Evaluating the effects of parallax in archaeological geometric morphometric analyses

Abstract

Geometric morphometrics is a powerful set of techniques that can be used to visualize and analyze the shape of artifacts. With the growing use of geometric morphometrics in archaeology, it is important to understand and identify limitations in the method. One such limitation is the accumulation of measurement error. Here, we investigate the impact of parallax or the effect of the position of an object in relation to the camera. We designed an experiment to assess the effect of parallax on measurements of artifact morphology by photographing a sample of artifacts at close range (50 cm) and systematically shifting the fixed angle of the camera relative to the artifact in five steps: 90°, 95°, 100°, 105°, and 110°. We took digital images of geometric microliths from three Jordanian Epipalaeolithic sites at each of the camera angles. We then digitized the outline of each artifact using 24 sliding landmarks. Our subsequent analyses of microlith shapes grouped by camera angle show that they are statistically indistinguishable from each other, which suggests that within these parameters, parallax has little effect on geometric morphometric measurements. While taking digital images directly above artifacts is ideal, the angle at which previously published photographs of artifacts is sometimes unknown. Our findings suggest that small deviations of the camera angle (up to 20° from horizontal) will not significantly impact geometric morphometric analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (2004) Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Ital J Zool 71:5–16

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (2013) A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21st century. Hystrix 27:7–14

  3. Archer W, Braun D (2010) Variability in bifacial technology at Elandsfontein, Western cape, South Africa: a geometric morphometric approach. J Archaeol Sci 37:201–209

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arnqvist G, Martensson T (1998) Measurement error in geometric morphometrics: empirical strategies to assess and reduce its impact on measures of shape. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 44:73–96

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ayala D, Caro-Riaño H, Dujardin J-P, Rahola N, Simard F, Fontinelle D (2011) Chromosomal and environmental determinants of morphometric variation in natural populations of the malaria vector Anopheles funestus in Cameroon infection. Genet Evol 11:940–947

  6. Bar-Yosef O (1970) Epipalaeolithic cultures of Palestine. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

  7. Bookstein FL (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  8. Breuker C, Patterson J, Klingenberg C (2006) A single basis for developmental buffering of Drosophila wing shape. PLOS ONE 1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000007

  9. Buchanan B, Collard M (2010) An assessment of the impact of resharpening on Paleoindian projectile point blade shape using geometric morphometric techniques. In: Lycett S, Chauhan PR (eds) New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Paleolithic technologies. Springer, New York, pp 255–274

    Google Scholar 

  10. Buchanan B, Collard M, Hamilton M, O’Brien M (2011) Points and prey: an evaluation of the hypothesis that prey size predicts early Paleoindian projectile point form. J Archaeol Sci 38:852–864

    Google Scholar 

  11. Buchanan B, O’Brien M, Collard M (2014) Continent-wide or region-specific? A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of variation in Clovis point shape. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 6:145–162

    Google Scholar 

  12. Buchanan B, Eren MI, Boulanger MT, O’Brien M (2015) Size, shape, scars, and spatial patterning: a quantitative assessment of Late Pleistocene (Clovis) point resharpening. J Archaeol Sci Reports 3:11–21

  13. Buchanan B, Andrews B, O’Brien M, Eren MI (2018) An assessment of stone weapon tip standardization during the Clovis–Folsom transition in the Western United States. America Antiq 83:721–734

  14. Cardillo M (2010) Some applications of geometric morphometrics to archaeology. In: Elewa AMT (ed) Morphometrics to nonmorphometricians. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences. Springer, pp 325–341

  15. Cardini A (2014) Missing the third dimension in geometric morphometrics: how to assess if 2D images really are a good proxy for 3D structures? Hystrix 25:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  16. Charlin J, González-José R (2012) Size and shape variation in Late Holocene projectile points of southern Patagonia: a geometric morphometric study. Amer Antiq 77:221–242

  17. Charlin J, González-José R (2018) Testing an ethnographic analogy through geometric morphometrics: a comparison between ethnographic arrows and archaeological projectile points from Late Holocene Fuego-Patagonia. J Anthrop Archaeol 51:159–172

  18. Costa A (2010) A geometric morphometric assessment of plan shape in bone and stone Acheulean Bifaces from the middle Pleistocene site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy. In: Lycett S, Chauhan PR (eds) New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Paleolithic technologies. Springer, New York, pp 23–42

    Google Scholar 

  19. Courtenay L, Yrayedra J, Mate-González MÁ, Aramendi J, González-Aguilera D (2019) 3D analysis of cut marks using a new geometric morphometric methodological approach. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 11:651–665

    Google Scholar 

  20. Debat V, Béagin M, Legout H, David J (2003) Allometric and nonallometric components of Drosophila wing shape respond differently to developmental temperature. Evolution 57:2773–2784

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dryden I, Mardia K (1998) Statistical shape analysis vol 4. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fruciano C (2016) Measurement error in geometric morphometrics. Dev Genes Evol 226:139–158

    Google Scholar 

  23. Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (1998) The articulation of cultural processes and Late Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23:71–93

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis vol 4(1), 3.17 edn., Palaeontologia Electronica

  25. Henry DO (1995) Prehistoric cultural ecology and evolution: insights from southern Jordan. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kendall DG (1984) Shape manifolds, procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull Lond Math Soc 16:81–121

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kitthawee S, Dujardin J-P (2009) The Diachasmimorpha longicaudata complex: reproductive isolation and geometric patterns of the wing. Biol Control 51:191–197

    Google Scholar 

  28. Klingenberg C, Wetherill L, Rogers J, Moore E, Ward R, Autti-Rämö I, Fagerlund A, Jacobson SW, Robinson LK, Hoyme HE, Mattson SN, Li TK, Riley EP, Foroud T, CIFASD Consortium (2010) Prenatal alcohol exposure alters the patterns of facial asymmetry. Alcohol 44:649–657

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kovarovic K, Aiello LC, Cardini A, Lockwood CA (2011) Discriminant function analyses in archaeology: are classification rates too good to be true? J Archaeol Sci 38:3006–3018

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lycett SJ, von Cramon-Taubadel N (2013) A 3D morphometric analysis of surface geometry in Levallois cores: patterns of stability and variability across regions and their implications. J Archaeol Sci 40:1508–1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lycett SJ, von Cramon-Taubadel N, Gowlett JAJ (2010) A comparative 3D geometric morphometric analysis of Victoria west cores: implications for the origins of Levallois technology. J Archaeol Sci 37:1110–1117

    Google Scholar 

  32. Macdonald DA (2013) Interpreting variability through multiple methodologies: the integration of form and function in Epipalaeolithic Microliths. University of Toronto

  33. Macdonald DA, Allentuck A, Maher LA (2018) Technological change and economy in the Epipalaeolithic: assessing the shift from Early to Middle Epipalaeolithic at Kharaneh IV. J Field Archaeol 43:437–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2018.1504542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Maher L (2005) The Epipalaeolithic in context: palaeolandscapes and prehistoric occupation of Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto

  35. Maher LA (2011) Reconstructing paleolandscapes and prehistoric occupation of Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Geoarchaeology 26:649–692

    Google Scholar 

  36. Maher LA, Macdonald DA (2013) Assessing typo-technological variability in Epipalaeolithic assemblages: preliminary results from two case studies from the Southern Levant. In: Borrell F, Molist M, Ibanez-Estevez JJ (eds) Stone tools in transition: from hunter-gatherers to farming societies in the Near East. 7th Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Inductries of the Fertile Crescent. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Servei de Publicacions, Barcelona, pp 29-44

  37. Maher LA, Banning EB, Chazan M (2011a) Oasis or mirage? Assessing the role of abrupt climate change in the prehistory of the Southern Levant Camb. Archaeol J 21:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  38. Maher LA, Stock JT, Finney S, Heywood JJN, Miracle PT, Banning EB (2011b) A unique human-fox burial from a pre-Natufian cemetery in the Levant (Jordan). PLOS ONE 6:e15815

  39. Maher LA, Richter T, Macdonald D, Jones MD, Martin L, Stock JT (2012a) Twenty thousand-year-old huts at a hunter-gatherer settlement in Eastern Jordan. PLOS ONE 7:e31447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031447

  40. Maher LA, Richter T, Stock JT (2012b) The pre-Natufian Epipalaeolithic: long term behavioural trends in the Levant Evolutionary. Anthropology 21:69–81

    Google Scholar 

  41. Marcus L, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor G, DE Slice (eds) (1996) Advances in morphometrics. Springer Science & Business Media

  42. Mullin S, Taylor P (2002) The effects of parallax on geometric morphometric data. Comput Biol Med 32:455–464

    Google Scholar 

  43. Osis S, Hettinga B, Macdonald S, Ferber R (2015) A novel method to evaluate error in anatomical marker placement using a modified generalized Procrustes analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 18:1108–1116

    Google Scholar 

  44. Owen J, Dobney K, Evin A, Cucchi T, Larson G, Vidarsdottir U (2014) The zooarchaeological application of quantifying cranial shape differences in wild boar and domestic pigs (Sus scrofa) using 3D geometric morphometrics. J Archaeol Sci 43:159–167

    Google Scholar 

  45. Petřík J, Sosna D, Prokeš L, Štefanisko D, Galeta P (2018) Shape matters: assessing regional variation of Bell Beaker projectile points in Central Europe using geometric morphometrics. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 10:893–904

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ragan K, Buchanan B (2018) Assessing collector bias: a geometric morphometric analysis of a collection of isolated Clovis points from the midcontinent. Midcont. J Archaeol 43:91–111

  47. Richter T (2007) A comparative use-wear analysis of late Epipalaeolithic (Natufian) chipped stone artefacts from the Southern Levant. Levant 39:97–122

  48. Rohlf FJ (1998) On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. Syst Biol 47:147–158

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rohlf FJ (2003) Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. J Hum Evol 44:665–683

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rohlf FJ (2015a) tpsSmall, 1.33 edn. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook

  51. Rohlf FJ (2015b) tpsSuper, 2.02 edn. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook

  52. Rohlf FJ (2016) Relative warps version 1.62 shareware program. Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York, Stony Brook

  53. Rohlf FJ (2017) tpsDig2 version 2.31 shareware program. Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York, Stony Brook

  54. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129–132

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rohlf F, Slice D (1990) Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool:39. https://doi.org/10.2307/2992207

  56. Rohlf FJ, Loy A, Corti M (1996) Morphometric analysis of Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora) using partial-warp scores. Syst Biol 45:344–362

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ros J, Evin A, Bouby L, Ruas M (2014) Geometric morphometric analysis of grain shape and the identification of two-rowed barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. distichum L.) in southern France. J Archaeol Sci 41:568–575

  58. Selden R, Perttula TK, O’Brien M (2014) Advances in documentation, digital curation, virtual exhibition, and a test of 3D geometric morphometrics: a case study of the Vanderpool vessels from the ancestral Caddo territory. Adv Archaeol Pract 2:64–79

    Google Scholar 

  59. Selden R, Dockall J, Shafer H (2018) Lithic morphological organisation: Gahagan bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 10:e00080

  60. Serwatka K, Riede F (2016) 2D geometric morphometric analysis casts doubt on the validity of large tanged points as cultural markers in the European Final Palaeolithic. J Archaeol Sci Rep 9:150–159

    Google Scholar 

  61. Slice DE (2001) Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall’s shape space. Systematic Biology 50:141–149

  62. Slice DE (ed) (2005) Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. Kluwer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  63. Slice DE (2007) Geometric morphometrics. Annu Rev Anthropol 36:261–281

    Google Scholar 

  64. Suárez R, Cardillo M (2019) Life history or stylistic variation? A geometric morphometric method for evaluation of Fishtail point variability. J Archaeol Sci Rep 27

  65. Takahashi K (2013) Multiple capacitors for natural genetic variation in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Ecol 22:1356–1365

    Google Scholar 

  66. Takahashi K, Rako L, Takano-Shimizu T, Hoffmann A, Lee S (2010) Effects of small Hsp genes on developmental stability and microenvironmental canalization. BMC Evol Biol 10:284

    Google Scholar 

  67. Thulman D (2012) Discriminating Paleoindian point types from Florida using landmark geometric morphometrics. J Archaeol Sci 39:1599–1607

    Google Scholar 

  68. Thulman D (2019) A typology of Florida fluted points using landmark-based geometric morphometrics. PaleoAmerica 5:181–190

    Google Scholar 

  69. von Cramon-Taubadel N, Frazier B, Lahr M (2007) The problem of assessing landmark error in geometric morphometrics: theory, methods, and modifications. Am J Phys Anthropol 134:24–35

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wallace M et al (2019) Searching for the origins of bere barley: a geometric morphometric approach to cereal landrace recognition in archaeology. J Archaeol Method Theory 26

  71. Wang W, Lycett S, von Cramon-Taubadel N, Jin J, Bae C (2012) Comparison of handaxes from Bose Basin (China) and the western Acheulean indicates convergence of form, not cognitive differences. PLOS ONE 7:e35804

  72. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD (2012) Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Donald O. Henry for access to the Wadi Judayid material, currently housed in the Donald O. Henry Laboratory for Lithic Artifacts from the Near East at The University of Tulsa. We would also like to thank Lisa A. Maher (University of California, Berkeley), PI of the Uyun al-Hamman excavations and Co-PI (with Macdonald) of the Kharaneh IV excavations, for access to these materials for this study.

Funding

Funding for Macdonald comes from NEH Collaborative Research Grant RZ-255635-17. The authors would like to thank the Tulsa Undergraduate Research Challenge (TURC), The University of Tulsa, for providing funding and support to K. Royal to conduct this research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Danielle A. Macdonald or Briggs Buchanan.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 90 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macdonald, D.A., Royal, K. & Buchanan, B. Evaluating the effects of parallax in archaeological geometric morphometric analyses. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 12, 149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01111-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Geometric morphometrics
  • Parallax
  • Camera angle
  • Microliths
  • Canonical variate analysis