# Computer-Assisted Reading Tools Marks: First Step of a Promising Protocol

Anaïs Lamesa, Natália Botica, Paulo Bernardes

► To cite this version:

Anaïs Lamesa, Natália Botica, Paulo Bernardes. Computer-Assisted Reading Tools Marks: First Step of a Promising Protocol. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 2025, 8 (1), pp.264-281. 10.5334/jcaa.221. hal-05443594

HAL Id: hal-05443594

https://hal.science/hal-05443594v1

Submitted on 6 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Computer-Assisted Reading Tools Marks: First Step of a Promising Protocol

POSITION PAPER

ANAÏS LAMESA ID

NATÁLIA BOTICA ID

PAULO BERNARDES ID

]u[ ubiquity press

## ABSTRACT

This paper presents a multi-modal method for integrating rock-cut structures into current archaeological studies related to Ancient and Medieval periods, particularly focusing on a case study of the north-west wall of the Göreme 4b church in Cappadocia (Turkey). Historically marginalised within archaeological research, rock-cut architecture is now reassessed through a combination of building archaeology, traceology, photogrammetry, and computer-assisted analysis. The primary objective is to establish a replicable protocol for interpreting tool marks to define construction phases and occupation sequences, thereby contributing to relative dating and heritage conservation.

The interdisciplinary project involved the creation of a high-resolution 3D model, a relational database, and a GIS-based vectorisation of stratigraphic units (SUs). The 3D models—generated from DSLR and smartphone photogrammetry—facilitated the production of orthophotographs and digital elevation models, essential for precise tool mark analysis. Using controlled vocabularies and standardised descriptors, the relational database supports both qualitative and quantitative analysis, enabling cross-referencing across architectural features and excavation contexts. GIS software was employed to integrate geospatial data, allowing for the vectorisation and chronological ordering of identified SUs.

The results demonstrate the utility of this method in clarifying previously unseen features, such as a Christian cross near a tomb and stratigraphic relationships between excavation phases. Notably, the method confirmed that initial excavation proceeded from the top down, and identified multiple phases of tool use, including quarry picks and polkas. Although more time-consuming than traditional CAD-based methods, the systematic protocol enhanced interpretive precision.

This approach offers significant advantages for understanding site chronology and spatial dynamics, and can be extended to larger areas and other structures. Future developments may incorporate artificial intelligence for automated tool mark recognition. The study underscores the potential of integrating digital technologies into archaeological research to refine structural analysis and conservation strategies.

## CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:

Anaïs Lamesa

University of Edinburgh, United
Kingdom

alamesa@ed.ac.uk

## KEYWORDS:

Turkey; Rock-cut structure; GIS; photogrammetry

## TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:

Lamesa, A., Botica, N. and Bernardes, P. 2025. Computer-Assisted Reading Tools Marks: First Step of a Promising Protocol. *Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology*, 8(1): 264–281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.221

<footnote>*Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article</footnote>
# 1. INTRODUCTION

## 1.1. CONTEXT

The study of tool marks and rock-cut crafting practices across historical periods—including Antiquity, the Medieval period, and the early modern pre-industrial era—developed alongside the fields of building and technical archaeology. These archaeological specialisations originated in France, England, and Germany before spreading to Spain and Italy (Dessales 2017; Sapin et al. 2022). In France, the method of interpreting tool marks on stone blocks or rock surfaces, also known as traceology, was primarily advanced by Jean-Claude Bessac. Following the publication of a typology of quarry tools and their marks (Bessac 1986), Bessac shifted his focus in the mid-2000s towards rock-cut monuments (Bessac 2007). Building on traceology, he analysed the organisation of rock-cut worksites. In the context of rock-cut structure, he also used traceology to define the *chaîne opératoire* implemented for the shaping phase and for reuse of the structures as well as to study the man holding the tool. Concurrently, in England, Peter Rockwell produced an inventory of tools used by stone sculptors (Rockwell 1993). This foundational work was later augmented by various studies in collaboration with Will Wotton and Ben Russell (Wootton, Russell & Rockwell 2013). During the 2010s, Rockwell also shifted his focus to rock-cut monuments, publishing a study on Buddhist temples in India. Like Bessac, Rockwell examined excavation sites, concentrating particularly on unfinished works to gain insights into excavation processes (Dehejia & Rockwell 2016). Nevertheless, building archaeology—a branch of archaeology ideally suited to investigating rock-cut structures with the same approach used for buildings—has yet to be fully applied in this context (Bessac, Lamesa & Sciuto 2021; Sciuto 2023). Although buildings from historical periods were treated as stratified archaeological objects from the early 2000s, it was only in the early 2010s that research teams began considering the possibility of establishing phases of occupation at rock-cut sites. Notable examples include research on the site of Lalibela by a French team, which emphasised the changes made within and around the monuments over time (Fauvelle-Aymar et al. 2010; Fauvelle & Mensan 2019), and Marion Liboutet (2022).

In studies of Byzantine Cappadocia, rock-cut sites are predominantly dated using chrono-typology methods. Guillaume de Jerphanion was the first to implement this methodology in his seminal work, *Les églises rupestres de Cappadoce. Une nouvelle province de l'art byzantin* (1925-1942). This four-volume series mainly focuses on frescoed churches, using the style and iconography of each fresco to determine the relative chronology of the monuments. Since then, this approach has been extensively discussed and refined, primarily by French and German scholars (Thierry 2002; Warland 2013; Jolivet-

Lévy and Lemaigre Demesnil 2015; Ousterhout 2017). Additionally, inscriptions, which are rare in Cappadocia, have also been employed to date the paintings within these churches (Xenaki 2011; Jolivet-Lévy & Kourtzian 2013). In 2010, forms and the presence of architectural elements began to be analysed to date the monuments themselves (Lemaigre Demesnil 2010). An essential aspect of chrono-typology involves establishing a fixed perception of the monument. This was the case for rock-cut structures in Cappadocia, which were formerly viewed as static entities. It is only recently that scholars have begun to investigate the changes within the structures themselves, employing building archaeology methods (Ousterhout 2017; Lamesa 2017).

Unlike the extensive studies on prehistoric rock art by scholars using 3D models to highlight overlay and work phases (see Robin 2015 for a thorough synthesis; Botica, Luís & Bernardes 2023), a fully developed methodology employing new technologies to interpret tool marks visible in building and rock-cut structures for historical periods is still lacking. It was with this in mind that we began our work with the Archaeological Unit of the University of Minho (UAUM).

## 1.2. OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we propose the hypothesis that employing methods with computer-assisted information systems alongside approaches from building archaeology, which intersect with chrono-typologies based on the style of paintings and architectural features, will significantly advance the dating of rock-cut churches. Although it may not be possible to establish an absolute date for the monument, defining phases of carving will illuminate the phases of occupation, thereby enhancing our understanding of the monument's use and subsequent alterations over time. By utilising a relational database, we can focus on qualitative data for a specific site or quantitative data for a particular area, and even extend this to a regional territory.

The experiment lasted one and a half months and involved an interdisciplinary team: Anaïs Lamesa, who specialises in rock-cut monuments and Geographic Information Systems (GIS); Natália Botica, an expert in information systems; and Paulo Bernardes, a computer graphics expert. Our work was structured around three main axes:

1) The first axis pertains to the study of the structure itself. To delineate the history of the monument, we need to understand its spatial structure and consider its integration into the surrounding landscape.

2) The second axis focuses on integrating these rock-cut areas into the historical sciences to place them within their socio-economic and political contexts. This involves understanding how and why these areas were excavated. Often overlooked by traditional
excavation campaigns, rock-cut structures serve as primary witnesses to the historical narrative of the areas in which they stand.

3) The third axis concerns heritage and conservation, as the researcher analyses the monument at a specific time. It is essential to assess the condition of a structure while also proposing predictive solutions for its conservation and preservation.

However, as this paper aims to define a protocol, we will concentrate solely on one wall of the church for this case study and therefore focuses on the first axis.

## 1.3. LIMITS OF THE STUDY

Given the constraints of limited time and the labour-intensive nature of data processing in the laboratory, we have opted to focus on developing a protocol rather than examining the church as a whole. This objective is included in our project RACCTURK that we are conducting at the University of Edinburgh (UKRI - Horizon Europe Guarantee, EP/Y028120/1). Consequently, we are concentrating on a specific wall, which allows us to manage the scope of data collection effectively. We are prioritizing a manageable and reproducible model of study, which can serve as a foundational framework for future expansive research.

## 2. DATA

Cappadocia is a region located in central Anatolia, between the towns of Aksaray (west), Gülşehir (north), Kayseri (east), and Niğde (south). The region is covered with a very soft volcanic rock, ignimbrite. With the wind and the rain, cliffs of ignimbrite evolve into large valleys and then fields of fairy chimneys. Inside this peculiar rock, hundreds of churches have been excavated. One of the densest meshes of churches is located in the surroundings of the UNESCO site of Göreme, where carving activities have been conducted since the Roman period 13th century (Thierry 2002).

Rock-cut churches in Cappadocia are well known and primarily studied for their artistic features (architecture and paintings). Providing data otherwise lost on rural communities living during the Byzantine Period, they have been studied for over a hundred years. Over the years, some hypotheses formulated by the scholar who published the first inventory on Cappadocian rock-cut churches, Guillaume de Jerphanion, such as identifying the churches as monasteries, have been challenged (for an overview see Ousterhout 2017), yet his typology using paintings and architectural features to date the churches is still followed today.

The church of Göreme 4b is located outside the open-air museum to its east, atop a cliff bordering

the Göreme valley and the Kılıçlar valley. The church is usually described with one transversal nave covered by a hybrid vault and one apse (Jolivet-Lévy and Lemaigre Demesnil 2015). It is completely unfinished. By applying the approaches of building archaeology, it was possible to discuss the workmen's actions and tasks during and after excavation, and to highlight the decisions taken by the project manager and show that the two apses were initially planned but only one apse was completed (Lamesa 2020).

During the carving process, the workers encountered an inclusion more than one metre long and one metre high when they were working on the vault. They had to alter the initial plan and, after demolishing the inclusion with a mallet, decided to abandon the southern apse and cover the northern part of the nave with a flat ceiling. Three phases of paintings are visible; the last one dates to the 11th c., but the first two are still debated by scholars, with some advocating for dating the frescoes in the northern apse to the 7th c. and others to the 9th c. or 10th c. (see Jolivet-Lévy and Lemaigre Demesnil 2015). This debate raises the genuine question of how to date a rock-cut church.

Our case study is focussed on the north-west wall of the Göreme 4b church, in front of the northern apse. It measures 172 cm in length and 246 cm in height at the lowest floor level. This wall contains a large number of well-preserved tool marks, which have been protected from erosion. However, the nearby floor is very uneven and poorly preserved. The southern end of the wall has been destroyed. The lower end of the wall begins at the level of a grave cut along its length; at this point, there is insufficient space to stand upright, in contrast to a rock ledge forming a step, measuring around 80 cm in length (Figure 1).

The church was chosen as a case study because of the large number of tool marks visible and the complex organisation that these tool marks show. In 2020, we were able to prove archaeologically that walls are indeed a palimpsest of work undergone inside a rock-cut structure. We argued the structure can be delivered to the patron, unfinished, but ready to be used. Due to the soft nature of the rock typically used for carving churches in Cappadocia, only a limited range of tools are employed. To identify specific tool marks, the typology developed by Jean-Claude Bessac (Bessac 1986) was utilised. Nevertheless, it has been observed that in some instances concerning Cappadocia's rock-cut churches, the typical stonecutter or quarryman tools were not applied; instead, agricultural tools were used (Lamesa 2021). In this particular case study, it appears that the tools correspond closely to those listed in Bessac's typology.

On the north-west wall of the Göreme 4b church, picks with both long and short handles were widely used
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Wall west, nave of church G4B (A. Lamesa).</figcaption></figure>

at different stages of the work process (Lamesa 2020). These tools are easily recognisable due to the narrow and short grooves they left behind. The width and depth of the grooves aid in determining whether the pick had a long (called a quarry pick in this paper) or a short handle (called a sculptor pick in this paper); a quarry pick, being heavier, creates deeper grooves. These tools typically produced radial and slanted cuts on the rocky wall.

The second tool observed on this wall is either a polka or a carving axe. The polka features two flat cutting edges, one horizontal and one vertical, while the carving axe has only vertical cutting edges. It is often difficult to ascertain whether the polka or the axe was used; however, on the eastern wall of the nave, several marks made by a horizontal flat cutting edge are visible, which allow for the identification of the tool used at the worksite as a polka, rather than a cutting axe (Lamesa 2020). This tool was seldom used on the north-west wall, where it left skewed slanted cuts.

The wall also shows alterations, a crack running vertically at its northern edge, several inclusions smaller than 10 cm of circumference, or holes made when inclusions were removed.

## 3. METHODOLOGY

To meet our first axis above (i.e. studying the structure itself), a three-stage methodological protocol has been implemented:

a) the creation of a highly detailed 3D model of the rocky wall to obtain comprehensive information about the structure;

b) the creation of a database to store and manage all the data already collected on the monument, as well as all the architectural and archaeological features that characterise it;

c) the creation of a GIS, applied on the scale of a wall, to integrate all the 3D, georeferenced data and vector drawings of the architectural and archaeological elements, particularly those resulting from the stratigraphic reading. The GIS also links to the database that allows all the elements characterizing one structure to be integrated and geospatial analyses to be produced based on pre-established criteria.

Cutting-edge techniques, in particular the digitisation of space in 3D and GIS (here applied only to a wall), allowed us to refine the associated spatial representation and to locate it in space. Traceology is also a key technique. It helps to see stage and task of a *chaîne opératoire* and helps to access how the wall was made and if this wall undergone transformations.

### 3.1. 3D MODEL

For this experience, the photographed wall is in plain sight, lit by daylight; therefore, we did not have to take pictures for the photogrammetry in constrained spaces, like underground structures, or dark spaces. Two types of cameras were used for the photogrammetry capture: a Digital Single-Lens Reflex (DSLR) camera (Canon EOS 650D, 18 megapixels, equipped with an APS-C sensor 26.8 mm in diagonal) with a 18-55 IS II lens, using a 33 mm focal length, as well as a smartphone (Samsung S20FE). Targets were placed around the perimeter of the wall and distances between them were measured. A photo scale was also placed at the bottom of the wall. The ground sampling distance varied throughout the shooting due to partial destruction of the ground in the west, the presence of a tomb carved into its centre, and a bench in the east. As a result, it was impossible to maintain a constant distance between both camera and the surface of interest.

This first series was shot by Anaïs Lamesa. It consisted of 299 photographs taken with the DSLR and without a tripod. An 80% coverage area was chosen to ensure significant overlap between consecutive photographs, providing the necessary data redundancy and detail for accurate 3D modelling. In doing so, we followed the method explained in the report published online by Adrien Arles et al. (2013) A similar protocol is used by John McCarthy and also in the Archaeology Unit of the University of Minho (McCarthy 2014; Botica, Luís & Bernardes 2023). The time allowed for this first session was approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes.
The second series of shots consisted of 77 photographs and was also taken by Anaïs Lamesa using the smartphone and a selfie stick. An overlap of between 60% and 80%, depending on the accessibility of the parts photographed, was chosen (Arles et al. 2011). This range of overlap ensures sufficient data redundancy and detail for accurate 3D modelling, even in less accessible areas. The shooting session lasted 30 minutes.

The choice to use different cameras (a DSLR for 299 photos and a smartphone for 77 photos) was made in order to investigate the resolution of the 3D models in relation to the shooting time.

## 3.2. RELATIONAL DATABASE

The second step was the creation of a relational database to record and cross-reference data collected in the field and through observation of the models. The structure of the database integrates data relating to sites, buildings, and the characterisation of spaces and architectural elements. This facilitates the organisation and comprehension of the data, while enabling faster and more efficient access to information.

The relational database, designed with integrity rules, ensures the prevalence of records and the integration and contextualisation of all elements, along with data consistency. All elements, attributes and descriptors are defined according to commonly used scientific terminology, and data structures were created to encompass all relationships between different entities. Information can be input, modified or deleted in a structured and consistent manner through data entry forms, with automatic attribute validation procedures and associated value lists, ensuring data reliability, standardised recording, and a reduction in typing errors. Using a relational database also makes establishing relationships between different entities possible, for example by associating buildings with their historical and geographical context, as well as with the spatial units that make them up. This relational structure provides a holistic view of architectural projects and their connections.

In fact, as in the archaeology of buildings, it is important to use the typological approach and the stratigraphic approach to best define the chronology, even if this is relative. For example, certain types of covering or paint play a role in establishing a time range (Lemaigre Demesnil 2010; Jolivet-Lévy and Lemaigre Demesnil 2015).

The relational database is also an essential tool for long-term quantitative analysis. Collecting data related to stone working, such as the identification of tool marks and the types of cutting used and located in the monuments will enable us to perceive recurrences or breaks in practices. Cross-referencing all these data will also allow us to detect dynamics on a regional scale rather than one restricted to a monument or a site.

## 3.3. GIS

The third step was the creation of a GIS. As the goal of this method is to understand the history of the sites where the structures are located through their successive occupations and the evolution of their context, the spatial dimension is an integral part of the historical reflection. It is important to emphasise here that rock-cut structures can easily be transformed, changing their internal spatial organisation. Similarly, the sites themselves have several buildings that need to be understood as a whole.

Generally, data collected for the 3D model is geo-referenced thanks to GIS (Katsianis 2024) selfie stick and targets, even when the data is collected underground. Within the excavated space, it is necessary to recreate a system of local coordinates linked to external topographic points (Arles et al. 2011). The geomorphological analysis of an area, the position of the structure in a valley and the articulation of the structure with other surrounding structures offer a better understanding of the occupations of the landscape, their density and their distribution in a given area (Crow et al. 2011).

By combining it with a relational database, GIS can reveal points of analysis and patterns that are not apparent, such as the use of an unusual tool that marks a particular practice or a morphology that signifies structures both in time and space.

Finally, GIS software, applied at the scale of individual walls with tool marks, is a powerful vectorisation tool that can be used to automate the definition of stratigraphic units.

# 4. APPLICATION

## 4.1. CREATION OF THE 3D MODEL AND RELATED DATA

The photographs captured with the DSLR and the smartphone were processed using Agisoft Metashape 2.0 Professional Edition. The processing was performed on a workstation equipped with an Intel® Core™ i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30 GHz, 32 GB DDR4 RAM, and an NVIDIA Quadro K4200 GPU with 4 GB GDDR5 memory.

The standard model creation workflow was applied: the images were processed to generate a tie point cloud, a depth map, and a mesh, which was then textured. The resulting DSLR model (hereafter referred to as Model 1) consists of 75,596,109 faces (at 4193.08 points/cm²), whereas the smartphone model (Model 2) consists of 8,123,271 faces (at 1379.37 points/cm²). The difference in resolution is therefore substantial. Since the models were created using a batch process, it was not possible to record the processing time for each model individually. However, given the hardware constraints, the subsequent processing clearly demonstrated that Model 1 was extremely heavy and difficult to handle, unlike Model 2.
Following the generation and texturing of the 3D mesh, the next step in this computer-assisted tool for mark reading was the production of a Digital Elevation Model (DEM), created for both models with frontal XY orientation. It should be noted that no geolocation data were collected, whether from the DSLR or the smartphone, and therefore the output files are expressed in local coordinates. No external ground control points (GCPs) or check points (CPs) were collected. The models were therefore processed in local coordinates and scaled using reference markers placed in the scene. Distances between the markers were measured directly in situ and compared with the corresponding distances in the 3D models. This procedure ensured internal consistency of scale.

From these two models, orthophotographs were generated as the next step in the computer-assisted reading of tool marks. To achieve this, once the two models were aligned, they were carefully cleaned to remove any geometric noise that might interfere with orthophotograph generation. Although the outputs differ greatly in resolution—11,457 × 15,116 pixels at 0.17 mm/pixel for Model 1 and 5,742 × 7,558 pixels at 0.324 mm/pixel for Model 2—the two orthophotographs initially appear quite similar. However, closer inspection shows that shallower tool marks, such as those made with a polka, are not clearly visible in the orthophotograph of Model 2. While the reduced size of Model 2 makes it easier to handle in the laboratory, this also compromises the visibility of finer tool marks (see Figure 2). For the

remainder of the experiment, the orthophotograph derived from Model 1 was therefore preferred and designated as the reference orthophotograph. To further enhance the analysis of surface morphology and ensure that subtle features were captured, a dense point cloud was subsequently generated for both models.

The next step was the creation of an ultra-high-quality dense point cloud. This stage is essential to capture fine-scale surface details, particularly the shallow tool marks that might otherwise be lost in lower-resolution datasets. In addition to improving geometric accuracy through higher redundancy of 3D data, the dense point cloud also provides a versatile basis for subsequent analyses, supporting the derivation of multiple products such as DEMs, orthophotographs, and cross-sectional profiles. The point clouds were first cleaned automatically—using the *Projection Accuracy* and *Reconstruction Uncertainty* filters, both applied with thresholds corresponding to approximately 10% of the total number of pixels—and then refined manually to ensure integrity and usability. The dense point cloud of Model 1 has 4193.08 points/cm², compared with 1379.37 points/cm² for Model 2.

Because the models were initially processed in batch mode, it was not possible to record the time spent on every intermediate step individually. However, during the creation of the dense point clouds, the processing times were monitored separately: Model 2 was completed in less than two hours, whereas Model 1 required more than eight hours (see Figure 3).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2** Comparison between on the left orthophoto taken by the Canon Eos 650D with a magnification of the circled area and on the right the orthophoto taken with the S20FE with a magnification of the circled area (A. Lamesa).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** Position of the camera: up, S20FE; down, EOS 650D.</figcaption></figure>

## 4.2. CREATION OF THE RELATIONAL DATABASE

Our relational database was based on the 2ArchIS information system, developed by Natália Botica at the Archaeology Unit of the University of Minho. 2ArchIS is a modular information system that integrates data from archaeological sites, contexts, and excavations, designed to be reproducible and interoperable. The relational database was implemented in MySQL, and a back-office application was developed using HTML and PHP to run on a web platform, serving as the user interface for data management, listings, and parameterised queries. This web interface allows all users to access data on their personal computer or mobile device using a browser, ensuring available and up-to-date information for all users based on predefined usage profiles.

The 2ArchIS database has 3 main entries: a territory entry, a site entry subdivided into two entries: excavations and rock art, and a documentation entry (Botica, Luís & Silva 2022).

The rock-cut structures remain in their original context, so the information system, in addition to characterizing the site, architectural, and archaeological entities, should include data that integrates them into landscape studies to deepen the understanding of these structures. Thus,

in the territory module, the characterisation of landscape stratigraphy is included, specifically from the perspective of natural layers (geographical and geological context, hydrography, and other natural features).

For the site entry, we had to adapt it to the specific needs of analysing rock-cut and built structures by creating a third subdivision. The data collected had to be processed by associating spatial and architectural entity data tables with the “building” table. To do this, we adopted two methodological approaches to the archaeology of buildings, those proposed by Daniel Arroyo-Bishop and Lantada Zarzosa (1993), and that proposed by Ivan Lafarge at the archaeology unit of the *Département de Seine-Saint-Denis* (unpublished).

A built or rock-cut wall must be included in larger data sets, but it also bears the marks of smaller data sets. The first step is to define the stratigraphic unit (SU), the smallest unit on which the stratigraphic reading must be based (called, in the case of building archaeology, the constructive unit, considered as positive SU). We prefer to use Stratigraphical Units (SUs) instead of context which has several meanings in English.

In the case of buildings, a positive SU is a coherent whole (a set of blocks of the same dimensions and/or of
the same geological nature, or even just one block); for rocky walls made by human hand, it seems impossible to single out each tool mark, as there are too many on the same wall (Figure 4). We have therefore preferred Ivan Lafarge’s choice of archaeological unit in the Seine-Saint-Denis department, taking the homogeneous unit as positive SU.

In our case, SUs were determined thanks to the technique of traceology, that is, the method used to read tool marks: one stratigraphical unit is a set of tool marks made by the same tool and having the same direction. This technique, which involves interpreting marks on rock surfaces, assists in identifying and cataloguing tool marks. In order to define this set of marks, it is important to focus on the morphology of the impacts, their depth, their spacing, etc. Another type of SU is the natural hazards visible on the wall. In the case of the church G4b, big inclusions (larger than 10 cm) had impacted in the process of carving the structure, therefore, their marks on the rock had to be considered as SUs.

Once this stratigraphic unit had been defined, we adopted the organisation proposed by Arroyo-Bishop and Lantada Zarzosa (1993), i.e., the architectural unit (e.g. a wall or opening), the spatial unit (e.g. a room or corridor) and the structure (building or pseudo-building, which may be mixed, rock-cut or built). However, in the context of specific terrain such as Cappadocia, the sites where we are working must be included as a step between the structure and the site; therefore, we have called it “envelope”, i.e., the whole in which the structure is contained. Cappadocian rock-cut structures can be carved into cliffs (as at Ihlara), fairy chimneys (as at Göreme) or blocks detached from the cliff (as

at Mavrucan) (Figure 5). In some cases, the site may include structures excavated in both fairy chimneys and cliffs. Identifying the envelope and characterising it is necessary to integrate the structure into its landscape. By default, the envelope for the built structure is the ground. This choice is explained by the modularity of the database. Excavations can be carried out before, at the same time as or after the study of the built structure. In this case, the soil is the envelope of the excavation within the database. Finally, the last level is the site itself.

The third entry in the database concerns documentation collected in the form of publications, maps, scanned documents, drawings, photographs, 3D models and videos.

The structure of the database constitutes its architecture. However, in order to populate it with data, it is necessary to define the attributes that characterise these entities, as well as the descriptors associated with them, in order to use controlled vocabularies, a fundamental task for data standardisation and interoperability (Botica, Luís & Silva 2022).

As illustrated on the SU form (Figure 4 above), most of the attributes used to characterise the SU have a list of descriptors in the form of terms to choose from (the down arrow opens a box with choices). The use of a controlled vocabulary mainly avoids clerical errors; the standardisation of descriptors also prevents the use of different terminologies for the same concept. When searching within the database, all the data relating to the same concept can therefore appear without omission.

Stratigraphic relationships are also recorded in the database, allowing them to be visualised in a table (Figure 6) or even in a graph by exporting these

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** Example of a data registration form (developed by Natália Botica).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5** Three types of rock-cut structures in Cappadocia: Top left, Ihlara valley, carved into the cliff; top right, Mavrucan valley, carved into a block; bottom centre, Göreme valley, carved into a fairy chimney (this is the G4B church) (photos taken by A. Lamesa).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** Stratigraphic relation in database table.</figcaption></figure>

relationships to an application such as “Le Stratifiant” (Figure 7). The same process can be used to establish relationships between buildings or spatial units.

## 4.3. COMPUTER-AIDED TRACING

The open-source software QGIS 3.28 Firenze was chosen to create the GIS.

Initial analytical processing was carried out using CloudCompare open-source software v2.12.4

(Kyiv) and Dense Point Clouds, in order to use the Morphological Residual Model (MRM) method (Pires et al. 2014), with the PoissonRecon plugin created by Misha Kazhdan. The Dense Point Cloud for model 2 was created easily, which was not the case for model 1, which took CloudCompare several minutes to process. Despite this issue, details of model 1's Dense Point Cloud explained that we only used it for further processing.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** An example of an Excel table in Le Stratifiant software.</figcaption></figure>

Using the MRM gives a clear image of the tool marks when they are deep. Shallow impacts such as those made by axe do not appear in this modified image. Keeping this aspect in mind, this first process with MRM came with good results as it enabled to observe a cross that had not been identified in previous publications.

Images processed with CloudCompare, orthophotos and the DEM created with Agisoft Metashape (now referred to as rasters) were proceeded in the GIS using the GDAL tool to assign the WGS 84 UMT 36N (EPSG 32636) projection to all images. We also defined the SCR of our QGIS project based on the projection chosen for the rasters.

In the rock-cut structure, in order to observe the tool marks properly, it is recommended to use raking light in a circumscribed area. Applying this method to our DEM, we used the shading symbology to highlight the relief of the wall: after several attempts, we decided to set the altitude at 90° and the azimuth at 315°, with a Z at 4, the layer renderings by default (Figure 8).

We carried out similar processing on the MRM image and applied a grey band symbology with the following calibration: Brightness 178, saturation 0, contrast 78 and gamma 1. We also applied a colour inversion. The choice of colour inversion allows the tool marks to appear more clearly (Figure 9).

Once the rasters have been processed in the GIS, it is possible to vectorise each SU, by drawing it with the ad hoc QGIS tool (Figure 10). We used all implemented

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8** Wall works as a DEM with QGIS.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9** Inversion of color to highlight details.</figcaption></figure>

rasters to vectorise SU. The orthophoto, for example, provides a clear view of the marks of flat-edged tools such as axes, while the DEM and the modified MRM raster are useful for the marks of pick-type tools and clearly see their direction.

Once the vectorisation process was completed, the results of the tool marks reading were entered into the database. It was necessary to create the site, rock-cut and building entities and then the stratigraphic units. For the north-west wall of the G4B church, we defined 26
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10** Drawing techniques with QGIS.</figcaption></figure>

SUs, giving them their own identity, a brief description and, where necessary, a physical relationship with the other SUs (Figure 11).

A final action was the connection between the relational database and the GIS. To do so, we used XAMPP v3.3.0, a package with the open-source servers to run Apache and MySQL database and QGIS. The first step was to launch XAMPP and then connect the database to QGIS by means of a join between the vector layer created for the SU and the SU table.

## 4.4. PRODUCTION OF STRATIGRAPHIC TREES

As explained above, the database makes it possible to relate the various SUs to each other, chronologically or physically. Le Stratifiant is an application that enables archaeologists to draw automatically stratigraphic trees (Desachy and Djindjian 1991; Desachy 2016). It is then possible to create stratigraphic trees for phase excavations and/or recovery work. To begin with, you need to create a view table using the MySQL administrator command box. This view is used to obtain all physical relationships between the SUs (Figure 12).

Once data has been extracted into a table, the relationships need to be translated into French and some relationships like “on” have to be removed. Once the table is cleaned, it can be copied and pasted directly into Le Stratifiant’s “data” tab, where each SU is also identified (Figure 13).

# 5. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

A total of 26 SUs were identified for the studied wall. The main characteristics of each SU are summarised below (Table 1).

NULL indicates that the entry was left empty.

SUs 015, 018, 023, 024, 025 mark a destructed rock inclusion or a hole left after removing an inclusion. SU16 is the crack visible on the left part of the wall.

SU026 is too eroded to be properly analysed but needs to be identified in order to add it in the stratigraphy.

The data can be transcribed in graphical form as shown below (Figure 14).

SU009 and SU001 appear to represent the initial phases of excavation. They are distinguished from one another by a change in tool. SU001 was produced using a sculptor pick, whereas SU009 was made with a quarry pick. Physically, SU009 is located in the lower part of the wall, in contrast to SU001, which is situated higher on the same surface. This could suggest that SU001 predates SU009. Indeed, previous studies have established that the excavation of large rock-cut structures generally began from the top down rather than from the base (Bessac et al. 2021).

It was possible to determine that SU009 and SU022 are synchronous. Both units exhibit the same type of tool marks, oriented in precisely the same direction. SU022 may thus be interpreted as marking the initial movement performed by the worker using the long-handled pick, or quarryman's pick.

Conversely, SU001 was found to be synchronous with SU006 and SU008, based on the similarity and orientation of their tool marks. When drawing these three units, a ledge became clearly visible, situated in the middle of the wall. This ledge does not correspond to SU009, which places the creation of SU009 prior to the formation of the ledge.

This interpretation is supported by SU003, which cuts through both SU009 and SU001. In addition, SU003 and
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11 Example of table on the back-office of the database.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12 Database Server Table View.</figcaption></figure>

SU026 appear to be synchronous, and the orientation of their tool marks is opposite to that of SU001. This clearly indicates two distinct actions, with the worker having turned around to continue excavation.

Unrelated to the other SUs, SU023 intersects SU009. It represents an action of inclusion removal. When tool marks are visible only on the inclusion itself, it is entirely possible that the inclusion was removed during the general excavation process, in which case it is considered synchronous.

Directly related to this first ledge and its formation, another inclusion removal event was identified and designated as SU015. A spalling hammer was used to destroy this inclusion. However, elsewhere in the church, it has been observed that a pick is often employed prior to using a spalling hammer, in an attempt to remove the inclusion (Lamesa 2020). In this particular case, the use of a pick for the inclusion removal disrupted SU001, and the resulting disturbances were recorded as SU002 and SU004. These two units were therefore not considered synchronous with SU001, as they interrupt its stratigraphy.

SU019 is only related to SU001 and comprises a coherent group of tool marks. In view of the synchronous group composed of SU002, SU004, and SU015, it is possible that SU019 also corresponds to an inclusion removal action.

Cutting through SU003, we find SU005, SU010, and SU011. GIS analysis reveals that although SU010 and SU005 do not share the same orientation, they are located at the same vertical level. Similarly, SU005 and SU011 terminate at the same height. It therefore seems likely that the quarryman was required to turn around while standing on a ledge. This ledge may correspond to

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13 Data processing into Le Stratifiant.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Table 1 Description of each SU (from the database).</caption><thead><tr><th>NAME</th><th>SU_TYPE</th><th>SET_<br>TOOL<br>MORPHO</th><th>SET_<br>TOOL<br>DISTRIB</th><th>SET_<br>TOOL<br>DENSITY</th><th>SET_<br>TOOL<br>ORIENTATION</th><th>SET_<br>TOOL<br>DIRECTION</th><th>SET_<br>TOOL<br>FACE</th><th>TOOL<br>EDGE</th><th>TOOL<br>PERCUSSION</th><th>TOOLMARK<br>MORPHO</th><th>TOOLMARK<br>GROOVE</th><th>TOOLMARK<br>IMPACT</th><th>TOOL<br>IMPACT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SU001</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>regular</td><td>dense</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To north</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU002</td><td>destruction</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To north</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU003</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>regular</td><td>dense</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To south</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>quarry pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU004</td><td>destruction</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To north</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU005</td><td>construction</td><td>curved</td><td>regular</td><td>dense</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To west</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU006</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>regular</td><td>dense</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To south</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU007</td><td>construction</td><td>curved</td><td>regular</td><td>dense</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To south</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU008</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To south</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU009</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>upward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To north</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>quarry pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU010</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To west</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU011</td><td>construction</td><td>curved</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To west</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU012</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To north</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>sculptor pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU013</td><td>transformation</td><td>curved</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>point</td></tr><tr><td>SU014</td><td>transformation</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>downward</td><td>horizontal</td><td>To west</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>punctiform</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>quarry pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU015</td><td>destruction</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>punctiform</td><td>NULL</td><td>rectangular</td></tr><tr><td>SU016</td><td>destruction</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td></tr><tr><td>SU017</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>scatter</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To north</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>quarry pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU018</td><td>destruction</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td></tr><tr><td>SU019</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>irregular</td><td>dense</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To north</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>quarry pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU020</td><td>construction</td><td>straight</td><td>NULL</td><td>scatter</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To south</td><td>cutting</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>rectangular</td><td>NULL</td><td>rectangular</td><td>axe</td></tr><tr><td>SU021</td><td>construction</td><td>curved</td><td>regular</td><td>dense</td><td>downward</td><td>oblique</td><td>To south</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>quarry pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU022</td><td>construction</td><td>curved</td><td>regular</td><td>dense</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>To south</td><td>point</td><td>discontinuous</td><td>linear</td><td>straight</td><td>round</td><td>quarry pick</td></tr><tr><td>SU023</td><td>destruction</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td></tr><tr><td>SU024</td><td>destruction</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td></tr><tr><td>SU025</td><td>destruction</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td></tr><tr><td>SU026</td><td>construction</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td><td>NULL</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14** Graph made from the data collected on the wall.</figcaption></figure>

the one previously identified through SU001, SU006, and SU008.

SU007 marks a change in level and intersects SU008. SU007 appears to be synchronous with SU012, as the tool marks are similarly oriented.

SU024 records an action of inclusion removal located within SU007. As no further evidence of additional excavation is associated with this event, SU024 and SU007 were considered synchronous.

SU016 intersects SU007. It represents a destruction SU and disrupts both SU001 and SU007. This fissure is thus posterior to the excavation phase.

SU020 is identifiable due to a change in tool. While primarily composed of pick marks, a straight-edged tool is apparent—one that has also been observed elsewhere in the church (Lamesa 2020). SU020 intersects SU007, indicating that the tool was used after the wall had been excavated. Upstream from this set of marks, a fairly deep recess can be observed on the wall. It may correspond to residual imprint from the removal of a large inclusion, the imprint of which remains visible.

SU017 intersects SU007 and may relate to the removal of an inclusion whose imprint, visible at the base of the wall, has been identified as SU018. SU017 and SU018 have therefore been considered synchronous.

Lastly, SU014 intersects SU007 and is partially destroyed by SU021. The orientation of the tool marks and the use of a quarry pick clearly indicate a new excavation event, likely linked to the construction of the tomb.

A cross, clearly visible in the DEM image, was engraved using a pointed object, difficult to associate with a

specific tool but clearly fitted with an iron tip. This cross corresponds to SU013.

## 6. DISCUSSION

The comparison between the initial methodology, based on simple photography and CAD drawing (2020), and the current protocol, which relies on photogrammetry, orthorectification, and integration into a GIS connected to a relational database, highlights a significant qualitative leap. Although acquiring and processing the 3D model requires a greater initial time investment than simple photographic capture, the benefits in terms of accuracy, analytical robustness, and interpretative depth are more than worthwhile. The main advantage lies in the foundation of the drawing: the replacement of perspective photography—subject to distortions—by a rigorously scaled and georeferenced orthophoto. This rectified image, produced through the photogrammetric process, eliminates deformations and allows for highly precise vector recording of stratigraphic units (SUs).

Furthermore, the fact that the orthophoto has a defined Coordinate Reference System (CRS) provides an absolute spatial context for the entire drawing. All vectorized SUs inherit this reference, enabling seamless integration with other geographic project data, realistic area and distance measurements, and ensuring that the entire team works within a unified spatial framework, thereby facilitating consistency and collaborative work.

The transition from the CAD platform to the GIS environment (Gavryushkina 2018) represents far more
than a simple change of software; it constitutes a methodological evolution that reshapes the entire workflow. In CAD, the link between the geometry of polygons (which delimit the SUs) and their descriptive information is weak and external to the system, making integrated queries and analysis difficult. In contrast, within QGIS, geometry and attributes are two facets of a single feature, natively integrated into a relational database. This integration guarantees data consistency and integrity, where each graphic element is simultaneously a database record.

Nevertheless, orthophotography also provides a decisive advantage as a reading tool, since it allows for the production of distortion-free images that are rectified, unlike the photographs used in 2020. The benefits in terms of identifying tool marks are particularly significant. Thanks to the images reworked on CloudCompare and QGIS, the areas of the wall where the distribution of impacts is very dense are much easier to read on the reworked orthophotograph. This is why the number of strata observed in the 2020 article is lower (17 SUs) than in the present work (26 SUs). Moreover, the systematisation of the process and the use of a relational database—originally developed for excavation purposes—led us to redefine the negative SUs. These negative SUs correspond to the destruction of previously existing units, analogous to the concept of removal layers in archaeological excavation. In the specific case presented here, the negative SUs represents natural destruction due to the weakening of the rock following excavation. Similarly, the issue of actions related to the truncation of inclusions can also be addressed. Indeed, thanks to the precision of the orthophoto, certain specific actions could be identified, while others—those that did not require the worker to return to the surface to deliberately remove the residual inclusion left after excavation—were considered synchronous.

Similarly, a 3D image of the wall, equivalent to that of a DEM, is an undeniable asset, since the impacts, equivalent to valleys, can be highlighted using the processing tools available in QGIS. Its use made it possible to highlight deeper marks, corresponding to SU009, SU013, and SU020. Contrary to what is visible to the naked eye and what it was stated using a simple photography, the tool marks left at the base of the surface in SU007 are not deeper than those located higher up within the same unit (contra Lamesa 2020 who identify a specific SU for it: SU010). It therefore appears that the worker maintained a consistent movement without variation in applied force. In a similar vein, the cross (SU013), which is extremely difficult to observe in standard photography and had not been identified during the previous laboratory analysis, was revealed thanks to the work carried out using the DEM. Finally, SU012, which was neither visible in the photographs taken without photogrammetry in 2020

nor to the naked eye, became distinguishable through the acquisition of photographs from multiple angles.

Furthermore, additional time is also saved in the creation of stratigraphic trees, because the inputting data from the database into Le Stratifiant software is made easier by the systematisation offered by the selection criteria.

The advantages of working with a relational database become particularly evident when the goal is to systematize analysis and, ultimately, develop a quantitative study. By applying standardized selection criteria, the database minimizes human error and ensures consistency across the entire dataset. At the scale of a single site, an entire valley, or even a broader region, interconnecting this database with GIS proves essential. Spatial visualization of data, whether by site, by building, or within a building, as well as by spatial, architectural, or stratigraphic unit, reveals dynamics that would otherwise remain hidden. It is also possible to connect this database to network reading software such as Gephy or Nodegoat. In Cappadocian studies, for instance, having a quantitative approach and dynamics visualisation had never been applied before. Given so, this database developed for rock-cut structures opens completely new directions of analysis.

Nonetheless, several issues can be noted. The difficulty of data collection varies depending on the device used. In the case of the DSLR camera, it was positioned as close as possible—approximately 20 cm from the wall—allowing for the acquisition of numerous highly accurate images. However, in the absence of a stabilisation or lifting device, certain areas of the wall remained difficult to photograph, particularly due to the unevenness of the ground. With the smartphone without LIDAR, the use of a selfie stick mitigated some of the challenges encountered with the DSLR. Nevertheless, it proved impossible to carry out the photographic survey in a systematic manner, as no screen permitted a precise view of where the camera was directed, especially when the phone was held at arm's length. The deliberate choice not to apply the same overlap protocol clearly illustrates that the accuracy of the 3D model produced using the smartphone was ultimately compromised.

Similarly, although laboratory work allows for a more in-depth reading of tool marks, an analysis which, when carried out in the field, must generally be done rapidly, it is important to emphasise that the time required to interpret the orthophoto and to draw the stratigraphic units is considerable. It is therefore necessary to apply this method at the scale of an entire church to assess whether it remains viable and whether the observational benefits outweigh the time investment required for image processing.

In terms of analysis, this method allowed us to identify a cross close to the tomb. This cross indicates that the tomb is clearly Christian, which had never been stated before. It seems that despite the obvious abandonment of the church as a shrine, because the
tomb is clearly destroying the floor of the church, the Christian community continued to use the structure to burry its members. Therefore, this method helped us to define a relative chronology for this monument.

## 7. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

The methodology combining 1) stratigraphic reading from orthophotos, 2) standardised recordings of data in a relational database, and 3) its connection to a GIS, where vector layers associated with archaeological and architectural entities are drawn, is an essential step for the technique of tool marks reading. We also emphasise the added value associated with the possibility of a contextualised and integrated analysis of data, the systematisation of data recording and normalisation, and the ability to have multiple scale analysis and relative chronology definition. It is noteworthy to highlight that the 3D models, used to produce orthophotos and studied the stratigraphy of buildings, offer a highly realistic reproduction of the structures. This reproduction can be used for monitoring their conservation status, but it also provides the opportunity for new interpretations or further studies.

In combination with artificial intelligence, vectorisation through GIS software may support spatial analyses by conceptualising the wall surface as a micro-landscape, comprising reliefs (unexcavated areas), watersheds (trace grooves), and reservoirs (trace impacts). This approach opens up a new avenue for research, aiming to automate the interpretation of tool marks.

## DATA ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, AL, upon reasonable request.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Anaïs Lamesa (AL) gratefully acknowledges the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Türkiye for granting her permission in 2010 to carry out her fieldwork in the Nevşehir province as well as Guillaume Robin and Claudia Sciuto for their comments and advice during the development of this article.

## FUNDING INFORMATION

This article is the result of a Short-Term Scientific Mission funded by the COST Action Saving European Archaeology from the Digital Dark Age (SEADDA – CA18128), carried out by AL at the archaeological units of the University

of Minho, under the supervision of Natália Botica (NB). It was written while AL was undertaking research as part of the RACCTURK UKRI project (grant no. EP/Y028120/1), and also represents one of the project's research outputs.

## COMPETING INTERESTS

I did not find the way to add the STRM funds from SEADDA (Cost Action - ca18128) who allowed me to develop this protocol.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

This article was primarily authored by AL. Sections 3.2 and 4.2, concerning the relational database, were revised and expanded by NB. Sections 3.1 and 4.1, focusing on the 3D model, were revised and expanded by Paulo Bernardes.

## AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS

Anaïs Lamesa ID orcid.org/0000-0001-5278-1038
University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Natália Botica ID orcid.org/0000-0003-1080-4785
University of Minho, Portugal

Paulo Bernardes ID orcid.org/0000-0003-0838-1349
University of Minho, Portugal

## REFERENCES

**Arles, A, Busdraghi, F, Guyot, J** and **Heckes, J**. 2011. La photogrammétrie appliquée à l'archéologie minière : premiers essais. Unpublished archaeological report. Available at https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00656130v1.

**Arles, A, Clerc, P, Sarah, G, Téreygeol, F, Bonnamour, G, Heckes, J** and **Klein, A**. 2013. '3D reconstruction and modeling of subterranean landscapes in collaborative mining archeology projects: Techniques, applications and experiences'. *ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences* XL-5/W2: 61-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W2-61-2013

**Arroyo-Bishop, D** and **Lantada Zarzosa, MT**. 1993. 'Quelques pas dans l'enregistrement et l'analyse architecturale: apports du projet ArchéoDATA'. *Les Nouvelles de l'archéologie*, 53/54: 23-27.

**Bessac, J-C.** 1986. L'outillage traditionnel du tailleur de pierre : de l'Antiquité à nos jours. Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise. Supplément 14. Paris: Edition du CNRS.

**Bessac, J-C.** 2007. Le travail de la pierre à Pétra : technique et économie de la taille rupestre. Paris : Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

**Bessac, J-C, Lamesa, A** and **Sciuto, C**. 2021. 'The Archaeology of Quarries and Rock-Cut Sites'. In: *Sciuto, C, Lamesa, A*, 2021.
A, Whitaker, K and Yamaç, A (eds.) *Carved in Stone. The archaeology of rock-cut sites and stone quarries*. Oxford: BAR Publishing, pp. 1–7.

**Botica, N, Luís, L and Bernardes, P.** 2023. 'Use of photogrammetry to survey Iron Age rock art motifs in the Côa Valley: the Vermelhosa Rock 3 case study (Vila Nova de Foz Côa, Portugal)'. *Virtual Archaeology Review*, 15(30): 97–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2024.19725

**Botica, N, Luís, L and Silva, J-P.** 2022. 'Atributos e descritores propostos para a arte rupestre da Idade do Ferro no Vale do Côa'. *Cuadernos de Arqueología*, 30: 61–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/012.30.009

**Crow, J, Turner, S and Vionis, AK.** 2011. 'Characterizing the Historic Landscapes of Naxos'. *Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology*, 24(1): 111–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v24i1.111

**Dehejia, V and Rockwell, P.** 2016. *The Unfinished. Stone Carvers at Work on the Indian Subcontinent*. New Delhi: Roli books.

**Desachy, B.** 2016. 'From observed successions to quantified time: formalizing the basic steps of chronological reasoning'. *Acta Imeko*, 5(2): 4–13.

**Desachy, B and Djindjian, F.** 1991. 'Matrix Processing of Stratigraphic Graphs: a New Method'. In: Rahtz, S and Lcokyear, K (eds.) *CAA90. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology*. Oxford: BAR publishing. pp. 29–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21014/acta_imeko.v5i2.353

**Dessales, H.** 2017. 'L'archéologie de la construction Une nouvelle approche de l'architecture romaine'. *Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales*, 72e année(1): 75–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S039526491700004X

**Fauvelle-Aymar, F-X, Bruxelles, L, Mensan, R, Bosc-Tiessé, C, Derat, M-L and Fritsch, E.** 2010. Rock-cut stratigraphy: sequencing the Lalibela churches. *Antiquity*, 84(326): 1135–1150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00067132

**Fauvelle, F-X and Mensan, R.** 2019. 'Stratigraphie rupestre : le phasage des églises de Lalibela'. In: Bosc-Tiessé, C and Derat, M-L (eds.) *Lalibela, site rupestre chrétien d'Éthiopie. Sites et cités d'Afrique. Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Midi*. pp. 48–56.

**Gavryushkina, M.** 2018. *Layer by (3D) Layer: 3D GIS Stratigraphic Analysis of Chlorakas-Palloures, Cyprus*. Unpublished MA/ MSc dissertation, Leiden University. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/65407

**Jerphanion (de), G.** 1925. Une nouvelle province de l'art byzantin : les églises rupestres de Cappadoce. Paris: Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner.

**Jolivet-Lévy, C and Kourtzian, G.** 2013. 'Le site de Gorgoli et le martyrium de saint Kèrykos en Cappadoce: étude préliminaire'. In: Blondeau, C, Boissavit-Camus, B, Boucherat, V, Volti, P and Jurković, M (eds.) *Ars auro gemmisque prior : mélanges en hommage à Jean-Pierre Caillet*. Brepols. Turnhout. pp. 463–478.

**Jolivet-Lévy, C and Lemaigre Demesnil, N.** 2015. *La Cappadoce un siècle après G. de Jerphanion*. Paris: Geuthner.

**Katsianis, M.** 2024. '3D GIS in Archaeological Excavations: Linking Documentation with Analytic and Synthetic Workflows'. *Journal of Greek Archaeology*, 9: 65–82.

**Lamesa, A.** 2017. 'If techniques help to date a monument... three case studies'. In: Parise, M, Galeazzi, C, Bixio, R and Yamaç, A (eds.) *Cappadocia Hypogea 2017 Proceedings of International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Caves Cappadocia*, Turkey, 6/10 March 2017. Istanbul: Dijital Düşler. pp. 58–64.

**Lamesa, A.** 2020. Methods for Rock-hewn Worksite Analysis: The Church of Göreme n° 4b (Cappadocia): A Case Study. *Anatolia Antiqua*, (XXVIII): 23–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/anatoliaantiqua.1308

**Lamesa, A.** 2021. D'une Cappadoce à l'autre (Ve av.-Xe ap. J.-C.), e-Phaïstos. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/ephaistos.9103

**Lemaigre Demesnil, N.** 2010. *Architecture rupestre et décor sculpté en Cappadoce (Ve-IXe siècle)*. BAR International series 2093. Oxford: Archaeopress. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305691

**Liboutet, M.** 2022. 'Les sites troglodytiques médiévaux du bassin de Brive-la-Gaillarde (Corrèze) : dynamiques de peuplement d'un territoire'. In: Sapin, C, Bully, S, Bizri, M and Henrion, F (eds.) *Archéologie du bâti. Aujourd'hui et demain. ARTEHIS Éditions*. pp. 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.artehis.27800

**McCarthy, J.** 2014. 'Multi-image photogrammetry as a practical tool for cultural heritage survey and community engagement'. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 43: 175–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.01.010

**Ousterhout, RG.** 2017. *Visualizing community art, material culture, and settlement in Byzantine Cappadocia*. Dumbarton Oaks studies 46. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

**Pires, H, Gonçalves-Seco, L, Fonte, J, Correia Santos, M and Sousa, O.** 2014. 'Morphological residual model: A tool for enhancing epigraphic readings of highly erosionated surfaces'. *EAGLE- Information Technologies for Epigraphy and Cultural Heritage in the Ancient World*, pp. 133–144.

**Robin, G.** 2015. 'Editorial'. *Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage*, 2(2–3): 35–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2015.07.001

**Rockwell, P.** 1993. *The art of stoneworking a reference guide*. New York: Cambridge University Press.

**Sapin, C, Bully, S, Bizri, M and Henrion, F (eds.).** 2022. *Archéologie du bâti. Aujourd'hui et demain*. Dijon: ARTEHIS Éditions. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.artehis.25779

**Sciuto, C.** 2023. 'The Hand, the Mind, and the Stone. Technical Tendencies and the Development of Know-How in Stone Extraction Procedures'. In: Lamesa, A, Sciuto, C, Porqueddu, M-E and Whitaker, K (eds.) *Echoes of Stone Crafting. From Quarries to Rock-cut Sites*. Leiden: Sidestone Press. pp. 101–111.
**Thierry, N.** 2002. *La Cappadoce de l'Antiquité au Moyen âge.* Bibliothèque de l'Antiquité tardive 4. Turnhout: Brepols.

**Warland, R.** 2013. *Byzantinisches Kappadokien. Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie Sonderbände der Antiken Welt.* Darmstadt: P. von Zabern.

**Wootton, W, Russell, B and Rockwell, P.** 2013. 'Stoneworking tools and toolmarks'. *The Art of Making*

in Antiquity: Stoneworking in the Roman World. Available at http://www.artofmaking.ac.uk/content/essays/2-stoneworking-tools-and-toolmarks-w-wootton-b-russell-p-rockwell/.

**Xenaki, M.** 2011. *Recherches sur les églises byzantines de Cappadoce et leur décor peint (VIe-IXe siècles).* Doctorat. Paris: Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne.

**TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:**

Lamesa, A, Botica, N and Bernardes, P. 2025. Computer-Assisted Reading Tools Marks: First Step of a Promising Protocol. *Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology*, 8(1): 264–281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.221

**Submitted:** 12 April 2025

**Accepted:** 06 August 2025

**Published:** 19 November 2025

**COPYRIGHT:**

© 2025 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

*Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology* is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press.