)becausethey
do not reduce to a precise anatomical point or because
"their displacement is meaningful principally in a single
direction representing the length... of the defining
segment" (Bookstein 1991:65), z:e., because they are
defined only in relation to other points.
Assimilating Bookstein landmark concepts to stone
tools is inherently ambiguous (Lycett 2009:81). In one
sense, there can be no strict equivalents in stone to 1Ype
I and n landmarks, whim are defined explicitly with
reference to organismal anatomy. Tools have no
"discrete configurations of tissue," so no strict 1Ype I
landmarks, nor are there "biomeclJ.anical" implications
ofcwve maxima, and thus no 1Ype IT landmarks. Yet if
landmarks definitions are broadened from their
biological context, some degree of correspondence at
least is arguable.
Stone tool tips are points where opposing edges
converge, so undeniably are discrete points. On
projectile points, tips also are essential functional
characters. Similarly, base corners are discrete points
where curves intersect and have their own functional
significance, related to hafting. Therefore, tips and base
corners might be considered Type I or Type 11
landmarks, as local points or "structures" that possess
clear functional implications. Yet tips, base corners and
other landmark points discussed below also are
"geometricextremesorendpoints"likeBookstein's'IYpe
m landmarks.
Semi-landmarks
In the Bookstein view, landmark points are not
adequate characterizations of all morphometricdata or
the corresponding properties of physical objects like
artifacts; forms can include continuous sets of
points that comprise curve outlines, surfaces or
areas. Accordingly, semi-landmarks are arbitrary
points along edges, curves or other geometric forms
that collectively trace the forms but do not mark
meaningful specific points along them. Bookstein
(1997:232) more or less formally defined semi-
 200
landmarks as distinct from landmarks because,
although they share "some of the criteria that make
landmarks useful for scientific analysis," they
nevertheless "fail to be true landmarks ... [because]
they exist only in the context of a group average."
In this somewhat cryptic passage, Bookstein
distinguished semi-landmarks from landmarks of
any type, including Type Ill ones. If Type Ill
landmarks denote extremes or end points, then
semi-landmarks are not equivalent to Type Ill
landmarks. Niewoehner (2005:289-290) used
semi-landmarks to characterize irregularities on
metacarpal joint surfaces, Mitteroecker and
Bookstein (2008:946) to map cranial form. Their
first use in stone-tool analysis occurred separately
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
in Argentina (e.g., Cardillo 2006) and Britain (e.g.,
Lycett etal2oo6).
Whatever the conceptual and analytical validity
of Type 1-111 landmarks, in the Bookstein view
semi-landmarks are not equivalent to them. They
do not mark discrete points on the surfaces, edges
or endpoints of objects, but merely arbitrary points
along lines or curves. The arbitrary placement of
semi-landmarks can produce spurious pattern in
thin-plate splines, in the form of "bending energy"
(Gunz et al 2005) that is the product of the spacing
and configuration of points rather than the shape
of the relevant anatomical or other form features.
Following Bookstein's logic, therefore, care is
required both in the placement of semi-landmark
points and in analysis to control for spurious
patterning, especially because outlines and other
complex curves are so important in stone tools.
Despite its own use of them, the Bookstein
approach to landmarks raises doubts about the
validity of semi-landmarks. Whether spaced
equidistantly (either along equidistant grid lines
or along radially expanding lines themselves not
equidistant) or otherwise by arbitrary interval,
semi-landmarks may produce spurious morpho-
metric patterning. Using hypothetical examples,
for instance, Gunz et al (2005) suggested that
semi-landmarks produce patterned deformation in
thin-plate spline analysis where none should occur,
purely as an artifact of the arbitrary location of
landmark points along edges or axes. Un-
fortunately, the complex mathematical solution to
this problem is not yet available in shareware
programs, although one apparently is under
development and may soon become available (Erik
Otarola-Castillo, personal communication, October
Lithic Tecbnologu, volume 35, 2
2009). A partial solution is to analyze the same
specimens both with and without Type Ill
landmarks and to compare results.
MacLeod
MacLeod (1999, 2008) took a different
approach that largely moots distinctions between
Bookstein landmarks types. Defining landmarks
as "nothing more or less than objectively defined
coordinate locations that bear some topological,
anatomical, functional, etc. correspondence across
all objects" (2008:154) under study, MacLeod
argued that biological homology pertained to entire
structures (e.g., organs, skeletal elements), not to
specific points within them. Accordingly, he
questioned the validity of specific anatomical
locations as different landmark types, and
advocated topological over biological homology. In
practice, MacLeod also considered many Bookstein
landmarks to be subjectively placed arbitrary
points along complex curves. The thrust of
MacLeod's argument was to question the biological
validity ofBookstein landmarks and the sometimes
labored distinctions between their various types
and, in the process, to reconcile landmark and
curve-outline methods.
In this view, point tips, for instance, are valid
landmarks because they possess unambiguous
topological correspondence across specimens.
MacLeod generalized the approach even farther,
to encompass "interobject landmark corres-
pondences" (1999:110), z:e. the use of evenly spaced
points whose placement is arbitrary with respect
to anatomical traits. In Bookstein's view, such
points are at best semi-landmarks. Later, MacLeod
(2008) extended the approach to eigensurface
analysis of 3D forms, calling this approach
"eigenshape analysis" of closed curves. MacLeod's
approach moots the distinction among landmark
types and between landmarks and semi-landmarks,
and urges identical analytical treatment of
landmark points however defined. It also casts
doubt on the validity of the bending-energy
argument noted above.
It remains for the geometrically astute to gauge
the relative merits of Bookstein's and MacLeod's
views. In the interim, archaeologists have used
semi-landmarks (e.g., Lycett etal2oo6), a practice
we follow here in part because of MacLeod's
reasoning. As above, most 3D studies to date have
 Shott and Trail - Explorim: New Approaches to Utbjc Analysis: ...
concerned Old World Paleolithic tools, not the
smaller, usually more finely and elaborately made
bifaces ("points" in common usage) that are
abundant in the Americas but also common
elsewhere. Large, rather amorphous, bifaces such
as Acheulian cores or tools typically lack fine details
of form such as well defined tips, distinct haft and
blade elements, basal concavities, notching, fluting,
and the like. Paleolithic tools may be characterized
adequately by sets of evenly or unevenly spaced
semi-landmarks (i.e., arbitrarily placed points,
sensu Bookstein). Combined differences of size,
form and technology make it much more difficult
to adequately characterize points in the same way.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
Instead, points are best characterized using what
Bookstein would call combinations of Type I-Ill
landmarks along with semi-landmarks. Of course,
in MacLeod's view these distinctions are irrelevant.
Accordingly, we combine Bookstein Type I or 11
landmarks (depending upon one's view of the
Booksteinian ontological status of unambiguous
locations on stone tools like the tip) with what
analysts probably agree are semi-landmarks.
201
SCANNING TECHNOLOGY
IN LITHIC ANALYSIS
The ontological status of landmarks and the
relative merits of Bookstein's and MacLeod's
divergent views deserve careful study. In the
meantime, it remains to consider the analytical
value to lithic analysis of laser scanning and the
GM approach. As an example, we briefly describe
our recent work. No doubt, colleagues elsewhere
are undertaking studies that differ in important
respects.
We use a NextEnginenr portable laser scanner
and ScanStudio HD (high definition) software. The
system consists of the laser scanner itself, a data
cable that connects the scanner to a laptop
computer, and a revolving stand on which the scan
subject is placed (Figure 2). Specimens are held in
place with rubber-tipped gripper arms or set into
modeling clay. Although our use to date is confined
to the laboratory, the system fits in a padded
carrying case the size of carry-on luggage and is
designed for portable use.
 202
To process images and to create and manage
our sometimes large data files, we use a Dell
Latitude D830 Intel Core 2 Duo laptop computer
with a T78oo processor at 2.6 GHz and 3·5 GB of
RAM. We also use a 1.81 terabyte external hard-
drive for permanent storage of all scanning data,
as well as high-density DVDs as a second archive
and for portability.
To produce 3D models, the system scans each
specimen at fixed degree intervals on the rotating
stands. Although there are set-ups that scan more
than one specimen at a time (e.g., Smith and Strait
2008), we are able only to scan single objects. Our
protocol was developed by trial and error,
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
considering object sizes and features, the
reflectivity of their surfaces, and hardware/
software capabilities. A specimen is scanned at a
distance of 6.5 in. (16.5 cm), measured from the
face of the scanner to the horizontal midline of the
specimen in its start position. The range for image
capture is 5 in. to 9 in. (13 cm- 23 cm) which must
be taken into account when scanning, because the
specimen rotates for each interval. Our chosen
precision setting provides accuracy to 0.005 in. for
data capture.
Because stone tools are complex, irregular
wholes with sharp, sinuous edges and well defined
tip and base extremities, we find that a complete,
accurate model requires successive eight-interval
scans of the object, first in standing or vertical
orientation and then in prone or horizontal
orientation. The result is a total of 16 scans per
specimen. ScanStudio also takes a digital photo of
the specimen at each scanning interval, saved as a
.jpg file.
We scan at an HD (high definition) speed of 105
seconds for each interval; this amounts to 840
seconds (14 minutes) to complete eight scans per
specimen. With handling, rotation and data
processing, one scan family (z:e, one specimen with
8 scan intervals) takes about 16 minutes to
complete.
Two settings in ScanStudio accommodate the
optical properties of specimens. Surface luster
("Surface" in ScanStudio) is the laser-light
exposure setting for differing texture of objects
represented as a percentage: o% for the darkest
objects and 100% for the lightest objects. For light-
colored specimens, our best results come from a
Lithic Technology, volume 35, 2
surface setting of 8o% to 90%. Surface finish
("Finish" in ScanStudio) settings are matte or
shiny. To maximize data capture, we powder each
specimen to diminish the effects of unwanted light
reflection and to maximize visibility, particularly
at tips and base corners and along thin edges. We
do not otherwise treat specimens before scanning,
for instance, by coating them in ammonium
chloride as Smith and Strait (2008:4-5) recom-
mend. Most of our specimens have a matte finish,
although fine-grained cherts and certainly obsidian
would require a different setting or liberal
powdering before scanning.
The scanning process produces a digitized
model of the specimen represented by a point cloud
or alternatively by a triangular mesh formed by
linking adjacent points. The density of points or
size of the triangles can be manipulated, altering
the resolution and overall file size. The lower the
point density or larger the triangle size, the fewer
the points and larger the triangles used to make
the mesh that represents the object in digital
format. Obviously, this yields a smaller file size.
We use a high-resolution setting for triangle size
of 0.0075 in, with a range of 0.0050 in. to 0.0250
in. for capture of small, irregular details in our
specimens.
The eight digitized images of a specimen from
different angles relative to the scanner (a "scan
family") must be aligned to produce a complete 3D
digitized image of the specimen. The alignment
process can be done automatically by ScanStudio
via a best-fit algorithm, but we have found that
manual alignment often gives better results.
Alignment is done by placing a minimum of three
(maximum of nine) color-coded "pins" at
corresponding points on two of the eight scans
within a scan family. Corresponding points can be
defined by any unique patterning in color or texture
on object surfaces. In objects with homogeneous
surfaces, like some artifacts and certainly like
artifact casts that also can be scanned,
corresponding points may be few; when necessary,
therefore, we use a water-soluble paint pen to mark
points on the specimen to expedite the alignment
process. Otherwise, marking regular intervals on
the rotating platform and/or using inclusions,
natural variation in color or texture patterning, or
other unique features of the matrix of stone tools
may suffice to identify corresponding points on two
overlapping images. In alignment, ScanStudio uses
 Shott and Trail - Explorin~ New Ap_proacbes to Uthjc Analysis: ...
the pins to orient the separate scans and seeks
overlap between them in order to meld the separate
scans into one digitized 3D image. The same
process is followed when aligning the vertical and
horizontal scans of a specimen.
After alignment, a scan family's digital models
are trimmed to remove extraneous material (e.g.,
the platform of the revolving stand), noise, or minor
corruptions that occurred during the scanning
process. The aligned and trimmed scans then are
fused, thus forming a composite 3D model, which
removes overlapping redundant data, and results
in a single "watertight" mesh surface. The
algorithm that drives the fusing process sometimes
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
creates noise, particularly at very thin points of the
object (e.g., the tip, the base corners, and the edges;
it most often appears as triangular spikes projecting
from the image). Further trimming may be
necessary to remove this noise from the finished
model. In addition, there are sometimes holes in
the specimen after fusing. These are fixed by
ScanStudio's Hole Fill feature; fortunately, such
holes usually are very small and cause no
macroscopic deformation of the digitized image.
We use ScanStudio's CAD feature to establish a
uniform orientation among all specimens, the
artifact tip pointing upward. This is done before
fusing because, during the fusing process (after
extraneous data have been trimmed from the
specimen), ScanStudio reads the extremes of the
data (i.e., the most distant points on the specimen's
surface) and fits a "bounding box" that
encompasses the specimen. The bounding box
touches the tip and base corners and the widest part
of the edges. For consistency of orientation, this is
very helpful when we transform ScanStudio data
(in .scn file format) into .ply files for import into
the program Landmark (detailed below).
ScanStudio creates several types of files, which
are used in the digital representation of the
specimen. At the start of the scanning process, the
system creates raw folder and thumbnail folders.
Raw folders contain configuration settings, DAT
files and Excel files. Raw-folder files provide the
parameters for the software to graphically
represent the specimen; this folder runs to about
700MB in size, depending on data resolution. One
scan family of eight interval scans includes 32 DAT
files (each averaging around 20-25 KB), 32 Excel
files, and 16 configuration setting files (each
203
averaging around 5-10 KB). The thumbnail folder
contains two file types: .jpg Image files and
Shockwave Flash Object files (.swf). Every .jpg has
an associated .swf file. For each scan interval, the
software creates a number of .jpg Image files and a
Shockwave Flash Object file (all ranging in size
from 2-9 KB).
The finished 3D model is saved as an .scn file.
though it can also be saved using other file
extensions. The initial scanning of a specimen at
the settings we use creates a total file size of around
1.5GB. However, after processing (i.e., aligning,
trimming, fusing and polishing), a final model that
accurately represents the specimen reduces to
around 250 MB on average.
CASE STUDY: APPLYING
SCANNING TECHNOLOGY
Both to test and to illustrate 3D methods, we
scanned and processed a set of casts of fluted
bifaces kindly loaned by Mark Seeman of Kent State
University. These included a Clovis specimen from
the western United States and fluted variants of
Clovis from other locales. The latter were
comprised of a specimen from the Kimmswick site
in Missouri, one from the Lamb cache near Buffalo,
Gainey points from the Bostrom collection and
from an unspecified location, a Barnes/
Cumberland point and a Crowfield point, both
from unspecified locations. Figure 3 shows the
western Clovis and Cumberland specimens. These
samples have been selected to illustrate the
approach, not to present specific analytical
conclusions.
Coding Protocol
Once a watertight digital model is produced, it
must be coded for analysis. ScanStudio
automatically calculates specimen volume (see also
Grosman et al2oo8), a good general size measure
that is useful in reduction analysis (Shott 2005;
Shott et al 2007; Eren and Prendergast 2008).
Landmarks and other analytical variables then
must be added. We save the ScanStudio .scn file of
each finished model as a .ply file. Then we import
the .ply file into the shareware program Landmark,
which allows the placement oflandmark points on
the surface of specimens.
 204 Lithic Jecbnologg, volume 35, 2
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016

Figure 4· Our landmark coding scheme, with Clovis

specimen as example.

Figure 3. Example 3D digital models produced by

scanning: a) Clovis specimen; b) Cumber-
land specimen.
 Shott and Trail - &plorin& New Awroacbes to Uthic Analysis: ...
In the following discussion, we make no
distinction between the Bookstein and Macl.eod
views, simply calling all analytical points
"landmarks." Our coding scheme was designed to
capture critical points, configurations, and shapes
of points, reflecting both their purpose in cutting
and penetrating (mostly concerning tip angle and
cross-section size and form) and their requirements
for secure hafting (z:e., haft area, base form). The
result (Figure 4) defined specific (called "single-
point" in the program Landmark) landmarks (LM)
on each specimen. These are located at the tip (LM
So); along the edges 5 mm below the tip (LM S9,
Su); on each face equidistant between S9 and Su
(LM S10 and S16; S 16 is not shown in Fig. 4); at
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
the point of maximum basal concavity (LM S17);
base corners (LM S3, S4); distal terminus of edge
grinding (LM S1, S2); and flute-channel corners
(LM S s-8 and S12-1s; only Ss-8 are shown in Fig.
4).
We also defined nine landmarks at fixed
intervals on a three-by-three grid ("mesh points"
in the Landmark program). These are located in
the flute channel between base and farthest extent
of edge grinding. The base (most proximal) line of
the mesh (LM M1-M3) was placed perpendicular
to the long axis at 1 mm above LM S17, the point of
maximum basal concavity. The distal-most mesh
line (LM M7-M9) was aligned with S1 and S2
(which often, but not always, lie at the same point
along opposing edges), on the assumption that
hafting extended only to that point.
LM M4 -6 are mid-points within the mesh.
Mesh points characterize size and shape of the flute
channel on the haft. Because we placed a set on
each face in the haft area, the distance between
corresponding mesh points on each face estimates
thickness and cross-section size and shape. Corner
"mesh points" may or may not coincide with LMs
Ss-8 or S12-15. Finally, we placed 15landmarks at
fixed, arbitrary intervals along the object's outline
curve ("curve points" in the Landmark program;
not shown in Fig. 4). These begin at S1, proceed
toward the base and continue along the specimen's
circumference.
The result is 14 landmarks on each face and 23
on the outline shared by the faces, a total of 51. All
landmarks are placed at the same relative location
on specimens. Accordingly, relative differences
among them describe corresponding variation in
205
size and shape. Like simple measurement,
landmark placement may be subject to error. For
instance, it was a concern in studies using contact
digitizers (e.g., von Cramon-Taubadel etal2007;
Archer and Braun 2010:204), where the arm's
point may be placed differently by different users
when recording landmark positions, much as
orthogonal dimensions are subject to considerable
error when measured using calipers. Error is
possible in any coding scheme, but one advantage
of Landmark applied to 3D digital models is its
ability, aided by its powerful zoom function, to
place landmarks at desired locations with great
precision. Error studies for contact digitizers may
followvon Carmon-Taubadel et al.'s design. In our
study, Trail first placed landmarks following careful
study of specimens. Trail, however, is not a lithic
analyst; Shott also examined points carefully and
approved Trail's placement or corrected landmark
placement as needed.
Our particular combination of "single-point,"
"mesh," and "curve-area" LMs and the con-
figuration of landmarks were intended to capture
design and use variation in fluted bifaces; it is not
suitable for all point or other tool types. LMs at
base corners and maximum basal concavity mark
fundamental points of design and function.
Landmarks at the distal-most extent of edge
grinding define the maximum extent of haft
lashing; those related to the flute channel, the size
and shape of the flute, which may extend well below
the haft.
The tip is a fixed character, but one that does
not occupy a fixed position. Instead, it is a
vulnerable location susceptible to damage and
repair (e.g., Shott et al 2007). Four symmetrical
points on edges and blade midsections ofboth faces
5 mm below the tip (LMs S9-11 and S16) aid in
defining tip angle and near-tip section area and
form, important functional traits (Hughes
1998:373-375). Reasonably but somewhat
mechanically, Shea (2005) estimated tip cross-
section as one-half of the product of maximum
width and maximum thickness. Crompton (2007:
Fig. 3) used a contact digitizer to capture tip and
other cross-sections of points. Our approach
requires no geometric estimation and can capture
cross-section data at virtually any point on a
specimen's long axis that the analyst desires, which
contact digitizers ensure only at original data
coding.
 206
Because our data are landmark-based, we have
no direct measure of edge angles, curves, or cross-
section size or shape. However, lines linking some
landmark points approximate angles and other
geometric properties of tools. For instance, LMs
closest to the tip can be used to approximate tip
angle, edge angles near the tip, and tip-area cross-
section, all functionally important characters.
Export to Morphologika
At this point, data are suitable for morphometric
analysis. Several shareware packages perform 2D
GM. We use Morphologika (O'Higgins and Jones
2006) shareware, freely available at the SUNY
Stony Brook morphometries website (http:/ I
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
life.bio.sunysb.edufmorph/), to perform 3D GM
analysis.
Standard GM analysis involves three steps. Like
GM itself, these steps are identified by long
expressions that practitioners reduce to acronyms.
First, all objects' x,y,z landmark coordinates
simultaneously are "registered" through
Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA). This
controls for size differences between specimens and
focuses analysis upon shape variation. Second, that
shape variation is analyzed via principal-
components analysis (PCA). Third, form variation
is expressed graphically in Cartesian trans-
formation grids or thin-plate splines (tps).
GPA removes scale and orientation ("trans-
lation and rotation") differences, leaving shape as
the sole dimension of variation. GPA produces a
gestalt best fit of all landmarks, rather than
registration to an a priori point or baseline. Shape
variation among specimens is expressed as
residuals to the coordinates of the mean shape
(Crompton 2007:3). Detailed explanation ofGPA
is best left to the geometrically more astute (e.g.,
O'Higgins and Jones 2006). However, an
important distinction is between the two
Morphologika options for projecting
multidimensional landmarks points onto planes for
analysis in two dimensions. One method is full-
tangent projection, another projection onto partial
Procrustes tangent space. We briefly consider the
comparative merits of projection methods below.
Then PCA extracts relative warps, a somewhat
turgid and GM-specific term for the principal
components extracted from the covariance matrix
Lithic Jecbnplogg, volume 35, 2
of inter-landmark distances, i.e., PCA of Procrustes
residuals. PCA of coordinates from full-tangent
projection (analogous to the map projection of 3D
topographic point,s onto 2D maps) projects results
into "configuration space," (O'Higgins and Jones
1998:258; 2006), z:e., the space of the original
specimens. Alternatively, PCA can be performed
on raw Procrustes registration coordinates.
According to O'Higgins and Jones (2006), "In
practice this choice makes little difference to the
PCA output", although it may bear upon inter-
pretation of centroid size, as discussed below.
Besides plotting the position of specimens on
cross-plots of principal components, Morphologika
displays the configuration of landmark points at
any point in the plot of principal-component axes,
whether or not empirical specimens represent
those configurations. In this way, it depicts a full,
continuous range of variation in landmark
configurations for any pair of component scores.
These hypothetical configurations aid
interpretation of components. Also, they amount
to segments of theoretical morphospaces, a GM
concept (discussed in more detail below) that
facilitates analysis of trajectories of change in shape
and form.
Thin-plate splines (tps) represent specimens as
deformations of a standard or original form. In
concept, tps are infinitely thin planes whose grid
lines are aligned in perfect orthogonal orientation
on the standard specimen. Transformation of the
tps has two components (Zelditch et al 2004:134;
O'Higgins and Jones 2006). Affine components
involve tilting or rotation of the spline but no
bending, and indicate differences between models
only in orientation. Non-affine components
involve deformation, such that the spline grid-lines
are bent to accommodate shape change between
models. Results depict the specimen's departure
from the standard in both affine and non-affine
respects, i.e., 3D pattern and degree of difference
between the specimens.
GPA of Fluted Points
As above, the first step in GM analysis is
Procrustes registration via GPA. Morphologika
takes raw x,y,z coordinates (Figure sa), translates
and rotates them to remove the effects of
orientation and registers them to a common scale,
in this case using full-tangent projection (Figure
sb).
 Shott and Trail- Eltplorin~ New Approaches to Lithic Analysis:,
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016

Figure 5· Landmark coordinates: a, above) raw x,y,z coordinates; b, below) coordinates after rotation
to remove orientation and scale.
 208
GPA uses centroid size, the square root of the
sum of squared Euclidean distances from each
landmark to the centroid (mean of landmark
coordinates)(Bookstein 1991:94; Zelditch et al
2004:56). Centroid size is "a mathematically
natural size measure" (O'Higgins and Jones 2006),
z:e., a gestalt measure of size. More direct size
measures include weight, not available in the casts
that we scanned, and volume. Fortunately,
ScanStudio automatically computes object volume,
in cubic in. If centroid size is a direct size measure,
then it should covary strongly with volume.
As above, Morphologika registers data in two
ways, by full-tangent projection or by partial
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
Procrustes tangent space. Although both options
produce values of centroid size that pattern with
volume, correlation is stronger using full-tangent
projection (Table 1). In fact, parametric correlation
does not reach statistical significance in
registration by Partial Procrustes tangent space,
although the small sample size advises use of
nonparametric r., which does correlate
significantly.
Table 1. Correlation (Pearson's rand Spearman's rho)
of specimen volume and centroid size.
Full tangent Partial Procrustes
projection tangent space
r= -74 p=.06 r= .60 p= ·13
r. = 7S p= .os r. = -7S p= .os
However, a closer look at the data prompts
reservations about the correlation between these
variables. Cross-plots of centroid size against
volume show that cases pattern differently with the
two registration methods (Figure 6). The
Kimmswick point, for instance, has the smallest
centroid size in partial Procrustes tangent space,
but is larger than four other specimens using full-
tangent projection. Even more surprising is that
the Barnes/Cumberland point has the largest
centroid size in both registrations, yet is only the
third-largest specimen by volume. After obtaining
this result, we reconfirmed volume measurements,
and created a new estimate of volume found as half
the product of the multiple of maximum length,
width, and thickness. This estimate correlated very
strongly with measured volume (r=.91, p<.Ol). The
Lithic Technology, volume 35, 2
Bames/Cumberland specimen fell very close to the
regression line; only the Bostrom specimen formed
an outlier, and it is neither particularly elongated
nor nearly as great an exception as the Barnesj
Cumberland specimen to the correlation between
volume and centroid size.
Neither the accuracy nor the precision of our
data are easily questioned. Even if they were, such
constant problems could not explain inconstant
results like the Kimmswick specimen's rank-order
in centroid size changing with projection method.
Much likelier, in our view, is that projection
methods combined with how centroid size is
calculated, are the source of these findings. The
conspicuous length and narrowness of the Bamesj
Cumberland specimen, for instance, suggests that
centroid size, at least in these data, measures
elongation, as well as overall size.
To test this idea, we computed a simple ratio of
maximum length to maximum width. In full-
tangent project data, this length-width ratio
correlates strongly with centroid size (r=.84,
p=.02), but not significantly with volume (r=.40,
p=.38 )(Figure 7); nonparametric r. does not alter
the results. In Partial Procrustes tangent space
registration, neither centroid size nor volume
correlates with the ratio. Therefore, we conclude
that, in full-tangent registration, centroid size
measures elongation as much as overall size, and
that only in registration by Partial Procrustes
tangent space does centroid size approximate
overall size. Even then, the correlation is somewhat
ambiguous (Table 1).
A simple geometric demonstration supports this
conclusion. Figure 8 shows two triangles of equal
area, ie., of equal2D size. Dimensions in arbitrary
units are from Dildine (1999). Triangle 1 is nearly
isosceles in form, hence oflow elongation like most
of our fluted specimens. (Its elongation is found
as length divided by width or, in geometric terms,
height h divided by the base formed by the a-c line.
Its elongation=o.6o.) Triangle 2 is much taller or
longer than it is wide, hence elongated ( =2.38) like
the Bames/Cumberlandspecimen. Thus, triangles
differ in shape but not size. LM A bears the
coordinate value of x=o, y=o; coordinates for other
LMs are relative to this position in units specified
by Dildine (1999 ). Each triangle's centroid is found
as the arithmetic mean of LM x and y coordinates.
The squared distance from each LM to the centroid
 Shott and Trail - Ex.vJorin~ NeW Ap_proaches to Uthic Analysis: ... 209

300.00

•c:r;utleERLA@==-=

•
• BM\4SiMCKJ

• •~
~
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016

tR@'ELOI •
e pAt..eVI

100.00

0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000

volume

150.00 •

125.00

"0
•~
fc 100.00 •~
•
0

• t:RONj@ ~
•
• pAN:'i1

0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000

0200
volume

Figure 6. Volume against centroid size: a) full-tangent projection; b) partial Procrustes tangent space.
 210 lithic Technology, volume 35, 2

6.

•
5.

0 4
'fJ...
-a
-~
•
-3.00
~·
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016

2DO

R Sq Lnear • 0.766

1.00

100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00

Centroid

6.00

•
~:\..~Aft~

5.

0 4
1il...
•
I\IMMS@
-a
"j
c
• •~
-3.00
•
~
•PAINEYI ~
2. •
R Sq Linear" 0.157

1.00

0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000

volume

Figure 7· Length-width ratio in full-tangent space against: a) centroid size; b) volume.

 Shott and Trajl- &plorin~ New Approacbes to Uthjc Analysis: ...
1.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
D 100,0
Figure 8. Centroid-size calculation in two triangles of equal area but different shape.
is found as (X2 - X1) 2 + (y2 - yy, where the centroid
is X1, Y1 (Zelditch et al. 2004:56). Centroid size is
the square root of the sum of these distances.
Centroid size of Triangle 1 is 174.9 (in whatever
units one specifies); of Triangle 2, 217.9. Thus,
elongated Triangle 2 has a considerably larger
centroid size despite the triangles' identical areas.
This is no surprise; centroid size "is statistically
uncorrelated with shape so long as shape changes
isometrically ( ... [z:e.] that shape does not change
with size)" (Zelditch et al 2004:56). In stone tools
and many other things, shape might change
considerably with size. If so, centroid size can be a
compound of size and other properties like shape
in geometric morphometric terms, as it may be in
our data.
Our pilot study on Clovis-affinity specimens did
not include blade-area "mesh point" LMs that we
subsequently have used in coding of Hunzicker's
(2008) Folsom replicas. In Clovis data, their
absence leaves five LMs (So, S9-Su, S16) relatively
isolated at specimen tips. For biological data, Slice
(2005a:19) suggested that such isolates act as
211
2.
050,0
outliers that skew results by inflating the mean
squared distance between landmark points.
Isolated LMs at extremes like the tip might pull the
centroid toward them, perhaps exaggerating
centroid size relative to area or volume. In Figure
S's triangles, for instance, B is the most isolated
LM. In Triangle 1, however, it is slightly closer to
the centroid than are LMs A and C, hence it
contributes slightly less than do either of those
points to centroid size. In Triangle 2, by contrast,
LM B is much more isolated and contributes much
more to centroid size than any other LM, in fact
almost as much as all others combined. Applying
the same logic to points, relatively isolated tip LMs
in highly elongated specimens would yield higher
values for centroid size than their volume would
suggest. Blade-area mesh points serve not only the
purpose described above, but they also reduce the
probability of bias by skewing. Whatever the
explanation, archaeologists who use GM methods
to characterize stone tools should demonstrate, not
merely assume, that centroid size is strictly a size
measure, not a compound of several geometric
properties.
 212
One reviewer suggested reasonably that the
ambiguous relationship between volume and
centroid size owes to our small sample. This all-
purpose concern fails to explain why our simple
elongation measure correlates better with centroid
size than does volume. We acknowledge a possible
sample-size effect, as should everyone who reports
analytical results from samples of less-than ideal
size.
PCA of Fluted Points
After GPA, relative warps are extracted by PCA,
usually performed on the covariance matrix. We
repeat that our sample is small, its patterns of
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
variation ambiguous. We present PCA results for
illustration, not as definite, significant conclusions.
In our data, Principal Component 1 (PC1)
accounted for 85.1% of variation; length and haft
size loaded positively and thickness negatively,
suggesting PC1 as a size and thinness dimension.
Principal Component 2 (PC2) accounted for 12.2%
of variation; haft-size and, to some.degree, tip- and
haft-thickness measures loaded positively, and
blade-size measures negatively, suggesting that
PC2 is a large-haft, thick, short-blade dimension.
PC2 may measure degree of resharpening. No
other components yielded eigenvectors > 1.
A cross-plot of PC1-2 shows two major
dimensions of variation in this small sample
(Figure 9). From Crowfield to Kimmswick defines
a range of variation about equally in the
components. From Crowfield, the axis describes
increasing size, especially length and haft size, and
thickness, while simultaneously blades lengthen.
From Kimmswick to Cumberland defines a second.
axis of great variation on PC2 over a modest
positive range of PC1, indicating a progression to
longer, longer-hafted and thinner specimens.
Tps Analysis of Fluted Points
Tps analysis-really, data presentation-often
begins with a standard or baseline model, usually
what is considered a common ancestral specimen
in phylogenetic studies. For illustrative purposes,
choice of a standard is arbitrary; we chose the
western Clovis specimen. As landmark points on
other specimens depart from the equivalent
position on this standard, the plane is distorted in
that region from its original configuration in order
Lithic Technology, volume 35, 2
to accommodate the new positions. The resulting
thin-plate spline is a scaled graphical summary of
the pattern and degree of specimens' departure
from the standard.
For instance, Figure 10 compares the Clovis and
Cumberland specimens in our sample (Figs. 3a,b),
using the former as the standard and showing
relative positions of comparable landmarks. By
definition, the Clovis specimen's thin-plate spline
is perfectly orthogonal. The corresponding spline
for the Cumberland specimen is deformed to
accommodate the difference in landmark
configurations. This view of the Cumberland
specimen's spline does not clearly depict the affine
component, but shows the deformation required
to transform the location of Clovis-specimen
landmarks to corresponding positions on the
Cumberland specimen. (Morphologika also allows
users to vary the number and spacing of spline grid-
lines, to plot splines at any intervals desired within
the 3D swarm of landmark points, and to plot thin-
plate splines in any of the XY, XZ and YZ planes
for 3D specimens.) It depicts, for instance, the
comparative thinness and elongation of the
Cumberland specimen and the bending, generally
proximal in direction, necessary to translate Clovis-
specimen landmarks to Cumberland-specimen
ones.
Alone, thin-plate splines merely depict
deformations necessary to translate one form to
another. But with larger samples (e.g., that include
many specimens from caches or single-occupation
sites), types can be defined rigorously in GM
landmark data and the transformation from one
to another can be summarized by the resulting
spline. In turn, splines can indicate which
landmarks and, by extension, which parts of
specimens, change in what degree and direction
with the transformation between types. In this way,
thin-plate splines not only illustrate transfor-
mations but help to suggest how and why they
occurred.
Evaluating GM Results
For a sample so small and opportunistic, our
results serve merely to demonstrate GM analysis.
Nor did we measure or control for different degrees
or pattern of resharpening among specimens,
which introduces a dimension of variation
independent of typology. By itself, therefore,
 Shott and Trail - Explorin~ New Approaches to Uthic Analysis: ...
2.00000
1.00000
• PAJ£\1
N
0 0.00000
A.
·1.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
-2.00000
·1.50000 ·1.00000
analysis amounts to little more than description of
differences among specimens. But larger,
systematic samples can be subdivided by type,
region or other criteria. After reduction allometry
is factored out (e.g., by confining analysis to haft-
area landmarks), mean landmark positions for each
subset represent its modal characteristics. GM
analysis, especially PCA and tps, then reveals
differences among the subsets, not in conventional
qualitative ways,but in much more detailed,
quantitative ways that embed geometric
information on size, shape and form. The challenge
then is to develop the theory to explain those
differences.
Other Options in GM Analysis
Besides the whole-object laser scanning that we
and others are undertaking, there are varieties of
contact digitizers. These instruments use a
swinging arm to mark x,y,z coordinates of
landmarks on fixed objects. They are used widely
in craniometric studies (e.g., Slice 2005b), but also
have been used by archaeologists. For instance,
Braun et al. (2009) precisely measured flake
platforms in three dimensions to improve
allometric estimates of original size of blanks.
213
•
•
~
•~
•13osmOMI
• Rf.'i.4SWCKI
.0.50000 0.00000 0.50000 1.00000 1.50000
PC 1
Figure 9. PC1 against PC2.
Clarkson et al (2006) measured number and
orientation of core facets. Lycett et al's (2006)
cross-beam coordinate caliper used a different
method to produce similar coordinate data.
Contact digitizers are useful tools. Yet they
produce only constellations of 3D landmark
coordinates, not whole-object models. Any
landmark position not measured is thus not
available in archived digitizer models. Except as
wire-frame approximations to complex whole
objects, neither are they suitable for CAD
applications that can, for instance, take sections of
points.
EVALUATING GM ANALYSIS
GM emerged in biology and related fields to
study whole-organism form free of the severe
constraints of orthogonal measurement. Its
development there no doubt was painstaking and
characterized by progressively improved
approximation to whole-organism form. Similarly,
non-orthogonal measurement in stone tools, a
precondition to the use of GM methods, developed
slowly over time. It can be traced back at least to
 214 Lithic Technology, volume 35, 2

•
• I

I ~
• •
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016

I•
•

• ~ I ••
I• ••
•
•

I
~ .
• I
I•

I
•
•
•• • • I

CLOVIS CUMBERLAND

Figure to. Thin-plate splines of Clovis and Cumberland specimens. The Clovis
specimen was used as the standard.
 Shott and Trajl - &plorin~ New Awoaches to Uthic Analysis: ...
Holmer's (1978) pioneering study, in which a small
number of landmark points characterized each
specimen's partial outline form. Later, whole
outlines were coded (e.g., Gero and Mazzullo 1984).
More recently, archaeologists have developed
detailed 2D landmark coding schemes (e.g.,
Buchanan 2006). Now 3D digital imaging and
landmark coding are possible. Progressively
through time, then, lithic analysts have used more
landmarks in more detailed coding schemes.
Yet GM improves upon orthogonal
measurement only by degree. Using landmark x,y,z
coordinates, it reduces object shape to the
simplified approximation of complex, irregular
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
wholes that are points. To develop further in lithic
studies, GM analysis must be combined with CAD
technology to record and analyze curves, angles and
areas. And of course, GM analysis is useless for
sourcing, for use-wear analysis, and for other
purposes.
But all analytical approaches have strengths and
weaknesses. Despite its natural limitations, GM
analysis is a powerful method both to characterize
form and to analyze changes in form with
progressive reduction or between types. And the
GM approach has other virtues that bear
consideration. Future applications of laser-
scanning technology and GM analysis are as easy
to imagine as they are difficult to number. Here
we emphasize merely two among them, of emerging
interest in our own research.
Theoretical Potential
One exciting prospect of GM analysis in
archaeology is the role it may play in historical
studies of point types. O'Brien and Lyman's (2003;
see also Beck and Jones 2007) cladistic study of
late Paleoindian-age lanceolate points was followed
quickly by other historical studies noted above.
Separately and as a group, these studies are
imperfect for methodological reasons (Curnoe
2003), but also because they do not sufficiently
control for allometric resharpening effects and
describe, but do not explain, historical trajectories
of change (e.g., Shott 2oo8a, 2009). Whatever
shortcomings historical studies possess are less
important than the valuable function they serve in
drawing archaeologists' attention to theoretical
questions about mode and tempo of change among
stone-tool types. Until now, such questions have
215
not been contemplated, let alone addressed.
Applied to this problem, GM makes its own
contribution to the essential tension between
theory and method noted above. Not intrinsically
historical in nature, GM is a set of methods that
accomplishes highly detailed characterization of
specimens while preserving the geometric
configuration of landmark points. This detailed
characterization alone makes it possible to
distinguish between types in finer degree than ever,
based on geometry, not just orthogonal dimen-
sions. Our ability to characterize tools in such detail
naturally begs questions not previously raised
about historical relationships and descent patterns
among types. Traditionally, archaeologists treat
point types as givens, as discrete entities. Detailed
characterization via GM can reveal patterns of
historical continuity and descent among successive
types that earlier studies suggested (e.g., Fischer
1989; Bradbury and Carr 2003; Shott 2003). We
lack only the theory by which to explain these
patterns of similarity expressed across time, and a
common coding scheme by which to characterize
successive types. Here is an example of method,
GM in this case, stimulating improvements in
existing theory or new theory itself.
The GM concept of theoretical morphospace
describes all conceivable combinations of variable
states or ranges of continuous variation in a class
of objects. Like most GM concepts, theoretical
morphospace arose in paleobiology, but applies
equally to formal stone tools like points as to
trilobites and whale skulls. In fact, one classic
exposition of it used triangular arrowpoints as its
example (McGhee 1999:19-20).
To document the range and direction of
evolutionary change, paleobiologists sometimes
measure how much of a theoretical morphospace
was filled over time, and its rate and direction of
filling. Positions or variants in morphospace differ
from neighbors in measurable degree and
direction. The rate at which morphospaces fill
reflects immanent tendencies to diversity, the
degree of evolutionary !ability or its opposite
(Bauhaus or other constraints), and the selective
factors driving the evolutionary trend. In the latter
sense, morphospaces are explanatory, not just
descriptive, because they focus attention on why
and how particular morphospace segments filled.
Morphologika PCA's ability to generate
 216
hypothetical landmark configurations helps to
visualize complete morphospaces, not just the
variants represented by empirical specimens or
types. MacLeod (2009) showed how placing
empirical subjects in their full morphospace
context aids explanation of variation in
evolutionary or other terms. They can do the same
in archaeological studies of morphospaces of stone-
tool types and trajectories of change in them
through time.
Documentary Potential
Although the greatest value of scanning tech-
nology is analytical, it has other uses as well.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
Scanning may prove an efficient way to document
and, in a sense, preserve the private artifact
collections that never will find their way into
museums (Shott 2oo8b). In the aggregate, these
collections are invaluable for the larger samples
and fuller documentation of the record that they
supply. Scanning is comparatively rapid and
accurate, as well as nondestructive, and portable
scanners like ours can go to the collections.
With scanning technology and software, we can
produce accurate, full-size digital models of the
artifacts housed in private collections. The digital
archives compiled from such efforts will have their
own intrinsic value by simple virtue of their
existence. But distributed on-line, they can
dramatically increase the effective sample size for
analyses stylistic, technological or typological
(Sumner and Riddle 2008). Long after collections
are lost, their constituent parts scattered, sold or
destroyed, archaeologists can continue to excavate
in digital archives. Depending upon the quality of
3D digital models and the availability of hardware
and software, it also may be possible to reverse-
engineer (recreate a physical replica in resin or
other composite material) scanned specimens. If
so, then even collections and specimens that are
lost after scanning can be, in a sense, reconstituted.
CONCLUSION
Traditional lithic analysis mostly concerns
technology, form and style. The more detailed
characterization of specimens available through
GM enables archaeologists to pose questions about
degree and pattern of historical relationship and
descent, about transmission modes and the role of
Lithic Technology, volume 35, 2
drift, about the complex patterns of allometric
variation that attend resharpening and reduction.
As much as anything, scanning technology and GM
methods provide the new data to test theory not
contemplated before.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Gilbert Tostevin, John Soderberg and Hayley
Jirasek of the University of Minnesota introduced
us to scanning technology. Marcelo Cardillo of the
University of Buenos Aires, Norman MacLeod of
the Natural History Museum of London, Paul
O'Higgins of Hull York Medical School, Erik
Otarola-Castillo of Iowa State University, and
David Wiley of Stratovan Corp. offered technical
advice on scanning or geometric morphometries.
Ronny Islam and Michael Kim of NextEngine
provided technical advice on the operation of
ScanStudio. Mark Seeman of Kent State University
graciously loaned us the fluted-point casts used in
this study. Three anonymous reviewers made
several useful comments. We are responsible for
any errors or omissions.
REFERENCES CITED
Archer, Will, and David R. Braun
2010 Variability in Bifacial Technology at
Elandsfontein, Western Cape, South
Africa: a Geometric Morphometric
Approach. Jountal of Archaeolo-
gical Science 37:201-209.
Beck, Charlotte, and George T. Jones
2007 Early Paleoarchaic Point Morphology
and Chronology. In Paleoindian or
Paleoarchaic? Great Basin Human
Ecology at the PleistocenefHolo-
cene Transition, edited by K. Graf and
D. Schmitt, pp. 23-41. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Bookstein, Fred L.
1991 Morphometric Toolsfor Landmark
Data. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
1997 Landmark Methods for Forms without
Landmarks: Morphometries of Group
Differences in Outline Shape. Medical
Image Analysis 1:225-243.
Bradbury, Andrew P., and Philip J. Carr
2003 A Method for Quantifying Size and Shape
 Shott and Trail- Explorin~ New Ap_proaches to Uthic Analysis: ...
Dimensions of North American Hafted
Bifaces. In Lithic Analysis at the
Millennium, edited by N.Moloney and
M.Shott, pp. 173-188. Institute of
Archaeology Press, London.
Braun, David R., Michael J. Rogers, J.W. Harris,
and S.J. Walker
2009 Quantifying Variation in Landscape-
Scale Behaviors: the Oldowan from Koobi
Fora. Unpublished ms. on file, Dept. of
Archaeology, University of Cape Town,
Cape Town, South Africa.
Buchanan, Briggs
2006 An Analysis of Folsom Projectile Point
Resharpening Using Quantitative
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
Comparisons of Form and Allometry.
Journal ofArchaeological Science
33:185-199-
Buchanan, Briggs, and Mark Collard
2007 Investigating the Peopling of North
America through Cladistic Analysis of
Early Paleoindian Projectile Points.
Journal of Anthropological Arch-
aeology 26:366-393.
Buchanan, Briggs, and Marcus J. Hamilton
2009 A Formal Test of the Origins ofVariation
in North American Early Paleoindian
Projectile Points. American Antiquity
74:279-298.
Burnett, Paul, and Erik Otarola-Castillo
2008 Knapping on an Idea: Experimental and
Archaeological Projectile Point Morpho-
logical Variability using Geometric
Morphometries. Paper presented at the
73rd Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Vancouver.
Cardillo, Marcelo
2006 Temporal Trends in the Morphometric
Variation of the Lithic Projectile Points
during the Middle Holocene of Southern
Andes (Puna Region): a Coevolutionary
Approach. Ms. on file, Depto. De
Investigaciones Prehist6ricas y Arqueo-
l6gicas (DIPA-IMHICIHU), CONICET,
Buenos Aires.
CastiHeira, C., M. Cardillo, J. Charlin, J.C.
Fernicola, and J. Baeza
2007 Analisis Morfometrico de Ios Cabezales
Lfticos 'Cola de Pescado' del Uruguay. In
Arqueometrfa, Segundo Congreso
Argenti'no, pp. 1-7. Comisi6n Nacional
de Energia At6mica, Buenos Aires.
217
Clarkson, Chris, Lucio Viniciu, and Marta Miraz6n
Lahr
2006 Quantifying Flake Scar Patterning on
Cores Using 3D Recording Techniques.
Journal ofArchaeological Science
33:132-142.
Crompton, Shirley
2007 3D Lithic Analysis.
http:// epubs.stfc ac ukfhitmeam/1752/
CMo7Crompton t.doc
Accessed 14 May 2009.
Curnoe, D.
2003 Problems with the Use of Cladistic
Analysis in Palaeoanthropology. Homo
53:225-234·
Dildine, James P.
1999 Triangle Explorations.
http://mste.illinojs.edu/dildine,/beron/
triarea.btml.
Accessed 26 March 2010.
Eren, Metin 1., and Mary E. Prendergast
2008 Comparing and Synthesizing Unifacial
Stone Tool Reduction Indices. In Lithic
Technology: Measures of Produc-
tion, Use, and Curation, edited by
W.Andrefsky, pp. 49-85. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Fischer, Anders
1989 Hunting with Flint-Tipped Arrows:
Results and Experiences from Practical
Experiments. In The Mesolithic in
Europe, edited by C.Bonsall, pp. 29-39.
John Donald, Edinburgh.
Gero, Joan, and Jim Mazzullo
1984 Analysis of Artifact Shape Using Fourier
Series in Closed Form. Journal ofField
Archaeology 11 :315-322.
Grosman, Leore, Oded Smikt, and Uzy Smilansky
2008 On the Application of 3-D Scanning
Technology for the Documentation and
Typology of Lithic Artifacts. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35:3101-
3110.
Gunz, Philippe, Philippe Mitteroecker, and Fred L.
Bookstein
2005 Semilandmarks in Three Dimensions. In
Modern Morphometries in Phys-
ical Anthropology, edited by D.Slice,
pp. 73-98. Kluwer, New York.
Henton, Gregory H,. and Stephen R. Durand
1991 Projectile Point Measurement and
Classification Using Digital Image
 218
Processing. Journal of Quantitative
Anthropology 3:53-82.
Hoffman, C. Marshal!
1985 Projectile Point Manintenance and
Typology: Assessment with Factor
Analysis and Canonical Correlation. In
For Concordance in Archaeolo-
gical Analysis: Bridging Data
Structure, Quantitative Tech-
nique, and Theory, edited by C. Carr,
pp. 566-612. Westport Publishers,
Kansas City.
Holmer, Richard N.
1978 A Mathematical Typology for
Archaic Projectile Points of the
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
Eastern Great Basin. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Utah. Salt
Lake City, UT.
Hughes, Susan S.
1998 Getting to the Point: Evolutionary
Change in Prehistoric Weaponry.
Journal ofArchaeological Method
and Theory 5:345-408.
Hunzicker, David A.
2008 Folsom Projectile Technology: an
Experiment in Design, Effectiveness and
Efficiency. Plains Anthropologist
53:291-311.
Iovita, Radu
2009 Ontogenetic Scaling and Lithic
Systematics: Method and Application.
Journal ofArchaeological Science
36:1447-1457·
Lin, Sam C., Matthew J. Douglass, Simon J.
Holdaway, and Bruce Floyd
2010 The Application of 3D Laser Scanning
Technology to the Assessment of Ordinal
and Mechanical Cortex Quantification in
Lithic Analysis. Journal ofArchaeo-
logical Science 37:694-702.
Lycett, Stephen J.
2009 Quantifying Transitions:. Morphometric
Approaches to Palaeolithic Variability
and Technological Change. In Source-
book of Palaeolithic Transitions,
edited by M. Camps and P. Chauhan, pp.
79-92. Springer Science, London.
Lycett, Stephen J., N. von Cramon-Taubadel, and
R.Foley
2006 A Crossbeam Coordinate Caliper for the
Morphometric Analysis of Lithic Nuclei:
Lithic Technology, volume 35, 2
A Description, Test and Empirical
Examples of Application. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33:847-861.
MacLeod, Norman
1999 Generalizing and Extending the
Eigenshape Method of Shape Space
Visualization and Analysis. Paleo-
biology 25:107-138.
2008 Understanding Morphology in
Systematic Contexts: 3D Specimen
Ordination and 3D Specimen
Recognition. In The New Taxonomy,
edited by Q. Wheeler, pp. 143-210. CRC
Press, London.
2009 PalaeoMath 101: Form and Shape
Models.
http://www palass.org/
modules.php?name-palaeo math&page-1,
The Palaeontological Association,
London. Accessed 5 December, 2009.
McGhee, George R.
1999 Theoretical Morphology: the
Concept and Its Applications.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Mitteroecker, Phillippe, and Fred Bookstein
2008 The Evolutionary Role ofModularity and
Integration in the Hominoid Cranium.
Evolution 62:943-958.
Moncel, Marie-Helene, Maria Gema Chac6n, Aude
Coudenneau, and Paul Fernandes
2009 Points and Convergent Tools in the
European Early Middle Palaeolithic Site
of Payre (SE, France). Journal of
Archaeological Science 36:1892-
1909.
Morrow, Juliet, and T. Morrow
1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile
Points: a Hemispheric Perspective.
American Antiquity 64: 215-230.
Niewoehner, Wesley A.
2005 A Geometric Morphometric Analysis of
Late Pleistocene Human Metacarpal 1
Base Shape. In Modern Morpho-
metries in Physical Anthropology,
edited by D.Slice, pp. 285-298. Kluwer,
New York.
O'Brien, Michael J ., and R. Lee Lyman
2003 Cladistics and Archaeology.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
O'Higgins, Paul, and Nicholas Jones
1998 Facial Growth in Cerocebus torquatus:
an Application of Three Dimensional
 Shott and Trail - E!vJorine New Approaches to Uthlc Analysis: ... 219

Morphometric Techniques to the Study 2009 Theory in Archaeology: Morphometric

of Morphological Variation. Journal of
Anatomy 193:251-272.
2006 Tools for Statistical Shape Analysis. Hull
York Medical School,
http:/ fhyms.fme.googlepages.comf
resources.
Accessed 13 October 2009.
Renfrew, C.
1973 Before Civz1ization: the Radiocarbon
Revolution and Prehistoric Europe.
Knopf, New York.
Riel-Salvatore, Julien, Myungsoo Bae, Peter
McCartney, and Anshuman Razdan
. 2003 Palaeolithic Archaeology and 3D
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016
Approaches to the Study of Fluted Points.
Paper presented at the 74th meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology.
Atlanta.
Shott, Michael J., David A. Hunzicker, and Bob
Patten
2007 Pattern and Allometric Measurement of
Reduction in Experimental Folsom
Bifaces. Lithic Technology 32(2):203-
217.
Slice, Dennis E.,
2oosa Modern Morphometries. In Modern
Morphometries in Physical Anth-
ropology, edited by D.Slice, pp. 1-45.

Visualization Technology: Recent Kluwer, New York.

Developments. Antiquity 76:929-930. 2005b (editor) Modern Morphometries in
Shea, John J. Physical Anthropology. Kluwer,
2005 The Origins of Lithic Projectile Point New York.
Technology: Evidence from Africa, the Smith, Nicholas E., and Suzanne G. Strait
Levant, and Europe. Journal of 2008 PaleoView3D: From Specimen to Online
Archaeological Science 33:823-846. Digital Model. Palaeontologia
Shott, Michael J. Electronica 11(2),
2003 Time as Sequence, Type as Ideal: Whole- http:ffpalaeo-electronica.org/2008 2/
Object Measurement of Biface Size and 134/indexjhtmJ.
Form in Midwestern North America. In Accessed 17 December 2009.
Multiple Approaches to the ·Study Sumner, T. Alexandra, and Andrew T. Riddle
ofBifacial Technology, edited by M. 2008 A Virtual Paleolithic: Assays in Photo-
Soressi and H.Dibble, pp. 251-271. grammetric Three-Dimensional Artifact
University of Pennsylvania Museum Modelling. PaleoAnthropology 2008:
Press, Philadelphia. 158-169.
2005 The Reduction Thesis and Its Thulman, David .K.
Discontents: Review of Australian 2006 A Reconstruction of Paleoindian
Approaches. In Lithics "Down Social Organization in North
Under:" Australian Perspectives Central Florida. Unpublished Ph.D.
on Lithic Reduction, Use and dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology,
Classification, edited by C.Clarkson Florida State University, Tallahassee.
and L.Lamb, pp. 109-125. British Tompkins, Charles N.
Archaeological Reports International 1993 Classifying Clovis Points: a Study
Monograph Series 1408, Archaeopress, in Metric Variability. Unpublished
Oxford. MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology,
2008a Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and University of Arizona, Tucson.
Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Trans- von Cramon-Taubadel, Noreen, Brenda C. Frazier,
mission and Archaeology: Issues and Marta Miraz6n Lahr
and Case Studies, edited by 2007 The Problem of Assessing Landmark
M.O'Brien, pp. 146-157. Society for Error in Geometric Morphometries:
American Archaeology Press, Wash- Theory, Methods, and Modifications.
ington, D.C. American Journal of Physical
2008b equal o nil rootht w ded I e vsbr cted: A Anthropology 134:24-35.
Proposal for Conservation of Private Wynn, Thomas and F. Tierson
Collections in American Archaeology. 1990 Regional Comparison of the Shapes of
SAA Archaeological Record 8(2): Later Acheulian Handaxes. American
30-35· Anthropologist 92:73-84.
 220 lithic Technology, volume 35, 2
Zelditch, Miriam L., Donald L. Swiderski, H. David
Sheets and William L. Fink
2004 Geometric Morphometries/or Bio-
logists: a Primer. Elsevier, San Diego.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:19 13 June 2016