## 1 Introduction  
The methods for 3D digitisation of tangible cultural heritage are constantly being updated [1] both for scientific purposes to study bone pieces as in palaeopathology [2, 3], and for educational purposes for exhibitions, museums [4, 5] or conservation before destructive sampling (biomolecular studies for example) [6]. The choice of a method depends on the size of the object, the need for resolution and the portability of the scanning device [7]. 3D digitization methods applied to paleontology can be grouped into four categories. Widely used in many fields, photogrammetry is used as a first approach [8, 9]. In addition,quite common in archaeology, lasergrammetry has been used for paleontological studies for over ten years [10; 11]. Recently, structured-light 3D scanners in particular are increasingly used in this scientific discipline [12; 13; 14; 15]. These scanners are equipped with an HD projector with a wide field of view, as well as glass panels for simplified calibration. They are fast, the scanning area is also quite large, but they are sensitive to the lighting conditions in a given environment and still cost a few thousand euros. For the precise study of the interior of the objects of study, micro computed tomography (\(\upmu\)-CT) scanning proves to be very appropriate [16; 17; 18], despite the very high acquisition cost. Microscopy, on the other hand, has recently undergone a revolution in the sense that it is now possible to produce 3D models of microscopic parts of objects. Indeed, 3D digitization applied to small and micro scaled objects is currently booming in industry [19], emerging in archaeology [20; 21] and paleontology [22]. Studies in this field are also now using several of these methods, for example by combining photogrammetry and lasergrammetry [23; 24], lasergrammetry and microscopy [25], or \(\upmu\)-CT and microscopy [26]. Their complementarity makes it possible to analyze the subjects of study at different levels of internal and external scales [27]. The first objective of using these 3D scanning tools is anatomical characterization of bones [28; 29], including determination of sex [30] or taxonomic discrimination [21; 31]. Because bones are unintentional witnesses to the events of a person's life, the study of the injuries also represents a major scientific topic [32]. However, beyond the study of the owner of these anatomical remains, it is also very relevant to look into the alterations which occur since the death until the fossilization of bones [27], when they are used as tools [33], their means of conservation [34], and their disseminations [35]. In particular, the study of cut-marks has recently gained momentum in paleontology, building on previous experiences with archaeological analyses of metals [36] or carved rocks [37]. Concerning the killed animals, identifying the projectile from the impact marks can allow a better understanding of the hunting methods [38]. Then at the butchering stage, the determination of the tools used proves to be crucial and leads more and more studies of marks on the surface of the bones [9; 23; 24; 39], but also of their internal structure [26]. The size of the bone does not seem to have an impact on these scientific issues [12], and the butchers may be animals [13; 14]. The use of bone for artistic purposes also involves the analysis of cut-marks for gestural recognition [40]. When it comes to human remains [15] or traces [25], the issues are much the same. From a more global perspective, these issues are often linked to equifinality questions. This concept, introduced in 1987 [41], indicates that a specific type of alteration cannot be linked to a single actor, such as human or bear [22], a single behavior [42] or a single ecological context. The use of statistics on a large number of cut-marks allows to try to define potential multiple causes [27; 43]. As with architectural buildings or artefacts, virtual reconstruction is also applied to bone structures [44; 45].