Figure 1
Annual number of published peer-reviewed papers where 3D modelling is used as either an analytical, archival, or pedagogical tool or illustrative technique for lithic analysis. Papers published in 2022 – from January to May – (n = 16) have been excluded. The drop in papers in 2021 likely reflects the impact of COVID-19, and the number of papers in 2022 is on track to continue the field’s growth. Figure produced using the ggplot package.
Figure 2
Top 10 journals by number of publications. Only core and zone 2 journals are present in the top 10 journals. Figure produced using the ggplot package.
Figure 3
Collaboration network of all authors who have published ≥ 3 articles (n = 57). A Fruchterman-Reingold layout and the Louvain clustering algorithm were used to produce the network. The community repulsion force was 0.5 and the minimum number of edges was 1. Isolated nodes were kept. Figure produced using the bibliometrix, igraph, and qgraph packages.
Figure 4
Top 10 Authors’ Production over time. The number of articles published in a year is indicated by the size of the bubble. The colour intensity is proportional to the number of times articles published in that year have been cited. The line represents an author’s publication timeline. Figure produced using the bibliometrix package.
Figure 5
Historical Direct Citation Network of the top 25 papers by number of local citations, i.e. papers that are cited by papers within the dataset. Figure produced using the bibliometrix package.
Figure 6
Number of papers published per year by modelling method. Papers published in 2022 have been excluded. Figure produced using the ggplot package.
Figure 7
Software trends over time. The dot indicates the median year for each keyword. Word minimum frequency 5, number of words per year 5. The category “n/a” generally refers to studies where the 3D models were used for 3D printing, archival, diagnostic, or pedagogical purposes. Figure produced using the bibliometrix package.
Figure 8
Regions of study by number of publications. Note that studies could be multi-regional and could include both an experimental and archaeological component. Figure produced using the ggplot package.
Table 1
The top 10 keywords in the four keyword categories. Note, the numbers in the artefact category do not indicate how prominent or how many artefacts were included in a given study, merely whether they had been modelled and analysed.
| KEYWORD (THEMATIC) | NO. | KEYWORD (ANALYSIS) | NO. | KEYWORD (ARTEFACT) | NO. | KEYWORD (INDUSTRY) | NO. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| techno-morphological | 80 | landmark morphometrics | 37 | biface | 54 | Acheulean | 40 |
| reduction strategy | 46 | 3D gmm | 32 | core | 38 | Middle Palaeolithic | 18 |
| experimental | 43 | volume | 30 | handaxe | 38 | First Nations American | 16 |
| methodological (analytical) | 24 | scar density index | 25 | flake | 33 | Levallois | 10 |
| typological | 20 | cross section | 23 | point | 30 | Upper Palaeolithic | 9 |
| functional | 16 | symmetry | 22 | retouched flake | 28 | Micoquian | 7 |
| methodological (modelling) | 14 | edge angle | 18 | other artefact/tool | 14 | modern | 7 |
| archival | 9 | 2D gmm | 14 | large cutting tool | 13 | Lower Palaeolithic | 6 |
| knapping skill | 9 | digital elevation model | 11 | blade | 11 | Mousterian | 6 |
| open science | 9 | refitting | 10 | cleaver | 11 | Protoaurignacian | 6 |
Table 2
List of the 5 most common keywords in each cluster. Cluster 6 has been excluded as it only contained three keywords.
| CLUSTER 1 KEYWORDS | NO. | CLUSTER 2 KEYWORDS | NO. | CLUSTER 3 KEYWORDS | NO. | CLUSTER 4 KEYWORDS | NO. | CLUSTER 5 KEYWORDS | NO. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| techno- morphological | 80 | reduction strategy | 46 | point | 30 | retouched flake | 28 | functional | 16 |
| biface | 54 | experimental | 43 | First Nations American | 16 | cross section | 23 | other artefact/tool | 14 |
| Acheulean | 40 | core | 38 | 2D gmm | 14 | edge angle | 18 | digital elevation model | 11 |
| handaxe | 38 | flake | 33 | archival | 9 | middle palaeolithic | 18 | hammerstone | 9 |
| landmark morphometrics | 37 | volume | 30 | open science | 9 | backed artefact | 9 | usewear | 9 |
Figure 9
Co-occurrence Network Map of the dataset. The layout algorithm was generated with the “layout_nicely” function in igraph and a Louvain clustering algorithm was used to produce the network. The community repulsion force was 0.5 and the minimum number of edges was 2. Isolated nodes were removed. The size of the node reflects how many times the keyword occurs. Figure produced using the bibliometrix and igraph packages.