The clear and accurate graphic representation of lithic artefacts is an essential complement to their description and analysis in archaeological literature. In this study by Looten and colleagues (2025), Reflectance Transformation Imagery (RTI) is presented as an effective method for moving beyond the depiction of small numbers of selected artefacts, opening up the possibility of quickly and effectively documenting larger assemblage samples. RTI is a photographic method that highlights the relief of scars and ridges on flaked stone artefacts, presenting a highly readable representation of past lithic technology.

Since its nineteenth-century beginnings, an important aspect of lithic illustration has been depicting the depth and direction of flake scars, allowing the visual interpretation of technological features. Technical drawings remain widely used in publications, but are increasingly supplemented, or replaced, by photography and novel digital imaging techniques. All of these methods come with advantages and limitations, in terms of time, cost, and fidelity. There have been various studies that test and compare imaging methods (e.g. Magnani 2014; Barone et al. 2018; Di Maida et al. 2023), but RTI is rarely included, and there are no specific case studies for lithics (Mathys et al. 2013; Porter et al. 2016a).

Looten et al. review and compare the efficacy of different forms of lithic representation, taking a highly practical perspective on their ease of implementation. This is a refreshing approach, discussing technical issues that many lithic analysts (who are often not imaging specialists) may not consider – such as challenges related to lighting, focus and distortion in artefact photography. Three-dimensional models, created through photogrammetry or 3D scanning, provide an interactive medium for readers to examine artefacts presented in studies, but large file sizes, time-consuming processing and costly equipment mean that – like drawings – often only selected pieces are included. Given the growing concern in lithic studies for reducing subjective bias in analysis by providing replicable data and protocols (e.g. Porter et al. 2016b; Cerasoni 2021; Cerasoni et al. 2022; Grosman et al. 2022; Timbrell 2022; Pargeter et al. 2023; Robitaille 2025), there is an open niche for a technique that lies between 2D and 3D imaging.

RTI is described as a “2.5D” technique that is already applied in archaeology, and lithic studies in particular (Pawlowicz 2015; Fiorini 2018; Robitaille 2025). The enhanced dimension comes from capturing the surface topography of the object, allowing the artificial manipulation of shading and lighting to highlight features. Created using a digital camera and reflective spheres, the set-up is low-cost and fast to implement, with a clear and user-friendly workflow presented by Looten et al. Detailed RTI protocols suitable for archaeologists are available elsewhere (e.g. Mudge et al. 2010; Cultural Heritage Imaging 2018; Robitaille 2025), but Looten et al. provide both a method, and a context for its application in lithic studies. As well as a step-by-step guide to implementation (including a breakdown of the time each step takes), the paper contains many comparative images of the same artefacts using different visualisation conditions, providing technical specifications and clearly illustrating the differences achieved by changing certain parameters. Additionally, the raw images are available for readers to replicate the study and experiment with for themselves.

Both as a ‘sales pitch’ for the benefits of using RTI in lithic studies, and a ‘how to’ guide, this paper is an important contribution to the field. All researchers are faced with making decisions about the suitability and feasibility of different imaging techniques to support their work, particularly given the rise of 3D modelling and the demand for open, digital archives. However, RTI – a technique that many researchers may not be aware of – is clearly presented as a viable option for capturing technological details of lithic artefacts with high fidelity and interactive potential. This work is a key step in encouraging the wider uptake of the method as an alternative, or complement, to drawings, photographs and 3D models.

References

Barone, S., Neri, P., Paoli, A. & Razionale, A.V. (2018) Automatic technical documentation of lithic artefacts by digital techniques. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 11, e00087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2018.e00087

Duffy, S. M., Kennedy, H., Goskar, T. & Backhouse, P. (2018) Multi-light Imaging: Highlight-Reflectance Transformation Imaging (H-RTI) for Cultural Heritage. Historic England, Swindon. https://doi.org/10.5284/1110911

Cerasoni, J. N. (2021) Vectorial application for the illustration of archaeological lithic artefacts using the “Stone Tools Illustrations with Vector Art” (STIVA) Method. PLoS ONE, 16(5), e0251466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251466

Cerasoni, J. N., do Nascimento Rodrigues, F., Tang, Y. & Hallett, E. Y. (2022) Do-It-Yourself digital archaeology: Introduction and practical applications of photography and photogrammetry for the 2D and 3D representation of small objects and artefacts. PLoS ONE, 17(4), e0267168. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267168

Di Maida, G., Hattermann, M. & Delpiano, D. (2023). 3D models of lithic artefacts: a test on their efficacy. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 30, e00279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2023.e00279

Fiorini, A. (2018) Il metodo fotografico RTI (Reflectance Transformation Imaging) per la documentazione delle superfici archeologiche: L’applicazione ai materiali di età protostorica. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 29, 241–258. https://doi.org/10.19282/ac.29.2018.20

Grosman, L., Muller, A., Dag, I., Goldgeier, H., Harush, O., Herzlinger, G., Nebenhaus, K., Valetta, F., Yashuv, T. & Dick, N. (2022). Artifact3-D: New software for accurate, objective and efficient 3D analysis and documentation of archaeological artifacts. PLoS ONE, 17(6), e0268401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268401

Looten, J., Gravina, B., Muth, X., Villaeys, M. & Bordes, J.-G. (2025) Towards a more robust representation of lithic industries in archaeology: a critical review of traditional approaches and modern techniques. Zenodo, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15411

Magnani, M. (2014). Three-dimensional alternatives to lithic illustration. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 2(4), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.2.4.285

Mathys, A., Brecko, J. & Semal, P. (2013) Comparing 3D digitizing technologies: What are the differences? In: Digital Heritage International Congress, Marseille, France, 2013, pp. 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6743733

Mudge, M., Schroer, C., Earl, G., Martinez, K., Pagi, H., Toler-Franklin, C., Rusinkiewicz, S., Palma, G., Wachowiak, M., Ashley, M., Matthews, N., Noble, T. & Dellepiane, M. (2010). Principles and practices of robust, photography-based digital imaging techniques for museums. In: A. Artusi, M. Joly-Parvex,G. Lucet, A. Ribes & D. Pitzalis (Eds.), The 11th International Symposium on Virtual reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage VAST, pp. 111–137. https://doi.org/10.2312/PE/VAST/VAST10S/111-137

Pargeter, J., Brooks, A., Douze, K., Eren, M., Groucutt, H. S., McNeil, J., Mackay, A., Ranhorn, K., Scerri, E., Shaw, M., Tryon, C., Will, M. & Leplongeon, A. (2023). Replicability in lithic analysis. American Antiquity, 88(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2023.4

Pawlowic, D. (2015). Reflectance Transformation Imaging for Lithics. https://rtimage.us/ consulted on 09/05/2025.

Porter, S. T., Huber, N., Hoyer, C. & Floss, H. (2016a). Portable and low-cost solutions to the imaging of Paleolithic art objects: a comparison of photogrammetry and reflectance transformation imaging. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 10, 859–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.07.013

Porter, S. T., Roussel, M. & Soressi, M. (2016b). A simple photogrammetry rig for the reliable creation of 3D artifact models in the field. Lithic examples from the Early Upper Paleolithic sequence of Les Cottés (France). Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.4.1.1

Robitaille, J. (2025). Reflectance Transformation Imaging at a microscopic level: a new device and method for collaborative research on artifact use-wear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 61, 104914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104914

Timbrell, L. (2022). A collaborative model for lithic shape digitization in museum settings. Lithic Technology, 48(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2022.2092299

The integration of 3D modeling technologies in Australian universities is transforming the study and preservation of cultural heritage, providing innovative ways to enhance educational outcomes and accessibility. This article by Keep et al. meticulously explores how these digital tools are being adopted across various institutions to support object-based learning (OBL) and research.

This paper delves into the significant rise of 3D digitization in cultural heritage, driven by the increasing availability of advanced, user-friendly technology. By examining the methodologies employed by major Australian universities, the authors present compelling evidence of how 3D models serve not just as substitutes for physical artifacts but as enhanced digital surrogates that offer new insights and educational opportunities. For instance, the University of Sydney and the University of Melbourne showcase projects where digital models allow for detailed examination of artifacts beyond what is possible in physical settings, demonstrating the practical benefits and pedagogical impacts of 3D modeling.

However, the article also highlights substantial challenges, including the lack of standardized practices and sustainable funding, which could impede the full potential of these digital surrogates. The variability in digitization and metadata practices among institutions suggests a pressing need for standardized protocols to ensure compatibility and maximize the utility of 3D models in academic and research settings.

One of the most compelling aspects of this study is its discussion on the future of digital methodologies in heritage studies. The authors advocate for strategic, long-term collaboration to address these challenges, suggesting that without a concerted effort to regulate and standardize 3D modeling practices, the benefits of these technologies might not be fully realized. They call for a symposium similar to the London Charter, aiming to establish guidelines that could shepherd the growth and integration of 3D technologies in cultural heritage studies.

This recommendation for Keep et al.’s article is based on its insightful analysis and its potential to serve as a blueprint for other institutions looking to incorporate 3D modeling into their curricula. The detailed case studies and critical perspectives on standardization and sustainability provide a crucial viewpoint for future developments in this field. The article not only underscores the successes of digital surrogates in educational contexts but also addresses the limitations and challenges, paving the way for enriched academic discourse and practical applications in cultural heritage studies.

References

Thomas J. Keep, Madeline M. G. Robinson, Jackson Shoobert, Jessie Birkett-Rees (2025) An Australian Overview: The Creation and Use of 3D Models in Australian Universities. Zenodo, ver.2 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13864694

Votive deposits and hoarding practices are of significance to archaeological research. They can provide insights to the economic and functional aspects but also to less mundane, ritual and symbolic behaviors of past societies. Prehistoric and historic examples are documented in various European regions (e.g., [1, 2]) but Neolithic hoards are generally not among the most frequently found and studied. Attempts to characterize these materials often focus on more traditional archaeology-related discourses, such as raw-material and typo-technological analysis, deposition practices and context-based interpretations. Alternative complementary analytical approaches remain less common in non-metallic hoards despite their informative potential. This scenario is quickly changing due to developments and application of functional studies and the broad field of archaeometry. Combining these approaches with contextual data offers a promising avenue for further research and interpretation.
Tomaso and colleagues [3] present an example of a Middle Neolithic radiocarbon-dated pit from the Beringen Brouweshuis site (Belgium) that was subject to archaeological excavations as part of a developer-funded programme [4]. A sample of flint polished axes, endscrapers and other smaller tool fragments recovered in the mentioned negative feature were selected for an initial residue and use-wear analysis. The materials were subject to a rapid burial and, although unclear if intentional and controlled or incidental, the majority of artifacts were damaged due to exposure to fire. On the one hand, macroscopic and microscopic traces of use-wear and hafting are scarce on the axes - of interest is the identification of an axe used as strike-a-light and the presence of iron-oxide that could relate to pedogenesis or ochre depositions. On the other hand, the scrapers are better-preserved, less impacted by heat, and show evidence of hide and plant processing, hafting and resharpening.
The case-study is discussed within the scope of a biographical approach [5] to the materials under analysis. Context, methods and interpretation limitations are clearly acknowledged by the authors. In sum, this paper presents interesting results on the first excavated Michelsberg culture axe hoard in Belgium. It contributes to the corpus of information on the relevance of fire (and possibly ochre) specifically in these deposits and more broadly to other past populations ritual and symbolic behaviors (e.g., [6, 7]). At the same time, it is an interesting addition to supra-regional discussions on how prehistoric daily objects can gain new meanings – a resignification – by being included on hoarding practices. The fact that other steps could have been part of this process, namely fire and eventually ochre, showcases the complexity and entanglements that these artifacts and deposits might have had during their lifecycle. 
 
References
[1] Naylor, J, Bland, R (2015) Hoarding and the Deposition of Metalwork from the Bronze Age to the 20th Century: A British Perspective. BAR British Series 615. Oxford: BAR Publishing.
[2] Bradley, R (2017) A Geography of Offerings. Deposits of Valuables in the Landscapes of Ancient Europe. Oxbow Insights in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
[3] Tomasso, J, Cnuts, D, Geerts, F, Vanmontfort, B, Roots, V (2025) From polishing to burning: deciphering a Middle Neolithic hoard from Beringen Brouwershuis (Belgium) through functional analysis. OSF preprints, ver. 2 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4yqch_v2
[4] Geerts, F, Claesen, J, Van Genechten, B, Bouckaert K (2021) De inhoud van een gereedschapskist? Een midden-neolithische depotvondst te Koersel, (Beringen, prov. Limburg, BE). Notae Praehistoricae 41: 147-158. 
[5] van Gijn, A (2010) Flint in focus: Lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden: Sidestone Press.
[6] Larsson, L (2000) The passage of axes: fire transformation of flint objects in the Neolithic of southern Sweden. Antiquity 74(285): 602-610. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00059962
[7] Larsson, L (2011) Water and fire as transformation elements in ritual deposits of the Scandinavian Neolithic. Documenta Praehistorica 38: 69-82. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.6

It might seem complex to connect archaeological artefacts with modern considerations. Indeed, nowadays, museum visitors project their own expectations and cultural habits on ancient society objects. The spatial perceptions of the objects therefore an anthropological  and psycological subject (Bruner, 2023).

Fujita and its colleagues present in this paper an innovative approach to pottery ethical perception with a Quantitative Sensory Impression Factor Structure and Semantic Differential Method. After digitalising the potteries into a 3D model, the authors are testing participant perception of the virtual potteries via an augmented reality lens. The survey results were computed into factor analysis, highlighting the predominance of one or several adjectives for describing specific pottery typologies.

Overall, this paper contributes to analysing human abstraction over objects with an innovative approach to the Semantic Differential Method (Osgood et al., 1957).

Museography adaptations of these observations would undoubtedly help create more interactive exhibitions and an embedded environment where visitors are not only the subject of the visit but truly actors of the scientific construction by helping understand human behaviour on cultural objects.

References

Haruhiro Fujita, Toru Miyao, Hironori Imai, Hiroyuki Sasaki, Yew Kwang Hooi and Simon Kaner (2025) Analysis of Sensory Impression Factor Structures of Jomon Potteries through a Semantic Differential Method Viewing 3D Models on MR equipment. Zenodo, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14788676

E. Bruner (2023). Cognitive Archaeology, Body Cognition, and the Evolution of Visuospatial Perception. Elsevier Science & Technology, San Diego, United States

Charles E. Osgood, George J. Succi and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957). The measurement of meaning, Urbana, vol. IL, University of Illinois Press.

“On the Physics and Metaphysics of Classification in Archaeology” by M. Okumura and A.G.M. Araujo (1) is a welcome contribution to our upcoming edited volume on type-thinking and the uses and misuses of archaeological typologies. Questions of type-delineation and classification of archaeological materials have recently re-emerged as key arenas of scholarly attention and interrogation (2–4), as many researchers have turned to a matured field of cultural evolutionary studies (5–7) and as fine-grained archaeological data and novel computational-quantitative methods have becomes increasingly available in recent years (8, 9). Re-assessing the utility and significance of traditional archaeological types has also become pertinent as macro-scale approaches to the past have grown progressive to the centre of the discipline (10, 11), promising not only to ‘re-do’ typology ‘from the ground up’, but also to put types and typological systems to novel and powerful use, and in the process illuminate the many understudied large-scale dynamics of human cultural evolution which are so critical to understanding our species’ venture on this planet. As such, the promise is colossal yet it requires a solid analytical base, as many have insisted (e.g., 12). Types are often identified as such foundational analytical units, and much therefore hinges on the robust identification and differentiation of types within the archaeological record. Typo-praxis – the practice of delineating and constructing types and to harness them to learn about the archaeological record – is therefore also increasingly seen as a key ingredient of what Hussain and Soressi (13) have dubbed the ‘basic science’ claim of lithic research within human origins or broader (deep-time) evolutionary studies.

The stakes are accordingly incredibly high, yet as Okumura and Araujo point out there is still no need to ‘re-invent the wheel’ as there is a rich literature on classification and systematics in the biological sciences, from which archaeologists can draw and benefit. Some of this literature was indeed already referenced by some archaeologists between the 1960s and early 2000s when first attempts were undertaken to integrate Darwinian evolutionary theory into processual archaeological practice (14, 15). It may be argued that much of this literature and its insights – including its many conceptual and terminological clarifications – have been forgotten or sidelined in archaeology primarily because the field has witnessed a pronounced ‘cultural turn’ beginning in the early 2000s, with even processualists expanding their research portfolio to include what was previously considered post-processual terrain (16, 17). Michelle Hegmon’s (16) ‘processualism plus’ was perhaps the most emphatic expression of this trajectory within the influential Anglo-American segments of the profession. Okumura and Araujo are therefore to be applauded for their attempt to draw attention again to this literature in an effort to re-activate it for contemporary research efforts at the intersection of cultural evolutionary and computational archaeology. Decisions need to be made on the way, of course, and the authors defend a theory-guided (and largely theory-driven) approach, for example insisting on the importance of understanding the metaphysical status of types as arbitrary kinds. Their chapter is hence also a contribution (some may say intervention) to the long-standing tension between the tyranny of data vs. the tyranny of theory in type-construction. They clearly take side with those who argue that typo-praxis cannot evade its metaphysical nature – i.e., it will always be concerned (to some extent at least) with uncovering basic metaphysical principles of the world, even if the link between types and world is not understood as a simple mapping function. Carving the investigated archaeological realities ‘at their joints’ remains an overarching ambition from this perspective. Following Okumura and Araujo, archaeologists interested in these matters therefore cannot avoid to become part-time metaphysicians.

Okumura and Araujo’s contribution is timely and it brings key issues of debate to archaeological attention, and many of these issues tellingly overlap substantially with foundational debates in the philosophy of science (e.g. monism vs. pluralism, essentialism vs. functionalism, and so forth). Their chapter also showcases how critical (both in an enabling and limiting way) biological metaphors such as ‘species’ are (see esp. the discussion of ‘species as sets’ vs. ‘species as individuals’) for their and cognate projects. Whether such metaphors are justified in the context of human action is a longstanding point of contention, and other archaeologies – for example those with decidedly relational, ontological, and post-humanist aspirations – have developed very different optics (see e.g. 18, esp. Chapter 6). This being said, Okumura and Araujo’s contribution will be essential for those interested in (re-)learning about the ‘physics and metaphysics’ of archaeological classification and their chapter will be an excellent place to start with such engagement.

References

1. M. Okumura and A. G. M. Araujo (2024) The Physics and Metaphysics of Classification in Archaeology. Zenodo, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7515797

2. F. Riede (2017) “The ‘Bromme problem’ – notes on understanding the Federmessergruppen and Bromme culture occupation in southern Scandinavia during the Allerød and early Younger Dryas chronozones” in Problems in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research, pp. 61–85.

3. N. Reynolds and F. Riede (2019) House of cards: cultural taxonomy and the study of the European Upper Palaeolithic. Antiquity 93, 1350–1358. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.49 

4. R. L. Lyman  (2021) On the Importance of Systematics to Archaeological Research: the Covariation of Typological Diversity and Morphological Disparity. J Paleo Arch 4, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-021-00077-6

5.  A. Mesoudi (2011) Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences, University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226520452

6. N. Creanza, O. Kolodny and M. W. Feldman (2017) Cultural evolutionary theory: How culture evolves and why it matters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 7782–7789. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620732114

7. R. Boyd and P. J. Richerson (2024) Cultural evolution: Where we have been and where we are going (maybe). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2322879121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322879121

8. F. Riede, D. N. Matzig, M. Biard, P. Crombé, J. F.-L. de Pablo, F. Fontana, D. Groß, T. Hess, M. Langlais, L. Mevel, W. Mills, M. Moník, N. Naudinot, C. Posch, T. Rimkus, D. Stefański, H. Vandendriessche and S. T. Hussain (2024) A quantitative analysis of Final Palaeolithic/earliest Mesolithic cultural taxonomy and evolution in Europe. PLOS ONE 19, e0299512, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299512

9. L. Fogarty, A. Kandler, N. Creanza and M. W. Feldman (2024) Half a century of quantitative cultural evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2418106121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2418106121

10. A. M. Prentiss, M. J. Walsh, E. Gjesfjeld, M. Denis and T. A. Foor (2022) Cultural macroevolution in the middle to late Holocene Arctic of east Siberia and north America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 65, 101388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101388

11. C. Perreault (2023) Guest Editorial. Antiquity 97, 1369–1380.

12. F. Riede, C. Hoggard and S. Shennan (2019) Reconciling material cultures in archaeology with genetic data requires robust cultural evolutionary taxonomies. Palgrave Commun 5, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0260-7

13. S. T. Hussain and M. Soressi (2021) The Technological Condition of Human Evolution: Lithic Studies as Basic Science. J Paleo Arch 4, 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-021-00098-1

14. R. C. Dunnell (1978) Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43, 192–202.

15. R. C. Dunnell (2002) Systematics in Prehistory, Illustrated Edition, The Blackburn Press.

16. M. Hegmon (2003) Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68, 213–243. https://doi.org/10.2307/3557078

17. R. Torrence (2001) “Hunter-gatherer technology: macro- and microscale approaches” in Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Cambridge University Press.

18. C. N. Cipolla, R. Crellin and O. J. T. Harris (2024) Archaeology for today and tomorrow, Routledge.