Vectorial application for the illustration of archaeological lithic artefacts using the "Stone Tools Illustrations with Vector Art" (STIVA) Method.

Lithic illustrations are often used in scientific publications to efficiently communicate the technological and morphological characteristics of stone tools. They offer invaluable information and insights not only on how stone raw materials were transformed into their final form, but also on the individuals that made them. Here, the "Stone Tools Illustrations with Vector Art" (STIVA) Method is presented, which involves the illustration of lithic artefacts using vectorial graphics software (Adobe Illustrator ©). This protocol follows an optimised step-by-step method, presenting ten major sections that constitute the creation of a lithic illustration: photography, vectorial software configuration, scale, outline, scar borders, ripples, cortex, symbols, composition, and export. This method has been developed to allow researchers, students and educators to create clear and competent illustrations for any application, from scientific publications to public outreach.

Introduction

Archaeological research involves the study of past human activity, behaviour, and interaction with the environment. Although widely different approaches can be taken depending on geographic, cultural, and chronological contexts, one of the most important components of archaeological research is the study of material culture. Objects used and created in the past can offer invaluable information for the better understanding of who made them, why, and how they were used. These objects have to be represented and published to share the researchers’ interpretations and hypotheses, and this is done using graphic, printable, representations.

One of the most ubiquitous types of materials retrieved in the archaeological record is stone. Due to its inorganic nature it can survive indefinitely both in open-air contexts and in below-surface deposits, and it is undoubtedly a type of raw material that has been used for the longest time in human prehistory [1]. Knapped stone objects are fundamental artefacts for the identification of human presence and behaviour, and are commonly used to identify the earliest tools produced by our ancestors. These important objects, whether for research or public engagement purposes, are therefore best represented by means of graphic representation.

In the past decades the introduction of easy-to-use and fast imaging technologies has overtaken the world of archaeological imaging. Prior to the introduction of digital imaging technologies such as photography, photogrammetry and three-dimensional scanning, lithic illustrations were commonly drawn by artists and archaeologists. The fastest and most efficient of these modern imaging methods is certainly digital photography. Given the ease of access to digital photographic cameras and their affordability and wide-spread use, digital photographs have become the primary method for artefact depiction [2]. However, photography can be a challenging medium, as many variables must be considered when photographing lithic artefacts. Surface colour, patination, roughness, irregularities, raw material type, opacity, and background lighting are just a few of the variables that have to be reckoned with when photographing stone, and without a thorough understanding of photography it can be easy to misjudge the final product. When details and aspects of the artefacts have been obscured by improper photography, important observations and interpretations can be missed.

Photogrammetry uses digital photographs to create three-dimensional models of objects or locations. If poor quality or poorly processed digital photographs are used in photogrammetry, the problems described above are compounded and can result in unreliable digital models [3]. This method involves the modelling of three-dimensional objects that begins with the importing of two-dimensional photographs into specialised photogrammetry softwares [4]. This is followed by the processing of the photographs to create three-dimensional surfaces that are then merged into final volumetric models [5]. Furthermore, when photogrammetry is applied to small objects such as lithic artefacts, a series of issues can be encountered due to the minute nature of the topographic and textural details, often resulting in three-dimensional models lacking in high resolution.

3-D scanning can potentially suffer from different problems that are unlike those for photography and photogrammetry. 3-D scanning is a modern imaging method that includes several techniques that differ based on the specific technology used, and can highly differ in terms of cost, usability and scanned material limitations [6]. Structured light scanners are among the most commonly used 3-D scanners in archaeological contexts, and use patterns of light to identify any deformations or reflections on the surface of the scanned object. The application of structured light scanners for lithic artefacts is usually satisfactory, although it can be problematic when scanning translucent or transparent objects; these can be common features of lithic artefacts. This problem does not arise, however, when using laser scanners. These scanners create 3-D images by triangulating the positions of laser dots which are projected onto the object, in order to recreate three-dimensional surfaces. Both of these 3-D scanning techniques can be used to create high-quality lithic illustrations [7-9], both as three-dimensional objects and two-dimensional figures. Nevertheless, 3-D scanning is a costly and time-consuming method. The high cost of 3-D scanning equipment and post-processing machinery, together with the time required for the scanning process and subsequent post-processing, make this method rarely used.

In regards to lithic artefacts, the problems that might arise from inadequate photography, photogrammetry, or 3-D -scanning, can be easily resolved with a traditional lithic illustration. Such lithic illustrations offer the opportunity to select and emphasize areas or features of a lithic artefact, and there are little to no risks in obscuring what is important for developing interpretations and hypotheses. Unfortunately, traditional hand-drawn illustrations, which are still to this date the most common method for lithic illustration, can often be time consuming or expensive should an artist be hired. To resolve the issues of time and costs related to the hand illustration of lithics, the Stone Tools Illustrations with Vector Art ‘STIVA’ Method was developed. Although new, its application has already been tested and proved to be publishable in peer-reviewed manuscripts [10].

Taking inspiration from the traditional step-by-step processes used by archaeological illustrators [11, 12], the ‘STIVA’ Method transposes the depiction of lithics from pen and paper to any digital device. By using reference photographs for digital tracing, the ‘STIVA’ Method combines the ease of use and speed of digital photography with the representational power of hand illustrations.

The ‘STIVA’ protocol offers a clear step-by-step process that anyone can learn and put into practice. Nevertheless, to produce high-quality, publishable illustrations, it is important that the illustrator has a good understanding of lithic analysis. To produce objective figures, it is necessary to know what is being drawn, and to ensure that non-existent features or components are not fabricated. For this reason, it is highly advised to have a good understanding of stone tool morphology and production.

The ‘STIVA’ Method was developed using Adobe Illustrator ©, as it has native functions and tools that make the digital illustration of lithic artefacts easier and faster compared to other non subscription-based vectorial softwares. The ‘STIVA’ Method provides detailed explanations on how to navigate Adobe Illustrator ©, and offers a framework for archaeologists and others to illustrate any archaeological material.

Materials and methods

The protocol described in this peer-reviewed article is published on protocols.io, dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bubqnsmw and is included for printing S1 File with this article.

Expected results

While a variety of methods for lithic illustration already exist, with the application of the ‘STIVA’ method it is expected that users will produce publishable and user-friendly illustrations without the dependency on hand-drawing experience and skill. With minimal practice and the access to graphic illustration softwares and hardware, anyone interested in lithics, whether for personal, educational, or professional reasons, can produce their own high-quality lithic illustrations.

Archaeological studies are at times incongruous when artefact comparisons from different sites and time periods are attempted. With the ‘STIVA’ protocol, one single method can be widely used when illustrating lithic artefacts from any context or chronology. This method can therefore aid with the standardisation of stone tools illustrations, offering the potential of new and invaluable comparative capabilities.

Stone tools illustrations with vector art: The ’STIVA’ method V.2 protocol.

Also available on protocols.io.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-05963

Vectorial application for the illustration of archaeological lithic artefacts using the “Stone Tools Illustrations with Vector Art” (STIVA) Method

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cerasoni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

All comments have to be addressed before re-submission.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 24 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

All comments have to be addressed before re-submission.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript report a protocol which is of utility to the research community and adds value to the published literature?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the protocol been described in sufficient detail?

Descriptions of methods and reagents contained in the step-by-step protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample sizes and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Does the protocol describe a validated method?

Protocols should already have been demonstrated to work in the published literature. There should be at least one original research article referenced in the manuscript in which the protocol was used to generate data.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. If the manuscript contains new data, have the authors made this data fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the article presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please highlight any specific errors that need correcting in the box below.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper presents a step-by-step guide outlining a novel method of illustrating lithic artifacts using Adobe Illustrator (STIVA Method). The guide is clear and easy to follow, allowing a wide range of archaeologists to digitally draw their own lithic artifacts. The capacity to illustrate in this manner is not new, but it is useful in that it makes people aware of the full functionality of programs such as Adobe Illustrator and makes it accessible to people who may not be familiar with the program. It also provides a framework for others to build upon to illustrate other objects found in archaeological contexts.

While the step-by-step guide is nicely put together (see minor comments below), the remainder of the manuscript needs a bit of editing and elaboration. The Introduction would be greatly improved if the author added further discussion of where the STIVA method fits in with other ways of representing lithic artifacts. For example, the author juxtaposes photography with hand illustrations, arguing that photography is often not detailed enough to capture the relevant nuances present on lithic artifacts. However, morphometrics and 3-D scanning are a growing field, and this deserves further attention. A brief discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of illustration and representation, replete with expanded references, would be welcome. The manuscript also suffers from a number of grammatical and wording issues, and I would suggest systematic copyediting to improve its flow and readability.

Specific Comments:

• Line 47: Divulgation is perhaps the wrong word. The first sentence of the introduction should be reworded.

• Line 57-58: The following is too informal: “…has been used for the longest time in human prehistory.”

• Line 102: Change “whilst” to “while”

• Can steps 22 and 23 be combined?

• Based on your discussion in step 27, the cutting of ripple marks seems to be rather subjective. This should be made clearer in step 27.1, perhaps stating why the cutting of ripple marks is needed. Any other suggestions on the best way to do this would also be welcome.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

22 Apr 2021

I would like to thank the reviewer and editor for the detailed and very welcome comments. Following the reviewer's comments, the Introduction has been expanded so to include different lithic imaging methods (i.e. photogrammetry and 3-D scanning), discussing their advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, more references have been added in support of the several claims made towards the imaging methods described. The specific comments raised by the reviewer were all very appreciated and corrected. The manuscript was also professionally and systematically copyedited so to solve all grammatical and wording issues.

Following the editor's comments: Sections of the manuscript have been moved so to follow the PLOS ONE template. The uploaded files have been named correctly as per request. All references have been corrected and formatted appropriately.

Once more, I would like to thank the reviewer and the editor for all the constructive, positive, comments and interest for the 'STIVA' Method.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Apr 2021

Vectorial application for the illustration of archaeological lithic artefacts using the “Stone Tools Illustrations with Vector Art” (STIVA) Method

PONE-D-21-05963R1

Dear Dr. Cerasoni,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements, including the staff editor request below my signature.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Staff Editor Comments (optional):

PLOS ONE has a requirement that published Lab Protocols link, in the Introduction section, to at least one supporting peer-reviewed publication in which the protocol was applied to generate data (see the guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-lab-protocols). We noted that the citation below (meeting this requirement) was included in a previous version of this manuscript but it was removed in the revised version. Can you please re-include the citation, or a citation to another paper in which the protocol was used, and also comment on why the citation was removed? If you have any questions about this requirement, please email Senior Editor Joseph Donlan at jdonlan@plos.org

Scerri EML, Niang K, Candy I, Blinkhorn J, Mills W, Cerasoni JN et al. Continuity of the  Middle Stone Age into the Holocene. Sci Rep. 2021; 11, 70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79418-4

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript report a protocol which is of utility to the research community and adds value to the published literature?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the protocol been described in sufficient detail?

Descriptions of methods and reagents contained in the step-by-step protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample sizes and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Does the protocol describe a validated method?

Protocols should already have been demonstrated to work in the published literature. There should be at least one original research article referenced in the manuscript in which the protocol was used to generate data.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. If the manuscript contains new data, have the authors made this data fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the article presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please highlight any specific errors that need correcting in the box below.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article and description of the method is greatly improved, and I would recommend acceptance for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

29 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-05963R1

Vectorial application for the illustration of archaeological lithic artefacts using the “Stone Tools Illustrations with Vector Art” (STIVA) Method

Dear Dr. Cerasoni:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Peter F. Biehl

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE