Advertisement

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 651–665 | Cite as

3D analysis of cut marks using a new geometric morphometric methodological approach

  • Lloyd A. CourtenayEmail author
  • Jose Yravedra
  • Miguel Ángel Mate-González
  • Julia Aramendi
  • Diego González-Aguilera
Original Paper

Abstract

The arrival of new methodological approaches to study microscopic qualities in cut mark morphology has been a major improvement in our understanding of butchering activities. Micro-morphological differences can be detected in multiple different taphonomic alterations on bone cortical surfaces that can later be used to compare different trace mark types. Through this, we can generate studies that are able to diagnose the specific taphonomic agents and activities that produce said traces that can be found on osteological surfaces. This paper presents experimental data that have been studied using micro-photogrammetry and geometric morphometrics, successfully distinguishing morphological differences in cut marks produced by different lithic tool types as well as different raw materials. The statistical results and methodologies presented here can later be applied to archaeological sites; aiding in our understanding of raw material exploitation, tool production as well as the different butchering activities that are present in faunal assemblages.

Keywords

Taphonomy Experimental archaeology Geometric morphometrics Cut marks Raw materials 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the TIDOP Group from the Department of Cartographic and Land Engineering of the High Polytechnics School of Avila, University of Salamanca, for the use of tools and facilities. We want to recognise the technical support provided by C.A.I. Arqueometry and Archaeological Analysis from Complutense University which has been very useful to carry out the present work. Julia Aramendi would like to thank Fundación La Caixa and the Spanish Education, Culture and Sports Ministry (FPU15/04585) for funding her postgraduate education programmes. We also appreciate the help Andrea Martínez Fernández, Nicolas Alix González and Irene Faza Aladro provided with the photographical documentation of the experimental lithic tools. The corresponding author would also like to thank Abel Moclán for his advice on countless occasions.

Bibliography

  1. Aramendi J, Maté-González MA, Yravedra J, Cruz Ortega M, Arriaza MC, González-Aguilera D, Baquedano E, Domínguez-Rodrigo M (2017) Discerning carnivore agency through the three-dimensional study of tooth pits: revisiting crocodile feeding behaviour at FLK-Zinj and FLK NN3 (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.05.021
  2. Arriaza MC, Yravedra J, Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Mate-González MA, García Vargas E, Palomeque-González JF, Aramendi J, González-Aguilera D, Baquedano E (2017) On applications of micro-photogrammetry and geometric morphometrics to studies of tooth mark morphology: the modern Olduvai carnivore site (Tanzania). PaleoGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartosiewicz L (2009) Skin and bones: taphonomy of a medieval tannery in Hungary. J Taphon 7(2):91–107Google Scholar
  4. Batram L, Marean C (1999) Explaining the “Klasies Pattern”: Kua ethnoarchaeology, the Die Kelders Middle Stone Age Archaeofauna, long bone fragmentation and carnivore ravaging. J Archaeol Sci 26:9–29Google Scholar
  5. Behrensmeyer AK, Gordon K, Yangi GT (1986) Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature 319:768–773Google Scholar
  6. Bello S (2011) New results from the examination of cut-marks using three-dimensional imaging. In: Ashoton NM, Lewis SG, Stringer CB (eds) The ancient human occupation of Britain. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 249–262Google Scholar
  7. Bello S, Soligo C (2008) A new method for the quantitative analysis of cutmark micromorphology. J Archaeol Sci 35:1542–1552Google Scholar
  8. Bello S, Parfitt S, Stringer C (2009) Quantitative micromorphological analyses of cut marks produced by ancient and modern handaxes. J Archaeol Sci 36:1869–1880Google Scholar
  9. Bello S, Groote I, Delbarre G (2013) Application of 3-dimensional microscopy and micro-CT scanning to the analysis of Magdalenian portable art on bone antler. J Archaeol Sci 40:2464–2476Google Scholar
  10. Binford L (1967) Smudge pits and hide smoking. The use of analogy in archaeological reasoning. Am Antiq 32(1):2–12Google Scholar
  11. Binford L (1968) Archaeological perspectives, new perspectives in archaeology. Aldine, New York, pp 5–32Google Scholar
  12. Binford L (1981) Bones: ancient men and modern myths. Academic Press Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Blasco R, Rosell J, Fernández Peris J, Cáceres I, María Vergès J (2008) A new element of trampling: an experimental application on the level XII faunal record of Bolomor cave (Valencia, Spain). J Archaeol Sci 35:1605–1618Google Scholar
  14. Blumenschine RJ, Marean WC, Capaldo SD (1996) Blind tests of inter-analyst correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cut marks, percussion marks, and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces. J Archaeol Sci 23:493–507Google Scholar
  15. Blumenschine RJ, Masao FT, Tactikos JC, Ebert JI (2008) Effects of distance from stone source on landscape-scale variation in Oldowan artifact assemblages in the paleo-Olduvai Basin, Tanzania. J Archaeol Sci 35:76–86Google Scholar
  16. Bonney H (2014) An investigation of the use of discriminant analysis for the classification of blade edge type from cut marks made by metal and bamboo blades. American J Phys Anthr 154:575–584Google Scholar
  17. Bookstein F (1989) Principal warps: thin-plate spline and the decomposition of deformations. Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 11(6):567–585Google Scholar
  18. Bookstein F (1991) Types of landmarks, morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biolog. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 63–64Google Scholar
  19. Braun D, Pobiner B, Thompson J (2008) An experimental investigation of cut mark production and stone tool attrition. J Archaeol Sci 35:1216–1223Google Scholar
  20. Braun D, Plummer T, Ferraro J, Ditchfield P, Bishop L (2009) Raw material quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: evidence from Kanjera South, Kenya. J Archaeol Sci 36:1605–1614Google Scholar
  21. Braun DR, Pante M, Archer W (2016) Cut marks on bone surfaces: influences on variation in the form of traces of ancient behaviour. Interface Focus 6.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0006
  22. Bunge M (1981) Analogy between systems. Int J Gen Syst 7:221–223Google Scholar
  23. Charlin J, Harnández Llosas I (2016) Morfometría Geométrica y Representciones Rupestres: Explorando las Aplicaciones de los Métodos Basados en Landmarks. Arqueología 22(1):103–125Google Scholar
  24. Choi K, Driwantoro D (2007) Shell tool use by early members of Homo erectus in Sangiran central java, Indonesia: cut mark evidence. J Archaeol Sci 34:48–58Google Scholar
  25. Cooney J, Van Gelder L (2011) Child labour in the past: children as economic contributors and consumers. Annual Society for the Study of Childhood in the Past, University of Cambridge, ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  26. Core-Team R (2015) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing. https://www.Rproject.org/. Accessed the 14th of May, 2017
  27. Dewbury A, Russell N (2007) Relative frequency of butchering cutmarks produced by obsidian and flint: an experimental approach. J Archaeol Sci 34:354–357Google Scholar
  28. Diez-Martín F, Sánchez P, Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Mabulla A, Barba R (2009) Were Olduvai hominins making butchering tools or battering tools? Analysis of a recently excavated lithic assemblage from BK (bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). J Anthr Archaeol 28:274–289Google Scholar
  29. Domínguez-Rodrigo M, de la Torre I, Luque L, Alcalá L, Mora R, Serralonga J, Medina V (2002) The ST site complex at Peninj, West Lake Natron, Tanzania: implications for early hominid behavioural models. J Archaeol Sci 29(12):639–665Google Scholar
  30. Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Juana S, Galán AB, Rodríguez M (2009) A new protocol to differentiate trampling marks from butchery cut marks. J Archaeol Sci 36:2643–2654Google Scholar
  31. Dryden IL, Mardia KV (1998) Statistical shape analysis. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  32. Faith T, Marean C, Behrensmeyer A (2006) Carnivore competition, bone destruction and bone density. J Archaeol Sci 34:2025–2034Google Scholar
  33. Fernández-Jalvo Y, Andrews P (2016) Linear marks, atlas of taphonomic identifications. Springer Science+Buisness Media Dordrecht, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series, London, pp 35–100Google Scholar
  34. Galán AB, Domínguez-Rodrigo M (2013a) An experimental study of the anatomical distribution of cut marks created by filleting and disarticulation on long bone ends. Archaeometry 55(6):1132–1149Google Scholar
  35. Galán AB, Domínguez-Rodrigo M (2013b) Testing the efficiency of simple flakes, retouched flakes and small handaxes during butchery. Archaeometry.  https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12064
  36. Gifford-Gonzalez D (1991) Bones are not enough: analogues, knowledge, and interpretive strategies in zooarchaeology. J Anthr Archaeol 10:215–254Google Scholar
  37. Goodall C (1991) Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 53(2):285–339Google Scholar
  38. Goodall C, Mardia K (1993) Multivariate aspects of shape theory. Ann Stat 21(2):848–866Google Scholar
  39. Greenfield HJ (1999) The origins of metallurgy: distinguishing stone from metal cut-marks on bones from archaeological sites. J Archaeol Sci 26:797–808Google Scholar
  40. Greenfield HJ (2008) Metallurgy in the near east, a zooarchaeological perspective on the origins of metallurgy in the near east: analysis of stone and metal cut marks on bone from Israel. In: Selin H (ed) Encyclopedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1639–1647Google Scholar
  41. Güth A (2012) Using 3D scanning in the investigation of upper Palaeolithic engravings: first results of a pilot study. J Archaeol Sci 39(10):3105–3114Google Scholar
  42. Hall B (2003) Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution. Bio Rev 78(3):409–433Google Scholar
  43. Hutton J (1794) Experience considered as the cause of knowledge, or as an operation in which the human intellect is made to proceed, an investigation of the principles of knowledge: and of the progress of reason, from sense to science and philosophy. Strahan T Cadell Lond 2(3):105–120Google Scholar
  44. Hiscock P (2007) Looking the other way: a materialist/technological approach to classifying tools and implements, cores and retouched flakes. In: McPherron S, Lindley J (eds) Tools or cores? The identification and study of alternative core technology in lithic assemblages. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, pp 189–222Google Scholar
  45. Juana S, Galán AB, Domínguez-Rodrigo M (2009) Taphonomic identification of cut marks made with lithic handaxes: an experimental study. J Archaeol Sci 37:1841–1850Google Scholar
  46. Kendall D (1989) A survey of the statistical theory of shape. Stat Sci 4(2):87–120Google Scholar
  47. Klingenberg C (2008) Novelty and “homology-free” morphometrics: what’s in a name? Evol Bio 35:186–190Google Scholar
  48. Klingenberg C (2011) MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Mol Ecol Resour 11:353–357Google Scholar
  49. Lam Y, Chen X, Marean C, Frey C (1998) Bone density and long bone representation in archaeological faunas: comparing results from CT and photon densitometry. J Archaeol Sci 25:559–570Google Scholar
  50. Lam Y, Xingbin C, Pearson O (1999) Intertaxonomic variability in patterns of bone density and the differential representation of bovid, cervid and equid elements in the archaeological record. Society American Archaeol 64(2):343–362Google Scholar
  51. Lam Y, Pearson O, Marean C, Chen X (2003) Bone density studies in zooarchaeology. J Archaeol Sci 30:1701–1708Google Scholar
  52. Leakey M (1971) Olduvai Gorge, volume 3: excavations in beds 1 and II, 1960–1963. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Lewis J (2008) Identifying sword marks on bone: criteria for distinguishing between cut marks made by different classes of bladed weapons. J Archaeol Sci 35:2001–2008Google Scholar
  54. Lyell C (1830) Principles of geology: being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation. Penguin Classics, WiltshireGoogle Scholar
  55. Machin AJ, Hosfield RT, Mithen SJ (2006) Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. J Archaeol Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.09.008
  56. Manríquez G, González-Bergás F, Carlos Salinas J, Espoueys O (2006) Deformación Intencional del Cráneo en Poblaciones Arqueológicas de Arica, Chile: Análysis Preliminar de Morfometría Geométrica Con Uso de Radiografías Craneofacials. Revista de Antropología Chilena 38(1):13–34Google Scholar
  57. Marín-Monfront M, Pesquero M, Fernández-Jalvo Y (2013) Compressive marks from gravel substrate on vertebrate remains: a preliminary experimental study. Quat Int.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.10.028
  58. Maté-González MA, Yravedra J, González-Aguilera D, Palomeque-González JF, Domínguez-Rodrigo M (2015) Micro-photogrammetric characterization of cut marks on bones. J Archaeol Sci 62:128–142Google Scholar
  59. Maté-González MA, Palomeque-González J, Yravedra J, González-Aguilera D, Domínguez-Rodrigo M (2016) Micro-photogrammetric and morphometric differentiation of cut marks on bones using metal knives, quartzite and flint flakes. Archaeol Anthro Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-016-0401-5
  60. Maté-González MA, Aramendi J, Yravedra J, Blasco R, González Aguilera D (2017a) Assessment of statistical agreement of three techniques for the study of cut marks: 3D digital microscope, laser scanning confocal microscopy and micro photogrammetry. J Microscopy 00(0):1–15Google Scholar
  61. Maté-González MÁ, Yravedra J, Martín-Perea D, Palomeque-González J, San-Juan-Blazquez M, Estaca-Goméz V, Uribelarrea D, Álvarez-Alonso D, Gonzalez-Aguilera D (2017b) Flint and quartzite: distinguishing raw material through bone cut marks. Archaeometry.  https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12327
  62. Merrit S (2012) Factors affecting early stone age cut mark cross-sectional size: implications from actualistic butchery trails. J Archaeol Sci 39:2984–2994Google Scholar
  63. Merton RK (1967) On theoretical sociology: five essay, old and new. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Moclán Ramos A (2016) Marcas de Corte, Análisis Zooarqueológico y Tafonómico del Nivel F del Abrigo de Navalmaíllo (Pinilla del Valle, Madrid). Master’s Thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, pp 103–109Google Scholar
  65. Monteiro LR, Bordin B, Furtado dos Reism S (2000) Shape distances, shape spaces and the comparison of morphometric methods. TREE 15(6):217–220Google Scholar
  66. Moretti E, Arrighi S, Boschin F, Crezzini J, Aureli D, Ronchitelli A (2015) Using 3D microscopy to analyze experimental cut marks on animal bones produced with different stone tools. Ethnobio Lett 6(2):267–275Google Scholar
  67. Nelson E, Hall J, Randolph-Quinney P, Sinclair A (2017) Beyond size: the potential of a geometric morphometric analysis of shape and form for the assessment of sex in hand stencils in rock art. J Archaeol Sci 78:202–213Google Scholar
  68. O’Higgins P, Johnson D (1988) The quantitative description and comparison of biological forms. Critical reviews in anatomical. Sciences 1:149–170Google Scholar
  69. O’Higgins P, Jones N (1998) Facial growth in Cercocebus torquatus: an application of three dimensional geometric morphometric techniques to the study of morphological variation. J Anat 193:251–272Google Scholar
  70. Olsen SL, Shipman P (1988) Surface modification on bone: trampling versus butchery. J Archaeol Sci 15:535–553Google Scholar
  71. Palomeque-González J, Maté-González MA, Yraveda J, San Juan-Blazquez M, García-Vargas E, Martín-Perea D, Estaca-Gómez V, González-Aguilera D, Domínguez-Rodrigo M (2017) Pandora: a new morphometric and statistical software for Analysing and distinguishing cut marks on bones. Int J Archaeol Sci 13:60–66Google Scholar
  72. Pickering TR, Marena CW, Domínguez-Rodrigo M (2003) Importance of limb bone shaft fragments in zooarchaeology: a response to “on in situ attrition and vertebrate body part profiles” (2002), by M. C. Stiner. J Archaeol Sci 30:1469–1482Google Scholar
  73. Pineda A, Saldié P, Maria Vergès J, Huguet R, Cáceres I, Vallvedú J (2014) Trampling versus cut marks on chemically altered surfaces: an experimental approach and archaeological application at the Barranc de la Boella site (la Canonja, Tarragona, Spain). J Archaeol Sci 50:84–93Google Scholar
  74. Playfair J (1802) Figure of the Earth, illustrations of the Huttonian theory of the Earth. William Creech, Edinburgh, pp 488–509Google Scholar
  75. Popper K (1935 [Translated into English in 1959]) Theory and experiment, logic of scientific discovery. Routledge Classics, London, pp 88–94Google Scholar
  76. Potter SL (2005) The physics of cutmarks. J Taphon 3(2):91–106Google Scholar
  77. Potts R (1988) Early Hominid activities at Olduvai Gorge: foundations of human behaviour. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Reynard JP (2013) Trampling in coastal sites: an experimental study on the effects of shell on bone in coastal sediment. Quat Int.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.11.007
  79. Rohlf FJ (1999) Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J Classif 16:197–223Google Scholar
  80. Rohlf FJ, Corti M (2000) Use of two-block partial least-squares to study covariation in shape. Syst Bio 49(4):740–753Google Scholar
  81. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Tree 8(4):129–132Google Scholar
  82. Sánchez-Yustos P, Diez-Martín F, Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Duque J, Fraile C, Baquedano E, Mabulla A (2017) Diversity and significance of core preparation in the developed Oldowan technology: reconstructing the flaking processes at SHK and BK (middle-upper bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). Boreas.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12237
  83. Santonja M, Panera J, Rubio-Jara S, Pérez-González A, Uribelarrea D, Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Mabulla AZP, Bunn HT, Baquedano E (2014) Technological strategies and the economy of raw materials in the TK (Thiongo Korongo) lower occupation, bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Quat Int 322-323:181–208Google Scholar
  84. Shipman P, Rose J (1983) Evidence of butchery and hominid activities at Torralba and Ambrona; an evaluation using microscopic techniques. J Archaeol Sci 10:465–474Google Scholar
  85. Slice D (2001) Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall’s shape space. Syst Bio 50(1):141–149Google Scholar
  86. Slice D (2005) Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. Plenum Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  87. Spennemann DHR (1990) Don’t forget the bamboo. On recognising and interpreting butchery marks in tropical faunal assemblages, some comments asking for caution, problem solving in taphonomy. Archaeological and palaeontological studies from Europe, Africa and. Oceania 2:80–101Google Scholar
  88. Stiner M (2002) On in situ attrition and vertebrate body part profiles. J Archaeol Sci 29:979–991Google Scholar
  89. Thompson JC (2005) The impact of post-depositional processes on bone surface modification frequencies: a corrective strategy and its application to the Loiyangalani site, Serengeti plain, Tanzania. J Taphon 3(2):67–90Google Scholar
  90. de la Torre I, Mora R (2013) The transition to the Acheulean in East Africa: an assessment of paradigms and evidence from Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). J Archaeol Method Theory.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-013-9176-5
  91. de la Torre I, Benito-Calvo A, Arroyo A, Zupancich A, Proffitt A (2013) Experimental protocols for the study of battered stone anvils from Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). J Archaeol Sci 40:313–332Google Scholar
  92. Val A, Costamagno S, Discamps E, Chong S, Claud E, Deschamps M, Mourre V, Soulier MC, Thiébaut C (2017) Testing the influence of stone tool type on microscopic morphology of cut-marks: experimental approach and application to the archaeological record with a case study from the middle Palaeolithic site of Noisetier cave (Fréchet-Aure, Hautes-Pyrénées, France). J Archaeol Sci: Reports 11:17–28Google Scholar
  93. Van Gelder L (2010) 10 years in Rouffignac: a collective report on findings from a decade of finger flutings research, IFRAO congress, September 2010 – Symposium: Pleistocene Art in Europe (Pre-Acts)Google Scholar
  94. Van Gelder L (2014) Paleolithic finger flutings and the question of writing. Time and Mind 7(2):141–153Google Scholar
  95. Van Gelder L (2015) Counting the children: the role of children in the production of finger flutings in four upper Palaeolithic caves. Oxf J Archaeol 34(2):117–138Google Scholar
  96. Van Gelder L, Sharpe K (2015) Evidence for cave marking by Palaeolithic children. Antiq 80(310):937–947Google Scholar
  97. Walker P, Long J (1977) An experimental study of the morphological characteristics of tool marks. Soc American Archaeol 42(4):605–616Google Scholar
  98. Walker P (1978) Butchering and stone tool function. Soc Am Archaeol 43(4):710–715Google Scholar
  99. West J, Louys J (2007) Differentiating bamboo from stone tool cut marks in the zooarchaeological record, with a discussion on the use of bamboo knives. J Archaeol Sci 34:512–518Google Scholar
  100. Weston E, Szabó K, Stern N (2015) Pleistocene shell tools from Lake Mungo Lunette, Australia: identification and interpretation drawing on experimental archaeology. Quat Int.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.047 (Consulted the 10th of April, 2017)
  101. Whewell W (1847) Of the fundamental antithesis of philosophy, the philosophy of the inductive sciences founded upon their history, vol 2. John W Parker, London, pp 16–50Google Scholar
  102. Yravedra J (2006) Las Marcas de Corte, Tafonomía Aplicada a la Zooarqueología. UNED, Madrid, pp 188–195Google Scholar
  103. Yravedra J, Maté-González MA, Palomeque-González JF, Aramendi J, Estaca Gómez V, San Juan Blazquez M, García Vargas E, Organista E, González-Aguilera D, Carmen Arriaza M, Cobo-Sánchez L, Gidna A, Uriberlarrea del Val D, Baquedano E, Mabulla A, Domíngue-Rodrigo M (2017a) A new apporach to raw material use in the exploitation of animal carcasses at BK (upper bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania): a micro-photogrammetric and geometric morphometric analysis of fossil cut marks. Boreas.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12224
  104. Yravedra J, Díez-Martín F, Egeland C, Maté-González MA, Palomeque-González JF, Carmen Arriaza M, Aramendi J, García Vargas E, Estaca-Gómez V, Sánchez P, Fraile C, Duque J, Francisco Rodriguez S, González-Aguilera D, Mabulla A, Baquedano E, Domíngue-Rodrigo M (2017b) FLK west (lower bed II, Olduvai-gorge, Tanzania): a new early Acheulean site with evidence for human exploitation of Fauna. Boreas.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12243

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lloyd A. Courtenay
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jose Yravedra
    • 1
    • 2
  • Miguel Ángel Mate-González
    • 3
    • 4
  • Julia Aramendi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Diego González-Aguilera
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PrehistoryComplutense UniversityMadridSpain
  2. 2.IDEA (Institute of Evolution in Africa)MadridSpain
  3. 3.Deparment of Cartography and Terrain Engineering, Polytechnic School of AvilaUniversity of SalamancaAvilaSpain
  4. 4.C. A. I. Archaeometry and Archaeological AnalysisComplutense UniversityMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations