The Open Aurignacian Project. Volume 1: Grotta di Fumane in northeastern Italy

Overview This repository contains a large dataset (n = 948) of 3D meshes of different classes of lithic artifacts (blade and bladelet cores, blades, bladelets, flakes, and retouched tools) from the Aurignacian (A2, A1, D6, D3+D6, D3l, D3d base, D3d, D3b alpha, D3b, and D1c) and Gravettian (D1d, D1e, and D1f) units at Fumane Cave in northeastern Italy (see Bartolomei et al., 1992). The Upper Paleolithic sequence spans from about 41 to 33 ky cal BP (Higham et al., 2009) and several studies have focused on the lithic technology (Bertola et al., 2013; Broglio et al., 2005; Falcucci et al., 2017; Falcucci, 2018; Falcucci & Peresani, 2018; Falcucci et al., 2018; Falcucci et al., 2020). The importance of the site for understanding the earliest phases of the Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Europe is well acknowledged (Conard & Bolus, 2015). Recently, all complete blades and bladelets from the best-preserved area of the cave (i.e., the external area of the excavation) were 3D-scanned using a protocol that relies on both Micro-CT and Artec Spider scanners (Göldner et al., 2022). Our main goal was to conduct a geometric morphometric assessment of the laminar products and test hypotheses related to stone tool production and, more broadly, past human behavior (Falcucci et al., 2022; Falcucci & Peresani, 2022). Furthermore, all core types have been scanned throughout the years of research at the site with an Artec Spider (Falcucci et al., 2024a; Lombao et al., 2023). The 3D scanning of artifacts was performed using the first model of the Artec Space Spider and a micro-CT scanner. The scanning process adhered to best practices for lithic digitization (Göldner et al., 2022), ensuring accurate capture of artifact details. 3D scanning and postprocessing for both micro-CT and Artec Spider follow the third version of the Styrostone protocol outlined by Göldner et al. (2023): dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.4r3l24d9qg1y/v3. The creation of this open-access repository is intended to encourage archaeologists to participate in collaborative initiatives, thereby contributing to the advancement of research in the field of lithic technology and facilitating broader access to the prehistoric record. This initiative aligns with the promotion of Open Science practices in archaeological sciences, as advocated by Marwick et al. (2017). This dataset is part of the Open Aurignacian Project. Author contact Dr. Armando Falcucci [e-mail]; [e-mail] Description of the dataset This repository includes the following components: RF_3D_Meshes.zip: Compressed folder containing 3D models in PLY format for the lithic artifacts. Readme_Fumane_3D.txt: This README file provides detailed information about the 3D models and metadata associated with this repository. It includes descriptions of the dataset's structure, the scanning and postprocessing protocols, and detailed metadata variables for the lithic artifacts, including scanning technology, resolution, and file formats. The file serves as a comprehensive guide to understanding the dataset and how to properly use and cite the data for research purposes. Fumane_3D_metadata.csv: CSV file containing information, characteristics, and metadata of the lithic artifacts. Each artifact has been assigned a unique identifier in the format "RF.b" (for blanks and tools) and "RF.c" (for cores) followed by a sequential number, allowing for cross-referencing with the techno-typological data presented in related publications. The Fumane_3D_metadata.csv file includes the following metadata attributes: ID: Each artifact has been assigned a unique identifier in the format "RF.b" (for blanks and tools) and "RF.c" (for cores) followed by a sequential number, allowing for cross-referencing with the techno-typological data presented in related publications. Site: The archaeological site where the lithic was excavated. Layer: The stratigraphic origin of the lithic. Raw_material: Categorization by the type of raw material (e.g., Maiolica, Scaglia Variegata, Scaglia Rossa). Class: Broad artifact sorting (e.g., Blank, Core, Core-Tool, Tool), following common classifications in lithic analysis. Cores are pieces of any size that lack a dorsal/ventral surface but have two or more blade/bladelet/flake scars. Tools are pieces of any size that exhibit retouch along the margins. Core-tools are pieces that have produced bladelets but can also be classified as tools (e.g., carinated endscrapers and burin cores) following a typological classification. Blanks are flaked pieces with both a dorsal and ventral face. Blank: Classification of the blank into flake, blade, and bladelet categories. A blade is defined as a flaked blank whose length is at least twice its width, regardless of shape. Bladelets are defined as blades whose maximum width is less than 12 mm. Technology: Technological classification of the blanks into categories such as initialization, maintenance, optimal, semi-cortical, and others, following Falcucci et al. (2020) and Falcucci et al. (2024b). Core_classification: Technological categories for cores and core-tools (e.g., Carinated, Multi-platform, Narrow-sided, Semicircumferential) following Falcucci & Peresani (2018). Cortex: Percentage of cortex coverage (0%, 1–33%, 33–66%, 66–99%, 100%), estimated visually. Preservation: Breakage classification for blanks (e.g., Complete, Distal, Mesial, Proximal, Undetermined). For cores and most core-tools, preservation is marked as "Other". Volume: The volume of the artifact in cubic millimeters. Surface: The surface area of the artifact in square millimeters. Length: Maximum length in millimeters based on technological orientation, recorded with a digital caliper. Width: Maximum width in millimeters based on technological orientation, recorded with a digital caliper. Thickness: Maximum thickness in millimeters based on technological orientation, recorded with a digital caliper. File_list: The list of files in the dataset that correspond to this specific ID. Model_unit: The unit of measurement used for the 3D model. When viewing the artifact in a 3D viewer that supports real-world units, this is the unit you enter into your program to ensure proper scaling. Note that this is not related to the object's resolution; it's simply the value needed for accurate scaling when importing the model into your 3D program. #_of_polygons: The number of polygons in the 3D model of the artifact. Avg_edge_length(mm)/Resolution: The average distance between points on the model, serving as an effective measure of the model's resolution. Resolution_score: A qualitative value assigned to each model, reflecting its resolution. Based on the entire set of scans from the Open Aurignacian Project, it classifies artifacts into four categories (i.e., ultra-detailed, detailed, moderate detail, low detail) based on their average edge length, providing an assessment of the model's resolution relative to others in the project. Scanner: The specific model of the scanner used to capture the 3D data of the lithic artifact. Scan_software: The version of the software used in conjunction with the scanner to capture the 3D data of the artifact. Postprocessing_software: The version of the software used to execute postprocessing algorithms and generate the final 3D mesh of the artifact. Coating: Yes/No entry speifying if coating was used for any scan. What's new in this release (Version 3.0.1) In this new version, we have reworked all 3D models of cores and core-tools to enhance their overall quality and improve analysis. This was accomplished using Artec Studio Professional software by adjusting the settings for Global Registration and, in particular, Sharp Fusion (i.e., using 0.1 instead of 0.3 in 3D Resolution, mm) . These changes mainly affect models with IDs starting with "RF.c". This change was applied only to the PLY files, while the WRL files were not included in this release. The WRL files can be downloaded from previous versions of this repository. Research and Usage Notes Users are encouraged to consult the GitHub and Zenodo repositories associated with the main publication on the Aurignacian sequence at Grotta di Fumane for further techno-typological data and analytical resources. This dataset is intended to foster open collaboration and reproducibility in lithic analysis, aligning with best practices in archaeological research. Licensing and Citation Please ensure that this dataset is properly cited in any research or publication that utilizes it. Detailed licensing and citation information is provided within the dataset documentation. References Bartolomei G., Broglio A., Cassoli P. et al. (1992) La Grotte de Fumane. Un site aurignacien au pied des Alpes. Preistoria Alpina, 28: 131-179 Bertola S., Broglio A., Cristiani E. et al. (2013) La diffusione del primo Aurignaziano a sud dell'arco alpino. Preistoria Alpina, 47: 17-30 Broglio A., Bertola S., De Stefani M. et al. (2005) La production lamellaire et les armatures lamellaires de l’Aurignacien ancien de la grotte de Fumane (Monts Lessini, Vénétie). In F. Le Brun-Ricalens (ed.): Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien, pp. 415-436. MNHA, Luxembourg. Conard N.J. & Bolus M. (2015) Chronicling modern human’s arrival in Europe. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aab0234 Falcucci A., Conard N.J. & Peresani M. (2017) A critical assessment of the Protoaurignacian lithic technology at Fumane Cave and its implications for the definition of the earliest Aurignacian. PLoS One, 12: e0189241. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189241 Falcucci A. & Peresani M. (2018) Protoaurignacian Core Reduction Procedures: Blade and Bladelet Technologies at Fumane Cave. Lithic Technology 43: 125-140. doi:10.1080/01977261.2018.1439681 Falcucci A. (2018) Towards a renewed definition of the Protoaurignacian. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte, 27: 87-130 Falcucci A., Peresani M., Roussel M. et al. (2018) What’s the point? Retouched bladelet variability in the Protoaurignacian. Results from Fumane, Isturitz, and Les Cottés. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci., 10: 539-554. doi:10.1007/s12520-016-0365-5 Falcucci A., Conard N.J. & Peresani M. (2020) Breaking through the Aquitaine frame: A re-evaluation on the significance of regional variants during the Aurignacian as seen from a key record in southern Europe. J. Anthropol. Sci., 98: 99-140. doi:10.4436/JASS.98021 Falcucci A., Karakostis F.A., Göldner D. et al. (2022) Bringing shape into focus: Assessing differences between blades and bladelets and their technological significance in 3D form. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 43: 103490. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103490 Falcucci A. & Peresani M. (2022) The contribution of integrated 3D model analysis to Protoaurignacian stone tool design. PLoS One, 17: e0268539. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268539 Falcucci A., Giusti D., Zangrossi F., De Lorenzi M., Ceregatti L. & Peresani M. (2024a) Refitting the Context: A Reconsideration of Cultural Change among Early Homo sapiens at Fumane Cave through Blade Break Connections, Spatial Taphonomy, and Lithic Technology. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 8: 2. doi:10.1007/s41982-024-00203-0 Falcucci A., Arrighi S., Spagnolo V., Rossini M., Higgins O.A., Muttillo B., Martini I., Crezzini J., Boschin F., Ronchitelli A. & Moroni A. (2024b) A pre-Campanian Ignimbrite techno-cultural shift in the Aurignacian sequence of Grotta di Castelcivita, southern Italy. Scientific Reports, 14: 12783. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-59896-6 Göldner D., Karakostis F.A. & Falcucci A. (2022) Practical and technical aspects for the 3D scanning of lithic artefacts using micro-computed tomography techniques and laser light scanners for subsequent geometric morphometric analysis. Introducing the StyroStone protocol. PLoS One, 17: e0267163. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267163 Göldner D., Karakostis F.A. & Falcucci A. (2023) StyroStone: A protocol for scanning and extracting three-dimensional meshes of stone artefacts using Micro-CT scanners V.3. protocols.io. dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.4r3l24d9qg1y/v3 Lombao D., Falcucci A., Moos E. & Peresani M. (2023) Unravelling technological behaviors through core reduction intensity. The case of the early Protoaurignacian assemblage from Fumane Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science, 160: 105889. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2023.105889