Journal.pone.0309611

PLOS ONE
LAB PROTOCOL
Virtual reconstruction of stone tool refittings

by using 3D modelling and the Blender
Engine: The application of the “ReViBE”
protocol to the archaeological record
Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez ID1,2*, Katia Calmet1, Jorge Martı́nez Moreno1, Xavier
Roda Gilabert ID1,3*
1 Centre d’Estudis del Patrimoni Arqueològic de la Prehistòria (CEPAP-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de

a1111111111 Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 2 Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and the Evolution of Human
a1111111111 Behaviour (ICArEHB), Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal, 3 Departament d’Humanitats, CASEs -
a1111111111 Culture, Archaeology, and Socio-Ecological Dynamics Group, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
a1111111111
* Javier.Sanchez.Martinez@uab.cat (JS-M); Javier.Roda@uab.cat (XRG)
a1111111111
Abstract
OPEN ACCESS Visual representation of material culture plays a crucial role in prehistoric archaeology, from
Citation: Sánchez-Martı́nez J, Calmet K, Martı́nez
academic research to public outreach and communication. Scientific illustration is a valuable
Moreno J, Gilabert XR (2024) Virtual tool for visualising lithic artefacts and refittings, where technical attributes must be drawn to
reconstruction of stone tool refittings by using 3D enhance our understanding of their significance. However, the representation of lithic refit-
modelling and the Blender Engine: The application
tings, which involve dynamic and sequential transformations of a volume, requires an alter-
of the “ReViBE” protocol to the archaeological
record. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0309611. https://doi. native approach to traditional two-dimensional models such as photography or illustration.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 Advances in imaging technologies have improved our ability to capture and communicate
Editor: Marco Peresani, Universita degli Studi di the multifaceted nature of archaeological artefacts. In this context, we present the ReViBE
Ferrara, ITALY protocol (Refitting Visualisation using Blender Engine), which integrates photogrammetry,
Received: January 25, 2024 3D modelling and the animation software Blender© for the virtual representation of lithic
refittings. This protocol allows the sequential study of core reduction phases and their asso-
Accepted: August 10, 2024
ciated flakes, as well as other aspects related to knapping decision making (core rotations,
Published: August 29, 2024
surface modifications, and direction and position of impact points). Thus, this method allows
Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all the visualisation of techno-cognitive aspects involved in core reduction through a step-by-
copyright, and may be freely reproduced,
step animation process. In addition, the 3D models and virtual reconstructions generated by
distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or
otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. ReViBE can be accessed through open repositories, in line with the principles of open sci-
The work is made available under the Creative ence and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data. This accessibility
Commons CC0 public domain dedication. ensures that data on lithic technology and human behaviour are widely available, promoting
Data Availability Statement: All the raw data transparency and knowledge sharing, and enabling remote lithic analysis. This in turn
needed to replicate this protocol has been breaks down geographical barriers and encourages scientific collaboration.
uploaded in the Research Data Repository (CORA)
(https://doi.org/10.34810/data924), including the
pictures taken and used on this protocol (.jpg), the
three dimensional model of each refitted artefact (. 1. Introduction
mtl and .obj), an interactive 3D model of the refitted
sequence (3D.pdf) the flowchart of the refitted
Stone tools have a wide geographical and chronological distribution and are of considerable
sequence, the table with technical attributes [92]. A cultural value in the archaeological record. They serve as valuable references for understanding
step-by-step explanatory video of this protocol is the evolutionary history of hominins [1–3] and variations in past human behaviour [4–6].
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 1 / 19

PLOS ONE Virtual reconstruction of stone tool refittings by using 3D modelling and the Blender Engine
available in the digital deposit of documents of Uncovering evidence of past human activity, in which stone tools play a critical role [7, 8],
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona [93]. is a fundamental goal of anthropological and archaeological research [9, 10]. However, identi-
Funding: This work was supported by the project fying such evidence within the archaeological record can be challenging because site formation
Human occupation during the Upper Pleistocene processes [11] are intertwined with contextual resolution, potentially leading to misinterpreta-
and Holocene in the south-eastern Pyrenees tion and distortion of past human activities.
(PID2022-136363NB-I00), the Program for the
In this regard, refittings significantly enhance archaeological interpretations, serving as
Requalification of the University System Margarita
Salas for JSM (CA1/RSUE/2022-889183) and XRG high-resolution temporal units that allow the visualisation of human behaviour within the
(CA1/RSUE/2021- 707703 ) financed through the archaeological record [12–15]. In this perspective, refittings have proven useful for under-
Spanish “Recovery, Transformation and Resilience standing site formation processes from a taphonomic and anthropological perspective, shed-
Plan” managed by the Ministry of Universities and ding light on the concept of ’internal time’ within archaeological assemblages [16, 17], and
the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. KCV is
refining the contextual resolution of sites [18, 19]. This is especially useful to address dia-
funded by the National Public Employment Service
through NextGenerationEU funds. Also, this study
chronic and synchronic stratigraphic relationships in time-average deposits [15, 20, 21], and
was supported by The interdisciplinary Center for post-syn depositional site formation processes [22–29]. Additionally, refittings allow the analy-
Archaeology and Evolution of Human Behaviour sis of technical behaviours [30–32], intra-site social organisation [15, 33, 34], site functionality
(ICArEHB), funded by the Portuguese Foundation [35–38] and mobility [39, 40].
for Science and Technology (FCT) under the In this framework, lithic refittings provide insight into the anthropological nature of
program UIDP/04211/2020. The funders had no
human occupations contributing to the understanding of intra-site technological processes
role in study design, data collection and analysis,
decision to publish, or preparation of the and spatial relationships. In parallel to this, lithic refittings have been used to understand arte-
manuscript. fact volumetric reduction, providing a dynamic perspective of the knapping sequence, which
is essential for the analysis of techno-cognitive aspects in technological organisation [41, 42].
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist. These elements are relevant for identifying variations in the technological adaptations of past
societies (see references in [18, 19]), which have played an important role in defining cultural
traditions over a wide spatial and temporal range [43].
Overall, refittings allow researchers to visualise cognitively opaque knowledge [44]. In other
words, they allow reconstructing and visualising vast range of actions and technical decisions
comprised in the end product (core), which would not be fully visible through observation of
each refit piece individually. For this reason, refits are one of the most powerful tools for iden-
tifying variations in human behaviour at prehistoric sites [31].
1.1. The application of imaging science and technologies to lithic refits

The graphic representation of material culture is central to all areas of science, from basic
research to public engagement through events, exhibitions, and museums (for a review see
[45]). Scientific illustration serves as a useful tool for the representation of archaeological arte-
facts, particularly stone tools, which require a detailed representation of their technical attri-
butes for their understanding [4, 46–50]. Traditional drawing remains as one of the main
methods of visualising lithics, as shown by the handbooks published in the last two decades
[51–53]. However, advances in imaging science and technology offer improvements in the
representation of archaeological artefacts, allowing the integration of different types of infor-
mation depending on the research objectives [54–58]. This is especially important in the case
of refits which provide relevant information on the techno-cognitive sphere of past popula-
tions. Furthermore, refittings serve as reference elements for the study of technical organisa-
tion and human behaviour at prehistoric sites [14, 37, 59–62].
However, although refitting represents a dynamic process involving a variety of artefacts at
different phases of volumetric reduction, their scientific representation has been primarily in
2D through illustration or photography (but see [63]). The two-dimensional representation of
refittings does not allow for the visualisation of key characteristics of a refitted assemblage (e.g.
the number of pieces involved, morphometric variability, artefact attributes or the presence of
fractures.). Without identifying these elements, researchers lack visual and technological

information about the reduction phase, which limits their analytical capacity. In addition,
there are no established guidelines for the visual representation of refits. As a result, the data
extracted from them can sometimes be diffuse, limited or insufficient.
In recent years, new forms of graphical representation that combine different techniques,
such as three-dimensional (3D) modelling and photogrammetry, have been applied for the
visualisation of archaeological objects [64, 65]. 3D models can be generated by scanning the
surface of the object using either fixed or portable scanners [58, 66–69]. The most powerful
and high-resolution scanners for archaeological objects tend to be stationary, although there
are now fast portable scanners that also cover the applications of fixed scanners [70, 71].
Alternatively, photogrammetry allows the creation of 3D models from digital photographs
and is a widely used technique in archaeology. It is easy to use and does not require significant
financial resources, requiring only a good digital camera and a suitable working environment
for model-making [72].
Scientific illustration is useful for depicting technical attributes in individual lithic artefacts
(e.g. direction of removal, percussion ripples or retouching). However, archaeological drawing
has limitations in depicting refitting sequences because the technical attributes of an artefact
may be overlaid by others from previous phases [73]. In some cases, simplified schematics are
used to illustrate refitting (e.g. [13, 74, 75]).
On the other hand, photography is a valuable resource as it is accessible, inexpensive and
allows the visualisation of textures, colours and different types of materials. It is advisable to
represent different views of a refit to obtain a better volumetric perception of the assemblage
and to avoid a static perspective [32, 37]. Some protocols, such as STIVA, combine photogra-
phy and digital drawing, enhancing both methods of representation without requiring a signif-
icant time investment [57].
Advances in imaging technologies have expanded the possibilities for representing and ana-
lysing archaeological objects (e.g. [34, 76–78]), including the visualisation of refitting assem-
blages [45] following their reduction sequence [14] or using sequential photography [45].
Given this emergent field, we propose the implementation of the Refitting Visualisation on
Blender Engine (ReViBE) protocol, which aims to dynamically visualise refitting sets.
2. Methods
One of the limitations of lithic refittings relies on how they are presented to the scientific com-
munity (mainly combining 2D methods), which imposes some constraints to assess tecno-cog-
nitive aspects from volumetric reduction sequences. However, these limitations can be
overcome by using sequential 3D animation of the refits. The ReViBE protocol described in
this article, combines three-dimensional models of archaeological materials with the anima-
tion software Blender© to generate animations on lithic refittings. This protocol is published
on the digital platform for reproducible methods Protocols.io dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.
io.ewov1qxqkgr2/v2 and is available as S1 File to this paper. As a reference to illustrate this
protocol, we have used the refitting set No. 41 from the Early Upper Palaeolithic unit 497D of
the Cova Gran de Santa Linya. However, other refitting sets have been used in the develop-
ment of the protocol.
ReViBE is conceived to work with refitted assemblages. Independently of the methodology
used in the refitting process. The workflow used for the identification of refittings is explained
in the study case of this article.
ReViBE uses the 3D models of each lithic artefact that composes the refit as a baseline to
work in a digital environment. This process can be carried out by scanning the artefact surfaces
(using micro-CT or both portable and fixed scanners, ensuring good or medium resolution)

or by photogrammetry. Both methods may have limitations depending on the specific archae-
ological application in which they are used [58].
In this protocol, we have used photogrammetry to obtain the volumetric information of
each artefact and Agisoft PhotoScan © to transform the captured images into a three-dimen-
sional model. This method is widely known [72], easy to perform and affordable, which
improves the reproducibility of the protocol. Photogrammetry was conducted by taking a
series of enveloping photographs of the archaeological piece (one capture for each 10º rota-
tion) using a frontal and high angle (S1 Part 2, 9–17 in S1 File). After this, the piece was rotated
180º to record the opposite part (Fig 1). A detailed list of the materials and software used in the
process can be found in Table 1.
The images, obtained through the detection of common area points (S1 Part 3 in S1 File),
are processed by software that converts them into point patterns, creating the 3D image of the
object. Additional attributes, such as the original texture of the artefacts, can be incorporated
to reconstruct surface conditions during this process. This enables the identification of the raw
material of the piece and potential surface modifications, such as patina or burning. Several
tools and sources can be used for the conversion of sets of pictures into 3D images. We sum-
marise some of the options in each of the main steps of the protocol, mentioning both free and
paid access solutions (Table 2). Alternative software solutions and free applications can be
found in [79].
Once the three-dimensional models of each artefact have been created, they are uploaded
into Blender to animate the refit sequence (S1 Part 4 in S1 File). The animation is composed of
three main variables: a) the individual artefacts that form the refit; b) the motions assigned to
each artefact within the reduction sequence; c) the time applied between the motions of each
artefact and the refitting.
To create the movements along the knapping sequence, we work in individual timelines for
each piece. The use of keyframes, which can be activated using the tool of the same name,
allows us to record the start and end of each movement action. From here, the software gener-
ates the intermediate movements to achieve the desired flow. In this way, each artefact can be
controlled separately and sequentially within the reduction sequence.
Both, the motion, and the time variable can be modified to highlight some of the technical
processes involved in the refit (e. g. the abandonment of a knapping surface and the opening
of a new one, the rejuvenation of a knapping platform, or the core maintenance). To highlight
these processes along with the animation, some graphical solutions can be displayed. In this
protocol, the movement that the hammerstone would follow during the reduction phase, is
represented by an arrow, allowing the rhythm and orientation of the knapping process to be
identified (Fig 2). The arrow also indicates where the hammerstone impacts the core and
where lithic blanks are removed from the original volume. To insert this type of element in the
animation, we can use a 2D video editing software, in this case the open-source Davinci
Resolve ©. The same keyframe animation process described above will be applied to these
shapes.
The animations created by Blender © allow the representation various aspects of the refitted
reduction sequence, being a flexible tool to reconstruct knapping processes (e.g. different
reduction phases, the abandonment of core platforms, or core rotations among others). In this
way, each of the actions carried out during the reduction is shown in consecutive and sequen-
tial order, enhancing the understanding of the production and maintenance phases within a
refit.
The software also allows the camera to move in a three-dimensional workspace, enabling it
to highlight technological features by zooming in at any point in the sequence. Technical and
technological attributes on the pieces can be represented by adapting the symbology from

Fig 1. Photogrammetry applied to one of the artefacts of the refitting set No. 41 from level 497D of Cova Gran de Santa Linya. A)
Photogrammetry set up with the camera at a high-angle. B) Change of the position of the artefact after the first round of enveloping photographs
using frontal and high-angle. The piece will be rotated 180º to capture possible covered surfaces by the adhesive.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611.g001

Table 1. List of materials and software used along the REVIBE protocol workflow.
Equipment Function Description
Camera Image capture Ideally with a 35mm–80mm focal length
Tripod Camera support
Lightbox Illumination and background control Alternatively, three lights can be used to create the basic triangle of lighting and a
black velvet fabric for the background
PC or laptop Data processing Hardware must meet the minimum system requirements for the selected software
solutions
Rotating turntable Object support It can be automatic or manual
Modelling clay Object holder Reusable adhesive mastic can be an alternative (e.g. Blue-Tack or similar products)
Plastic Wrap Protection of the object from oils and stickiness
of the modelling clay
Photogrammetric scale Scaling up the object Three free versions of the photogrammetric scale can be downloaded at https://
marker conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/172480
Helicon Remote Remotely control the camera’s shots Can be use any other control remote software for this task
Agisoft PhotoScan Create a 3D image from a set of images in 2D Any other photogrammetric 3D software can be used for this task. See Table 2
Blender Create the video animation of the reconstruction Any other 3D animation software can be used for this task. See Table 2
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611.t001
archaeological drawings and inserting them throughout the animation or after the movement
action of each piece has been completed [52, 53].
Although 3D animation programs in general, and Blender © in particular, require use expe-
rience, the application of a step-by-step protocol facilitates a standardisation in the use of this
type of program in the transfer of knowledge within the field of archaeology.
3. Case study
The 3D reconstruction of refittings aims to overcome some of the limitations proposed in the
representation of lithic artefacts [14, 55, 63, 80], whose volume is key for understanding lithic
reduction and techno-cognitive procedures during knapping [81]. However, understanding
lithic reduction not only requires detecting variations in the volume of the object, but also
observing how and when the mass was lost from the original volume, and through which deci-
sions and technical actions.
The characterization of knapping methods can be a useful indicator for distinguishing tech-
nical trends between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans, thus helping to under-
stand the complex scenario of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition. Unit 497D from
Cova Gran de Santa Linya is associated with these issues.
This unit has been extensively studied in recent years, providing valuable data on contextual
and chronometric information, site formation processes, spatial analysis, lithic technology,
and subsistence strategies [14, 21, 82–85]. These studies have provided a comprehensive dis-
cussion of transitional technocomplexes and have significantly contributed to expanding our
knowledge about the interactions between the last Neanderthals and the first anatomically
modern humans in southwestern Europe.
In this respect, the refits provided new data on the technological organization of the human
groups living at Cova Gran around 38-40k.cal BP., extending the previous information
obtained from the technological analysis of the lithic assemblage [84]. The reconstructions in
unit 497D were carried out by following technological analysis and raw material characterisa-
tion of the lithic assemblages. All artefacts were categorized based on technical attributes [4–6,
86] and catalogued using Raw Material Unit (RMU) reconstruction [87], adapted to the petro-
graphic characteristics and variability of local chalcedony [88]. This methodology proved

Table 2. List of applications available for each of the phases of the data collection process in each of the sections
of the protocol.
Step Tools & Sources
Remote control photo software (for Public Licence:
all camera brands) • digiCamControl (https://digicamcontrol.com/)
Proprietary License:
• Helicon Remote
(https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-remote/)
Converting images to 3D Public Licence:
• MeshLab (https://www.meshlab.net/)
• Meshmixxer (https://meshmixer.com/)
• Meshroom (https://alicevision.org/#meshroom/)
• 3DFZephyr (https://www.3dflow.net/3df-zephyr-photogrammetry-
software/)
PhotoCatch (iOS) https://apps.apple.com/es/app/photocatch/
id1576081762)
• Polycam (App) https://poly.cam/)
• 3D Scanner (Iphone App) https://apps.apple.com/es/app/3d-scanner-app/
id1419913995)
• EyesCloud 3D (https://www.eyescloud3d.com/login)
• Widar (App) (https://www.widar.io/)
• Qlone (App) (https://www.qlone.pro/download)
• Kiri (App) (https://www.kiriengine.com/)
• Trnio (App) (https://www.trnio.com/product-page)
• Photoscan/Metashape (https://www.geobit.es/producto/agisoft-
photoscan-profesional/)
• Reality capture
• (https://www.capturingreality.com/realitycapture)
Creating animation sequences Public Licence:
• Blender (https://www.blender.org/)
• Houdini (https://www.sidefx.com/products/houdini-apprentice/)
• Unreal Engine (https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/download)
• Cinema 4D (https://www.maxon.net/es/cinema-4d)
• Maya Autodesk (https://www.autodesk.es/products/maya/overview?
term=1-YEAR&tab=subscription)
• Zbrush (https://www.maxon.net/es/zbrush)
• Unity (https://unity.com/es)
Repositories Public Open repositories:
• Zenodo (http://zenodo.org/)
• FigShare (http://figshare.com)
• Mendeley Data (https://data.mendeley.com/)
• DataHub (http://datahub.io)
Institutional Open repositories:Platforms governed by national or
transnational regulations to deposit documents in open access. Based in
protocols such as:
• CORA (https://cora.csuc.cat/es/) Catalan Open Research Area
• OpenAIRE compliant (https://www.openaire.eu/) adapted to the metadata
requirements of the EU
• Open Archive Initiative-Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)
(https://www.openarchives.org/) National Science Foundation (NSF,US)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611.t002

Fig 2. Virtual reconstruction process of the knapping sequence of the refitting No. 41 on Blender ©. A) Seting up of the motion of each object
in the workspace by selecting a central mass point B) Rotation motion applied to one of the artefacts of the refitting. The motion must be
associated with a specific time frame to create the animation. At the bottom: Timeline view with keyframes per motion action.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611.g002

successful in achieving refittings, particularly given the challenge posed by internal colour vari-
ations in local chalcedony for the identification of lithic connections. This process has led to
the identification and technological study of various lithic refits, including long knapping
sequences and their respective cores, that were published in previous works [14, 21]. In one of
these works [14], animated refittings can be found in the S1 File section.
The refits revealed the technological actions used in the reduction of cores, the production
goals and the morphometric characteristics of the lithic blanks. The technical analysis of the
refits showed that flakes, blades, and bladelets were obtained interspersed in the same knap-
ping sequence, indicating that bladelet production was not exclusive to bladelet cores. This fea-
ture is slightly similar to the one proposed for the Proto-Aurignacian, on which blades and
bladelets are obtained from the same core following a single and continuous knapping
sequence [89–93] and differs from the Early Aurignacian, where it is proposed that the pro-
duction of blades and bladelets follows separated reduction schemes [94]. However, recent
studies on the Proto-Aurignacian site of Fumane revealed a reduction scheme exclusively ori-
ented to bladelet production, and another one where blades and bladelets are obtained
together within the same reduction sequence [81, 92], as occurred in study case from Cova
Gran. These new discussions based on technological data are of relevance for the chrono-cul-
tural attribution of 497D within the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition (MUPT) and the
Early Upper Palaeolithic [14].
The visualisation and volumetric graphic representation of these refits was crucial in dem-
onstrating the technical aspects of the lithic production. However, long refitting sequences
often involve overlapping artefacts, which means that technological information from later
phases is obscured by the most recent ones. To address this problem, the digitisation and ani-
mation of the refittings were necessary to provide a streamlined approach to their dynamic
representation. This process allows the refits to be structured in a temporal sequence,
highlighting the characteristics of the blanks and their position within the volumetric
reduction.
To incorporate the temporal variable into the reconstruction of volumetric reduction in
lithic refits, we used ReViBE. This protocol was applied to the refits to illustrate the technologi-
cal and chrono-cultural discussion of unit 497D [14]. The animated videos produced by this
protocol can be found in the Supplement to the above-mentioned article.
Among the different sets of refits from the 497D unit, refit No. 41 was used as a reference to
carry out the current protocol with the step-by-step process [95]. This refit consists of nine
pieces that form four morphometrically diverse artefacts, ranging from flakes to elongated
blanks.
We have created a flowchart depicting the artefacts involved in refit No. 41 and their tem-
poral relationships in the reduction sequence to document their sequential order. Additionally,
technical actions that occur during the reduction, such as platform rejuvenation and changes
to the knapping surface, can be noted and incorporated into the flowchart (as convenience),
which could be useful in constructing the animation sequences using Blender. This facultative
step helps to understand the temporal and technological dimensions of refittings. The first
allows the pieces to be placed in a logical and correct order within the reduction sequence;
while the second allows the technical actions involved in the management of the core or the
detachment of the lithic blanks to be understood.
In refitting No. 41, the knapping sequence occurs on a single surface through the frontal
debitage of the volume, indicating that the core was not rotated during the reduction process.
The absence of rotation, typically used to create lateral convexity in the core, can lead to the
production of morphometrically diverse blanks, which is a notable feature in MUPT assem-
blages and has been observed in other animated refittings in 497D [14].

4. Discussion
The protocol has multiple applications from scientific research to science communication.
ReViBE’s contributions to the scientific community are significant and are in line with current
needs in archaeological research and the valorisation of material culture and prehistoric heri-
tage. This section outlines the advances of this protocol in: 1) the application of new methodol-
ogies to visualise lithic refittings; 2) the interpretation of the archaeological record and
archaeologically-based hypothesis; 3) the promotion and study of digital heritage; 4) the devel-
opment of outreach activities and knowledge transmission strategies; 5) the fostering of remote
research.
4.1. Methodological advances

The visualisation of assemblages has traditionally been limited to two-dimensional methods,
such as archaeological drawing and photography. These “static” methods have limitations in
observing sequential processes, such as the volumetric reduction of a core or the pieces
obtained during the knapping sequence.
However, the ReViBE protocol offers a solution to this problem by reconstructing the stages
of the volumetric reduction through the individual stages of the artefacts within a specific tem-
poral sequence. In other words, it reproduces the stages of volumetric reduction in a continu-
ous temporal sequence without interruptions and individually presents the pieces involved in
the refit in a dynamic visual representation. By controlling the spatiotemporal path of each
artefact, the reduction sequence is constructed to avoid overlapping technical attributes, core
negatives and knapping products. This is particularly significant in hierarchical and/or recur-
rent knapping strategies, where the lithic production from earlier phases is often covered by
later phases. This allows the observation of the technical and morphometric characteristics of
the artefacts, their order within the knapping sequence, and their role in the production or
maintenance phases to be observed. Furthermore, the temporal frame assigned to each artefact
enables controlling how quickly they move in the reduction sequence. This can be useful to
highlight technical processes within the reduction. As a result, ReViBE allows the animation of
three-dimensional representations, giving more dynamism to knapping processes and avoid-
ing the overlapping of information that occurs in refit sequences. This represents a methodo-
logical advancement over current refit visualisation methods.
4.2. Archaeological application

The visualisation of reduction sequences in real-time, helps to understand production goals or
standardisation of lithics, as well as to evaluate the relevance of knapping sequences in anthro-
pological and organisational terms. The following case concerns the refits found in level 497D
of the Cova Gran de Santa Linya [14, 21] and how these remains provide insight into the char-
acteristics of the lithic production. The technological study revealed a lack of correspondence
between the bladelets and the laminar cores, whose presence was quite limited. The analysis of
the refits showed that bladelets were produced alongside flakes, laminar flakes, and blades in
the same reduction sequence. This suggests that the laminar production of the assemblage was
not exclusively associated with laminar cores but was integrated into other reduction
sequences. This feature is not fully consistent with the characteristics proposed for the Proto-
Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian [89, 92, 94, 96] and allows introducing alternative scenar-
ios for the chrono-cultural attribution of this unit. The animation of reconstructed sequences
of this unit can now represent the archaeological evidence beyond this debate. This serves as a
tool to support hypothesis testing and scientific research.

In parallel to this, ReViBE includes texture on the virtual animation of refittings, which
helps to visualise differential patina formation along the refitted artefacts, indicating variations
in surface modification across the lithic assemblage due to site-formation processes.
4.3. Digital heritage

The study of stone tools has a long tradition in prehistoric archaeology. Among other things,
experimental knapping has played a key role in understanding the technology used by past
populations, and in making Prehistory known and popular to different audiences. Until now,
stone tool making has been presented based on experimental demonstration, in which highly
experienced people reproduce the methods used in the past (also based on ethnographic refer-
ences). This protocol allows the reconstruction of past knapping processes using archaeolog-
ical material, which is a relevant contribution to the field. This dynamic approach to the
visualisation of archaeological data is essential both to strengthen the preservation of the mate-
rial culture and to promote the digital heritage [97–101]. In the case of stone tools, 3D recon-
structions can preserve the pieces from residues and glues used in their study, as well as
reducing the micro-chipping and edge breakage caused by the refitting process [55, 63], which
is beneficial for use-wear analysis. Scanning large stone-tool assemblages is now more feasible
than it was years ago [58], increasing the possibility of conducting virtual refittings without
physically touching the pieces [55, 80]. One of the future directions worth exploring involves
the use of computational methods to systematise the virtual refitting process by using reference
points to detect common areas among the artefacts. This approach could be tested with experi-
mental collections that allow the reconstruction of all stages of the reduction process. Follow-
ing this, if lithic assemblages are scanned in entirely, lithic refittings could be conducted
directly in a virtual environment by matching surface and angle associations between artefacts.
However, it is still unknown how to address specific limitations related to the formation of the
assemblages and the site, as well as the accuracy of the method with fragments or in assem-
blages were retouched tools are abundant.
4.4. Outreach and knowledge transfer

In recent years, open science and public engagement strategies have proven to be effective in
achieving broad science communication. Open science is based on the principles of providing
unrestricted access to information and increasing transparency throughout the conceptualisa-
tion, development and implementation of research [102]. For this reason, there is a commit-
ment to ensure that knowledge dissemination and science communication adhere to the
principles of collaboration, transparency, and accessibility across different formats and audi-
ences, especially when research has been funded by public resources. Open science is a priority
for the European Union to improve the quality and effectiveness of research resources, which
is one of the key initiatives outlined in Horizon Europe.
In this new context of global scientific awareness, FAIR principles (making data Findable,
Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) have contributed to make scientific data something
to care about, becoming the standard for the dissemination of knowledge from EU-funded sci-
entific research [103, 104]. FAIR principles provide an opportunity to achieve a global under-
standing of the research environment at institutional, national and international levels and to
increase the reliability of research results. In addition, it further strengthens the use of digital
and collaborative technologies and promotes the reproducibility of scientific results [105, 106].
Scientific dissemination and knowledge transfer must be integrated into archaeological
research in an intersectional and transversal way. The dissemination of results in academic
(conferences, workshops) and non-academic (exhibitions, fairs, schools) contexts implies the

creation of scientific content and its adaptation to diverse types of audiences. The ReViBE pro-
tocol has significant potential to promote the public dimension of digital content creation for
use in public outreach and education activities, thus enriching the link between researchers
and public institutions. In addition, flexible audiovisual content of archaeological remains and
refittings can be used to explain complex technological processes in a dynamic and simple
way. In this way, progress can be made in understanding human behaviour and preserving
world heritage in digital environments.
4.5. Remote research and logistics

The use of digital environments to store archaeological data has increased in recent years. Dig-
ital resources are instantly accessible, do not require travel costs and are easy to consult as they
are open access [107]. Furthermore, they can overcome some of the limitations of host institu-
tions in terms of consultation due to scheduling and artefact availability. In this respect,
ReViBE provides digital content to be consulted in open repositories and proposes new alter-
natives to work with remote data aligning the commitments of public administrations to open
access policies.
In addition, this protocol does not require extensive infrastructure or equipment to operate
(Table 1) which is an advantage for setting up under different conditions. 3D models can be
created using a digital camera, a common tool in research laboratories, or a scanner. Fixed
scanners usually have better resolution, but they tend to be expensive and non-portable.
Recently, portable scanners have gained popularity due to their ability to produce convincing
results with good resolution [58]. The portability of digital cameras and scanners is an advan-
tage for documenting tasks during fieldwork, allowing the models to be created on the archae-
ological material using basic infrastructure (e.g. room, lightbox, and tripod), especially in
places where there are restrictions on the movement of materials. The basis of ReViBE is also
not restricted to any specific software or 3D-capture technique. Although we describe one way
of animating refitting, there is a wide range of software options available for each stage of the
protocol, including both free and proprietary software (Table 2). This facilitates communica-
tion between different target audiences, particularly between researchers and to the public.
5. Conclusions
Imaging technologies have recently expanded their applications in archaeological research,
transforming the way we document and visualise the archaeological record. The ReViBE pro-
tocol includes a new method for visualising refittings by combining photogrammetry, 3D
modelling and Blender animation software. ReViBE combines technological and behavioural
information from lithic refittings to create virtual content that can be used at different levels.
This protocol is publicly available at protocols.io dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.
ewov1qxqkgr2/v2 where the step-by-step workflow for reconstructing refittings in a virtual
environment can be followed.
The ReViBE protocol is designed to have an impact across different scientific disciplines
and fields. Among other things, this procedure provides a new methodological framework for
visualising refittings and lithic blanks in a sequential and temporal order. It introduces move-
ment into the refitting that cannot be conveyed by “static” 2D traditional techniques, thereby
increasing the visibility of techno-cognitive aspects in the archaeological record. This method-
ological advance allows for the dynamic representation of volumetric and temporal informa-
tion of lithic refitting, which is relevant for understanding archaeologically based hypotheses
related to knapping methods, core reduction and lithic production [95, 107]. The archaeolog-
ical application of this protocol was carried out on several sets of refittings from the MUPT

unit of Cova Gran de Santa Linya, and serves to characterise and represent the interspersed
production of bladelets in non-bladelet cores. In addition, ReViBE allows the reproduction of
knapping sequences using original archaeological artefacts, providing an alternative to knap-
ping demonstration and enhancing the preservation and promotion of the cultural heritage. In
parallel to this, ReViBE is a powerful tool for scientific research, outreach and science commu-
nication. Virtual content can be disseminated in academic and non-academic environments,
enhancing public engagement between different institutions and promoting interoperable and
remote analysis among colleagues. This protocol aims to facilitate the conceptualisation of
research as a more accessible and transferable resource, contributing to the creation of new sci-
entific content in line with the current Open Science guidelines and the FAIR principles.
In conclusion, ReViBE represents an innovative, accessible, and affordable methodology
that can be easily implemented in both research and outreach activities, offering alternatives
for the visualisation of material culture. These advances are relevant to the development of pre-
historic archaeology and science communication strategies, as well as to the conservation of
the cultural heritage in a more interconnected world.
Supporting information
S1 File. The protocol included on this peer-review article is published on protocols.io, (dx.
doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.ewov1qxqkgr2/v2) and is available to download it [94]. The
references to the protocol on this article are expressed as (S1 Part X in S1 File). All the raw data
needed to replicate this protocol has been uploaded in the Research Data Repository (CORA)
(https://doi.org/10.34810/data924), including the pictures taken and used on this protocol (.
jpg), the three dimensional model of each refitted artefact (.mtl and.obj), an interactive 3D
model of the refitted sequence (3D.pdf) the flowchart of the refitted sequence, the table with
technical attributes [108]. A step-by-step explanatory video of this protocol is available in the
digital deposit of documents of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona [107].
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank CEPAP-UAB and Rafael Mora to give access to the refitted artefacts
and support this research together with the Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and the
Evolution of Human Behaviour (ICArEHB). Furthermore, we thank SCG for her assistance in
carrying out the first version of the protocol, JB for her insights for the final editing of the text,
and the anonymous reviewers that have contributed to improve the quality of this article with
their suggestions and comments.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Jorge Martı́nez Moreno, Xavier Roda Gilabert.
Data curation: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Katia Calmet, Xavier Roda Gilabert.
Formal analysis: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Katia Calmet.
Funding acquisition: Jorge Martı́nez Moreno.
Investigation: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Katia Calmet, Jorge Martı́nez Moreno, Xavier Roda
Gilabert.
Methodology: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Katia Calmet, Xavier Roda Gilabert.

Project administration: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Jorge Martı́nez Moreno, Xavier Roda

Gilabert.
Resources: Jorge Martı́nez Moreno.
Software: Katia Calmet.
Supervision: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Jorge Martı́nez Moreno, Xavier Roda Gilabert.
Validation: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Katia Calmet, Xavier Roda Gilabert.
Visualization: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Katia Calmet, Jorge Martı́nez Moreno, Xavier Roda
Gilabert.
Writing – original draft: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Katia Calmet, Xavier Roda Gilabert.
Writing – review & editing: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Katia Calmet, Jorge Martı́nez Moreno,
Xavier Roda Gilabert.
References
1. Gibson KR, Ingold T. Tools, language and cognition in human evolution: Cambridge University Press;
1993.
2. Stout D. Stone toolmaking and the evolution of human culture and cognition. Philosophical Transac-
tions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2011; 366(1567):1050–9. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2010.0369 PMID: 21357227
3. Skibo JM, Schiffer M. People and things: A behavioral approach to material culture: Springer Science
& Business Media; 2008.
4. Inizan ML, Reduron M, Roche H, Tixier J. Technologie de la pierre taillée [Cut stone technology]: Meu-
don, CREP, CNRS, University of Paris X Nanterre; 1995.
5. Pelegrin J, Roche H. Evolution et cognition: le temoignage des pierres taillées. Journée Scientifique
de l’Association pour la Recherche Cognitive [Internet]. 2000.
6. Andrefsky JW. Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press; 2008.
7. de Beaune S. L’homme et l’outil. L’invention technique durant la Préhistoire: CNRS; 2009.
8. Hussain ST, Soressi M. The technological condition of human evolution: Lithic studies as basic sci-
ence. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology. 2021; 4(3):25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-021-00098-1
PMID: 34805748
9. Binford LR. In pursuit of the past: decoding the archaeological record: Thames and Hudson, London;
1982.
10. Schiffer M, Skibo JM, Griffitts J, Hollenback KL, Longacre WA. Behavioral archaeology and the study
of technology. American Antiquity. 2001; 66(4):729–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694186
11. Schiffer M. Formation processes of the archaeological record. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press; 1987.
12. Karlin C, Bodu P, Ploux S, editors. Who’s who? The Magdalenian flint knapper of Pincevent (France).
The Big Puzzle, International Symposium of Refitting Stone Artefacts, Studies in Moderne Archaeol-
ogy I, Monrepos, Neuwied; 1990: Bonn, Holos.
13. Delagnes A, Roche H. Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: the case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana,
Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution. 2005; 48(5):435–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.12.005
PMID: 15857650
14. Martı́nez-Moreno J, Mora Torcal R, Benito-Calvo A, Roy Sunyer M, Sánchez-Martı́nez J. A bunch of
refits: 497D blade knapping assemblage of the Early Upper Paleolithic in Cova Gran (Northeast Ibe-
ria). Archaeological & Anthropological Sciences. 2019; 11(9):4585–600.
15. Vaquero M, Romagnoli F, Bargalló A, Chacón MG, Gómez de Soler B, Picin A, et al. Lithic refitting and
intrasite artifact transport: a view from the Middle Paleolithic. Archaeological & Anthropological Sci-
ences. 2019; 11:4491–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00832-5
16. Bailey G. Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology. 2007; 26(2):198–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2006.08.002

17. Holdaway S, Wandsnider LA. Time in archaeology: an introduction. In: Holdaway S, Wandsnider L,
editors. Time In Archaeology: Time Perspectivism Revisited. 1. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press; 2008. p. 1–12.
18. Cziesla E, editor The Big Puzzle: international symposium on refitting stone artefacts, Studies in Mod-
ern Archaeology. The Big Puzzle, International Symposium of Refitting Stone Artefacts, Studies in
Moderne Archaeology I, Monrepos, Neuwied; 1990: Bonn, Holos.
19. Romagnoli F, Vaquero M. Special Issue in Big Puzzle 30 years after: a multidisciplinary, Paleolithic
perspective. Archaeological & Anthropological Sciences. 2019; 11(9).
20. Malinsky-Buller A, Hovers E, Marder O. Making time:‘Living floors’,‘palimpsests’ and site formation
processes–A perspective from the open-air Lower Paleolithic site of Revadim Quarry, Israel. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology. 2011; 30(2):89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2010.11.002
21. Mora Torcal R, Roy Sunyer M, Martı́nez-Moreno J, Benito-Calvo A, Samper Carro S. Inside the
palimpsest: identifying short occupations in the 497D level of Cova Gran (Iberia). In: Cascalheira J,
Picin A, editors. Short-Term Occupations in Paleolithic Archaeology: Definition and Interpretation:
Springer; 2020. p. 39–69.
22. Villa P. Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity. 1982; 47(2):276–90.
https://doi.org/10.2307/279901
23. Hofman JL, Enloe JG. Piecing together the past: applications of refitting studies in archaeology: BAR
Publishing; 1992.
24. Sisk L, Shea JJ. Intrasite spatial variation of the Omo Kibish Middle Stone Age assemblages: artifact
refitting and distribution patterns. Journal of Human Evolution. 2008; 55(3):486–500. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.05.016 PMID: 18692863
25. Rosell J, Blasco R, Fernández-Laso MC, Vaquero M, Carbonell E. Connecting areas: faunal refits as a
diagnostic element to identify synchronicity in the Abric Romanı́ archaeological assemblages. Quater-
nary International. 2012; 252:56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2011.02.019
26. Gabucio MJ, Cáceres I, Rivals F, Bargalló A, Rosell J, Saladié P, et al. Unraveling a Neanderthal
palimpsest from a zooarcheological and taphonomic perspective. Archaeological & Anthropological
Sciences. 2018; 10:197–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-016-0343-y
27. Vaquero M, Fernández-Laso MC, Chacón MG, Romagnoli F, Rosell J, Sañudo P. Moving things: com-
paring lithic and bone refits from a Middle Paleolithic site. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology.
2017; 48:262–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2017.09.001
28. Deschamps M, Zilhão J. Assessing site formation and assemblage integrity through stone tool refit-
ting at Gruta da Oliveira (Almonda karst system, Torres Novas, Portugal): A Middle Paleolithic case
study. Plos One. 2018; 13(2):e0192423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192423 PMID:
29451892
29. López-Ortega E, Rodrı́guez-Álvarez X-P, Ollé A, Lozano S. Lithic refits as a tool to reinforce postdepo-
sitional analysis. Archaeological & Anthropological Sciences. 2019; 11:4555–68. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12520-019-00808-5
30. Aubry T, Barbosa AF, Gameiro C, Luı́s L, Matias H, Santos A, et al. De regresso à Cardina, 13 anos
depois: resultados preliminares dos trabalhos arqueológicos de 2014 no Vale do Côa. Revista Portu-
guesa de Arqueologia. 2015; 18:5–26.
31. Romagnoli F, Vaquero M. The challenges of applying refitting analysis in the Palaeolithic archaeology
of the twenty-first century: an actualised overview and future perspectives. Archaeological & Anthropo-
logical Sciences. 2019; 11:4387–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00888-3
32. Vandendriessche H, Crombé P. Formalized Reduction Sequences from the Site of Kerkhove, Bel-
gium–New Perspectives on Early Mesolithic Flint Knapping. Lithic Technology. 2020; 45(2):110–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2020.1721162
33. Cattin M-I. El remuntatge de les restes lı́tiques: organització interna dels assentaments i lligams entre
jaciments. Cota zero: revista d’arqueologia i ciència. 2002; 11:117–28.
34. de la Torre I, Martı́nez-Moreno J, Mora R. When bones are not enough: Lithic refits and occupation
dynamics in the Middle Palaeolithic level 10 of Roca dels Bous (Catalunya, Spain). In: Seetah K, Grav-
ina B, editors. Bones for tools—tools for bones The interplay between objects and objectives. Cam-
bridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; 2012. p. 13–23.
35. Julien M, Audouze F, Baffier D, Bodu P, Coudret P, David F, et al., editors. Organisation de l’espace et
fonction des habitats magdaléniens du Bassin parisien. De la Loire à l’Oder: les civilisations du Paléo-
lithique final dans le nord-ouest européen: colloque UISPP, commission 8, Liège 1985; 1988: BAR
International Series.
36. Olive M. Une habitation magdalénienne d’Etiolles: l’unité P 151988.

37. Karlin C, Julien M. An autumn at Pincevent (Seine-et-Marne, France): refitting for an ethnographic
approach of a Magdalenian settlement. Archaeological & Anthropological Sciences. 2019; 11
(9):4437–65.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00860-1
38. Cattin M-I. Parcours de burins, de la fabrication au rejet: exemples issus des sites magdaléniens de
Champréveyres et Monruz (Suisse). In: de Araújo Igreja MB, J-P;Le Brun-Ricalens, F., editor. Burins
préhistoriques: formes, fonctionnements, fonctions: Luxembourg: Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art;
2006. p. 241–54.
39. Close A. Reconstructing movement in prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2000;
7(1):49–77. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009560628428
40. Taller A, Kieselbach P, Conard NJ. Reconstructing technology, mobility and land use via intra-and
inter-site refits from the Gravettian of the Swabian Jura. Archaeological & Anthropological Sciences.
2019; 11:4423–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00778-8
41. Boëda E. Techno-logique & technologie. Une Paléo-histoire des objets lithiques tranchants: Paris:@
rchéo-éditions. com.; 2013.
42. Stout D, Khreisheh N. Skill learning and human brain evolution: An experimental approach. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal. 2015; 25(4):867–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774315000359
43. Reynolds N, Riede F. House of cards: cultural taxonomy and the study of the European Upper Palaeo-
lithic. Antiquity. 2019; 93(371):1350–8. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.49
44. Csibra G, Gergely G. Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2011; 366(1567):1149–57. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.
0319 PMID: 21357237
45. Hussain ST. On the epistemology of stone artefact analysis. In: de Beaune SA, Guidi A, Moro Abadı́a
O, Tarantini M, editors. New Advances in the History of Archaeology: Proceedings of the XVIII UISPP
World Congress (4–9 June 2018, Paris, France) Volume 16 (Sessions Organised by the History of
Archaeology Scientific Commission at the XVIII World UISPP): Archaeopress Publishing Ltd; 2021.
p. 138–70.
46. Dauvois M. Précis de dessin dynamique et structural des industries lithiques préhistoriques: Pierre
Fanlac; 1976.
47. Laurent P. Le dessin des objets préhistoriques: une introduction/Drawing of prehistoric implements: an
introduction. Revue archéologique du Centre de la France. 1985; 24(1):83–96. https://doi.org/10.
3406/racf.1985.2423
48. Martingell H, Saville A. The illustration of lithic artefacts: a guide to drawing stone tools for specialist
reports: Association of Archaeological Illustrators & Surveyors and the Lithics; 1988.
49. Adkins L, Adkins R. Archaeological illustration: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
50. Assié Y. Dessin de l’industrie lithique préhistorique: Notions élémentaires et conseils pratiques. Pré-
histoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes. 1995; 4:191–227.
51. Steiner M, Allason-Jones L. Approaches to archaeological illustration: a handbook. York: Council for
British Archaeology; 2005.
52. Raczynski-Henk Y. Drawing lithic artefacts: Sidestone Press; 2017.
53. Fernández de la Peña J, Castañeda Clemente N. Dibujando el pasado. Una historia de la documenta-
ción gráfica en el patrimonio arqueológico: Laergasula Ediciones; 2022.
54. Rubio Gil D, Martı́nez Rubio J, Baena Preysler J, Fernández Martı́n JJ, Codes J. Nuevos métodos
para viejas tecnologı́as: análisis y documentación de los materiales arqueológicos mediante la aplica-
ción de sistemas Láser-scanner 3D. Virtual Archaeology Review. 2010; 1(1):169–73.
55. Delpiano D, Cocilova A, Zangrossi F, Peresani M. Potentialities of the virtual analysis of lithic refitting:
case studies from the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. Archaeological & Anthropological Sciences. 2019;
11:4467–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00779-7
56. Cauche D. Le dessin scientifique des outils lithiques préhistoriques et ses normes. Exemple des col-
lections de la grotte de l’Observatoire (Monaco). Bulletin du Musée d’Anthropologie préhistorique de
Monaco. 2020; 59:29–40.
57. Cerasoni JN. Vectorial application for the illustration of archaeological lithic artefacts using the “Stone
Tools Illustrations with Vector Art”(STIVA) Method. Plos One. 2021; 16(5):e0251466. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0251466 PMID: 33975331
58. Göldner D, Karakostis FA, Falcucci A. Practical and technical aspects for the 3D scanning of lithic arte-
facts using micro-computed tomography techniques and laser light scanners for subsequent geomet-
ric morphometric analysis. Introducing the StyroStone protocol. Plos One. 2022; 17(4):e0267163.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267163 PMID: 35446900

59. Le Brun-Ricalens F, Brou L. Burins carénés-nucléus à lamelles: identification d’une chaı̂ne opératoire
particulière à Thèmes (Yonne) et implications. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 2003:67–
83. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2003.12793
60. de Araújo Igreja M, Bracco J, Le Brun-Ricalens F, editors. Burins préhistoriques: formes, fonctionne-
ments, fonctions. Actes de la Table Ronde international d’Aix-en-Provence 2006: Luxembourg:
MuséeNationald’Histoire et d’Art.
61. Leplongeon A, Goring-Morris AN. Terminal Pleistocene lithic variability in the Western Negev (Israel):
Is there any evidence for contacts with the Nile Valley? Journal of Lithic Studies. 2018; 5(1):1–39.
https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.2614
62. Sánchez-Martı́nez J, Roda Gilabert X, Vega Bolı́var S, Martı́nez-Moreno J, Benito-Calvo A, Mora
Torcal R. Beyond Shapes: Core Reduction Strategies in the Magdalenian of Cova Gran de Santa
Linya (NE Iberia). Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology. 2022; 5(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-
022-00115-x
63. Delpiano D, Peresani M, Pastoors A. The contribution of 3D visual technology to the study of Palaeo-
lithic knapped stones based on refitting. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.
2017; 4:28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.02.002
64. Magnani M. Three-dimensional alternatives to lithic illustration. Advances in Archaeological Practice.
2014; 2(4):285–97. https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.2.4.285
65. Magnani M, Douglass M, Schroder W, Reeves J, Braun DR. The digital revolution to come: Photo-
grammetry in archaeological practice. American Antiquity. 2020; 85(4):737–60. https://doi.org/10.
1017/aaq.2020.59
66. Abel RL, Parfitt S, Ashton N, Lewis SG, Scott B, Stringer C. Digital preservation and dissemination of
ancient lithic technology with modern micro-CT. Computers & Graphics. 2011; 35(4):878–84. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2011.03.001
67. Grosman L, Smikt O, Smilansky U. On the application of 3-D scanning technology for the documenta-
tion and typology of lithic artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2008; 35(12):3101–10. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.06.011
68. Shott MJ, Trail BW. Exploring new approaches to lithic analysis: laser scanning and geometric mor-
phometrics. Lithic Technology. 2010; 35(2):195–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2010.
11721090
69. Barone S, Neri P, Paoli A, Razionale AV. Automatic technical documentation of lithic artefacts by digi-
tal techniques. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. 2018; 11:e00087. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.daach.2018.e00087
70. Polo M-E, Felicı́simo Á. Analysis of uncertainty and repeatability of a low-cost 3D laser scanner. Sen-
sors. 2012; 12(7):9046–54. https://doi.org/10.3390/s120709046 PMID: 23012532
71. Marcy AE, Fruciano C, Phillips MJ, Mardon K, Weisbecker V. Low resolution scans can provide a suffi-
ciently accurate, cost-and time-effective alternative to high resolution scans for 3D shape analyses.
PeerJ. 2018; 6:e5032. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5032 PMID: 29942695
72. Porter ST, Roussel M, Soressi M. 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. 2016; 4(1):71–86. https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.4.1.71
73. Nakazawa Y, Izuho M, Takakura J, Yamada S. Toward an understanding of technological variability in
microblade assemblages in Hokkaido, Japan. Asian Perspectives. 2005:276–92. https://doi.org/10.
1353/asi.2005.0027
74. Langlais M. Dynamiques culturelles des sociétés magdaléniennes dans leurs cadres environnemen-
taux: Enquête sur 7000 ans d’évolution de leurs industries lithiques entre Rhône et Ebre. 2007. https://
hal.science/tel-03097690.
75. Brou L, Le Brun-Ricalens F. Burins carénés et busqués: des nucléus à lamelles. L’apport des remon-
tages du gisement de Thèmes (Yonne). In: de Araújo Igreja M, Bracco J-P, Le Brun-Ricalens F, edi-
tors. Burins préhistoriques: formes, fonctionnements et fonctions: Musée National d’Histoire d’Art;
2006. p. 225–38.
76. Morales JI, Lorenzo C, Vergès JM. Measuring retouch intensity in lithic tools: a new proposal using 3D
scan data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2015; 22:543–58.
77. Falcucci A, Peresani M. The contribution of integrated 3D model analysis to Protoaurignacian stone
tool design. Plos One. 2022; 17(5):e0268539. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268539 PMID:
35584150
78. Wyatt-Spratt S. After the revolution: a review of 3D modelling as a tool for stone artefact analysis. Jour-
nal of Computer Applications in Archaeology. 2022. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.103
79. Duca D. The ecosystem of technologies for social science research, data. Zenodo. 2019. Epub 1.

80. Zangrossi F, Delpiano D, Cocilova A, Ferrari F, Balzani M, Peresani M. 3D visual technology applied
for the reconstruction of a Paleolithic workshop. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2019;
28:102045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102045
81. Lombao D, Falcucci A, Moos E, Peresani M. Unravelling technological behaviors through core reduc-
tion intensity. The case of the early Protoaurignacian assemblage from Fumane Cave. Journal of
Archaeological Science. 2023; 160:105889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2023.105889
82. Martı́nez-Moreno J, Mora R, de la Torre I. The Middle-to-upper Palaeolithic transition in Cova Gran
(Catalunya, Spain) and the extinction of Neanderthals in the Iberian peninsula. Journal of Human Evo-
lution. 2010; 58(3):211–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.09.002 PMID: 20097404
83. Polo-Dı́az A, Benito-Calvo A, Martı́nez-Moreno J, Mora Torcal R. Formation processes and strati-
graphic integrity of the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic sequence at Cova Gran de Santa Linya (south-
eastern Prepyrenees of Lleida, Iberian peninsula). Quaternary International. 2016; 417:16–38. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.10.113
84. Mora Torcal R, Martı́nez Moreno J, Roy Sunyer M, Benito-Calvo A, Polo-Dı́az A, Samper Carro S.
Contextual, technological and chronometric data from Cova Gran: their contribution to discussion of
the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Northeastern Iberia. Quaternary International 2018;
473:30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.05.017
85. Samper Carro SC, Martı́nez-Moreno J, Mora R. Wind of change: zooarchaeological approach to the
Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition in Cova Gran of Santa Linya (Lleida, south-eastern Pre-Pyre-
nees). Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology. 2020; 3(4):989–1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-
020-00066-1
86. Tostevin GB. Levels of theory and social practice in the reduction sequence and chaı̂ne opératoire
methods of lithic analysis. PaleoAnthropology. 2011:351–75. https://doi.org/10.4207/pa.2011.
art64
87. Roebroeks W. From find scatters to early hominid behaviour: a study of Middle Palaeolithic riverside
settlements at Maastricht-Belvédère (The Netherlands): Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia; 1988.
88. Roy Sunyer M. Materias primas lı́ticas y su explotación durante la prehistoria en el prepirineo oriental
(NE de Iberia). 2016. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/400712.
89. Bon F. L’Aurignacien entre mer et océan: réflexion sur l’unité des phases anciennes de l’Aurignacien
dans le Sud de la France: Société préhistorique française; 2002.
90. Bon F. Little big tool. Enquete autour du succés de la lamelle. In: Le Brun-Ricalens F, J-G B, Bon F,
editors. Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien Chaı̂nes opératoires et perspectives tech-
noculturelles, (actes 14e Congrès UISPP, Université de Liège, Belgique, 2–8 sept 2001, session 6).
Luxemburg: Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art de Luxembourg; 2005. p. 479–84.
91. Bon F, Teyssandier N, Bordes J-G. La signification culturelle des équipements lithiques. In: Otte M,
editor. Les Aurignaciens. Paris: Éditions errance; 2010. p. 49–72.
92. Falcucci A, Conard NJ, Peresani M. A critical assessment of the Protoaurignacian lithic technology at
Fumane Cave and its implications for the definition of the earliest Aurignacian. PLoS One. 2017; 12
(12):e0189241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189241 PMID: 29216284
93. Ortega Cobos D, Soler Masferrer N, Maroto Genover J. La prodution de lamelles pendant l’Aurigna-
cien archaïque dans la grotte de l’Arbreda: organisation de la production, variabilité des méthodes et
des objectifs. In: Le Brun-Ricalens F, Bordes J-G, Bon F, editors. Productions lamellaires attribuées à
l’Aurignacien: chaı̂nes opératiores et perspectives technoculturelles (Actes du XIVe congrès de
l’UISPP, Université de Liège, 2001). Luxemburg: Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art de Luxemburg;
2005. p. 359–73.
94. Teyssandier N. En route vers l’Ouest: les débuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe: John and Erica Hedges
Limited; 2007.
95. Sánchez-Martı́nez J, Calmet K, Martı́nez-Moreno J, Roda Gilabert X. ReViBE: protocol for Refit Visu-
alisation of lithic reduction sequences using the Blender Engine. Protocolsio. 2024. https://doi.org/10.
17504/protocols.io.ewov1qxqkgr2/v2
96. Le Brun-Ricalens F, Bordes J-G. Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien: chaı̂nes opéra-
toires et perspectives technoculturelles: actes du XIVe congrès de l’UISPP, Université de Liège, 2–8
septembre 2001, session 6: paléolithique supérieur, colloque C6. 7: Musée national d’histoire et d’art;
2005.
97. Grün A, Remondino F, Zhang L. Photogrammetric reconstruction of the great Buddha of Bamiyan,
Afghanistan. The Photogrammetric Record. 2004; 19(107):177–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-
868X.2004.00278.x
98. Scopigno R, Callieri M, Cignoni P, Corsini M, Dellepiane M, Ponchio F, et al. 3D models for cultural
heritage: Beyond plain visualization. Computer. 2011; 44(7):48–55. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2011.
196

99. Bruno F, Bruno S, De Sensi G, Luchi M-L, Mancuso S, Muzzupappa M. From 3D reconstruction to vir-
tual reality: A complete methodology for digital archaeological exhibition. Journal of Cultural Heritage.
2010; 11(1):42–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2009.02.006
100. De Reu J, Plets G, Verhoeven G, De Smedt P, Bats M, Cherretté B, et al. Towards a three-dimensional
cost-effective registration of the archaeological heritage. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2013; 40
(2):1108–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.040
101. Milosz M, Kęsik J. Special Issue on 3D Information Technologies in Cultural Heritage Preservation
and Popularization—Motivations, Works Overview, and the Future. Applied Sciences. 2022; 13
(1):204. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010204
102. Vicente-Saez R, Martı́nez-Fuentes C. Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an inte-
grated definition. Journal of Business Research. 2018; 88:428–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2017.12.043
103. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding
Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data. 2016; 3(1):160018. https://
doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 PMID: 26978244
104. Nicholson C, Kansa S, Gupta N, Fernandez R. Will It ever be FAIR?: Making archaeological data find-
able, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Advances in Archaeological Practice. 2023; 11(1):63–
75. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.40
105. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, et al. A manifesto for
reproducible science. Nature human behaviour. 2017; 1(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-
0021 PMID: 33954258
106. Marwick B. Computational reproducibility in archaeological research: Basic principles and a case
study of their implementation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2017; 24(2):424–50.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9
107. Sánchez-Martı́nez J, Calmet K, Martı́nez Moreno J, Roda Gilabert X. ReViBe overview videos
<https://ddd.uab.cat/record/287507>. 2023.
108. Sánchez-Martı́nez J, Calmet K, Martı́nez-Moreno J, Roda Gilabert X. Replication Data for ReViBE:
protocol for Refit Visualisation of lithic reduction sequences using the Blender Engine. In: Universitat
Autònoma B, editor. V2 ed: CORA.Repositori de Dades de Recerca; 2024.

Journal.pone.0309611

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal.pone.0309611

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal.pone.0309611

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

Virtual reconstruction of stone tool refittings

1 Centre d’Estudis del Patrimoni Arqueològic de la Prehistòria (CEPAP-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 1 / 19

1.1. The application of imaging science and technologies to lithic refits

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 2 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 3 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 4 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 5 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 6 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 7 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 8 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 9 / 19

4.1. Methodological advances

4.2. Archaeological application

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 10 / 19

4.3. Digital heritage

4.4. Outreach and knowledge transfer

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 11 / 19

4.5. Remote research and logistics

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 12 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 13 / 19

Project administration: Javier Sánchez-Martı́nez, Jorge Martı́nez Moreno, Xavier Roda

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 14 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 15 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 16 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 17 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 18 / 19

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309611 August 29, 2024 19 / 19

You might also like