After the Revolution: A Review of 3D Modelling as a Tool for Stone Artefact Analysis

With over 200 peer-reviewed papers published over the last 20 years, 3D modelling is no longer a gimmick but an established and increasingly common analytical tool for stone artefact analysis. Laser and structured light scanning, photogrammetry, and CT scanning have all been used to model stone artefacts. These have been combined with a variety of different analytical approaches, from geometric morphometrics to custom reduction indices to digital elevation maps. 3D lithic analyses are increasingly global in scope and studies aim to address an ever-broadening breadth of research topics ranging from testing the functional efficiency of artefacts to assessing the cognitive capabilities of hominid populations. While the impact of the computational revolution on lithic analysis has been reviewed, the impact of 3D modelling on lithic analysis has yet to be comprehensively assessed. This paper presents a review of how 3D modelling in particular has impacted the field of stone artefact analysis. It combines a quantitative bibliometric analysis with a qualitative review to assess just how “revolutionary” 3D modelling has been for lithic analysis. It explores trends in the use of 3D modelling in stone artefact analysis, its impact on the wider lithic analysis field, and methodological, regional and theoretical gaps which future research projects could explore

Investigating hafting and composite tool repair as factors creating variability in backed artefacts: Evidence from Ngungara (Weereewa/Lake George), south-eastern Australia

Across the Australian continent, backed artefacts are produced in enormous numbers during the mid-late Holocene. Previous examinations have revealed variation in the average shape of these artefacts, at both continental and regional scales. To better understand the factors creating this variability, we examine a large assemblage of backed artefacts from Ngungara (Weereewa/Lake George), in south-eastern Australia. This is one of the few open sites in Australia which has high-resolution evidence for spatially distinct, short-term workshops. Within these well-bounded workshops both locally manufactured and imported backed artefacts are present. However, across this landscape the shape of these artefacts is not uniform; rather, similarly shaped backed artefacts are concentrated in different workshop areas. Through the analysis of backed artefacts in different workshops, we suggest that “insert copying” or the replacement of spent inserts with similarly shaped, locally manufactured artefacts creates variability in backed artefact shape

Looking for the archaeological signature in Australian Megafaunal extinctions

The decline and disappearance of a range of giant marsupials, reptiles and birds from the Australian landscape during the last Glacial cycle continues to capture the imagination of both researchers and the general public. The events hinted at in the Australian fossil sequences appear to be mirrored on other continents through similar time periods, though the exact cause or sequence of extinctions remains largely unresolved. In recent years debate over megafaunal extinctions in Australia has been dominated by reports that humans were the primary drivers, leading some to assert that it is no longer a question of whether humans drove these extinctions, only how. Following the review of Wroe and Field, new reports have been published that claim support for a human-driven extinction (HDE). On closer scrutiny however, the key sites and samples lack firm contextual data and/or clear provenance. These studies fail to prove a key tenet of the HDE – that all, or even most now-extinct species were present at the time of human colonization of the continent. As compared with the easy assertion 5 years ago that this had been established, there are now more faunal species (c. 69% of total known to have become extinct) that cannot be placed within 50–100 ka of human arrival. There are still only two sites that demonstrate a coexistence of humans with some species of megafauna – Nombe Rockshelter in the PNG highlands and Cuddie Springs in the semi-arid southeast of Australia. If there is so little empirical evidence for coexistence or association of megafauna with humans, then support for an HDE through overhunting and ecosystem disruption is seriously compromised. Furthermore, the popularly cited “extinction window”, proposed as c. 51–39 ka when the HDE is argued to occur, is still only a theoretical construct. There is no clear evidence indicating that this period was particularly significant in terms of faunal loss. At present, the great majority of ‘Pleistocene’ sites remain poorly dated and the understanding of faunal turnover through this epoch is almost non-existent. Small datasets, poorly constructed hypotheses and assertive rhetoric are the prominent features of current discussions on a human role in megafaunal extinctions. Importantly, it is yet to be established whether the extinctions are an archaeological problem. The sparse fossil record known from Australia hampers a clear resolution as to how and when the megafauna disappeared, a situation likely to continue into the near future