 Oh, by the way, there's a couple of things here, if anyone wants to. Good afternoon, everybody. First of all, I would like to ask the organizers for giving me this presentation or study here to you today, which focuses on the application of free-modeling as a national analysis in the interpretation of wild plant processes, in particular concerning ground stone tools. The methodology I'm going to introduce has been developed as part of the larger framework of the year-sea-funded Heaton Foods project. The Heaton Foods project focuses on the role of plant foods in the diet and political miscellaneous foragers of societies of the Southeast Europe and tackled through different strands of evidence. For example, we are using human remains in order to assess the health status of the past communities. We are using botanical remains to describe the kinds of plants pieces that were exploited. And then we are analyzing material culture through experimental archaeology, user analysis, and research analysis in order to study the functions of these tools that are found in the context which are the subject of this project, in particular, as I said, ground stone tools. Why do we focus on ground stone tools? We focus on ground stone tools because a really, really large amount of these tools is usually found in the domestic context of the sites within the domestic cultures, which represents the main study area of the project. We study these tools, combining both the data coming from our experimental, our dedicated experimental frameworks, and of course what we observe on the archaeological artifacts. So as you all know, ground stone tools are really complex tools with usually long life cycles. And in the case, as I said before, of the tools coming from the dam gorges, we have thousands of them which have been stored for more than 50 years in dusty museum deposits. So this brings up the first problem that we need to tackle in our study, which is being able to avoid environmental contamination. So it is actually the risk to have to mistake some actual residues, modern residues, or residues coming from the depositional context of the tools we actually use related residues. Then another thing, another problem that we have is that we can't move the tools from the museums to our laboratory in Italy. So we need to find a way to study the tools far from our dam. To do this, we developed actually this methodology of framework which comprises both quantitative and qualitative analysis. In particular, we found some free techniques which is the use of GIS software and 3D models to quantify surface changes due to use, and also to analyze the special distribution of both user and residues. Then we analyzed the surface of the tools, both our collage experimental, for user analysis at low and high magnifications. And of course, we also resubstantialized them to characterize and define the residues that we might find in trap-deep crevices of the tools' surface. So our experimental framework comprises the collection of raw materials which resemble the ones we have in our collage assemblages, along with the kinds of plants that we found in the neighboring areas of the study area. Most of the times, the plants are readily available there, so we go there and collect them, but in some cases for specific species, like for example for the edge of species, we use experimentally grown crops which allow us to have a good amount of material that we can process through different activities during our experiments, in which we test different gestures, different state of working material in order to have a complete and as detailed as possible use for and reference collection on which we can rely on when we have to interpret the data coming from the analysis of the archeological artifacts. Residue sampling, after being used, the experimental samples are sampled for residues, using the normal standards for residue sampling, the residues are then observed under a cross-polarized microscope in just a bit of light, and all the characteristics are recorded, like measurements, morphology, etc., and stored in a dedicated database. User analysis is performed both applying low and high power approaches, so observing the surfaces after the tools are washed of course. We record what we see on the surface as like macrowares, so for example the modification in gram morphology, macrophages and macrostoyations could affect the certain species that are due to use, and at higher magnifications we look at macropolishes, macrophages, abrasions, and macrostoyations which are related to each of the activity and the materials that we process. So, coming to the main topic of the talk, so before and after each experiment, so when the unused and used tools are scanned and the detailed 3D models are made for the application of close-range photogrammetry, we are actually using close-range photogrammetry over the laser scanning, because it's a very flexible way to create 3D models, and also it's easy to bring all the equipment to the field, so it's easier for us to have the second set of everywhere models. With the hiding of 3D models are then treated in order to carry on the analysis of the surface, which is preformed processing the 3D scans through GIS, the Geographic Information System. Actually, we export each of the surface of the groundstone as a digital invention model, a DEM, and we treat it actually as a normal map. In particular, we focus on the analysis of slope and surface roughness, which are actually really good indices, as we call them, in order to monitor and observe modification caused by use happening on the surface of the groundstone. For example, Slope gives us the idea of changes as depressions, peaks, or leveled areas, which are caused by use, while the surface roughness allows us to see if there are changes in the level of the virginity of the surface caused by use. Here are some examples of the application of these analyses. This is a tool that we use for processing Rubik's Christmas seeds and roots. We use this surface here on the left to grind seeds, while the surface on the right was used to pound roots of Rubik's Christmas. You can see on the top the surfaces before being used and after being used. So you can see, for example, in this natural to perfect future here, how it changes after the use. So it changes its overall outline, and also we can see a leveling of its surface with the disappearance of some of the small, natural depressions that were present. On the other hand, we have the upper part here of the tool, which, at its natural state, didn't have a lot of natural depressions, more or less flat. And after this area of the surface was used to pound roots, you can see the development of these depressions, which are after use. This is another example of our result analysis, actually applied to the tool that was used to process acorns. We used three different areas of the tool. We expanded on the upper right corner of this natural depression to pound the nuts to open them. And you can see how after the pounding, we have the development of these really small depressions inside at the bottom of this natural depression. The central part of the surface was used to grind the nuts once opened. And you can see how that is pretty high in depression, which resulted in more flat after the use. And again, we have also the appearance of these depressions on the central left after the use of this portion of the surface for grinding and pounding. Moving to surface roughness, we can see how the changes happen to the use and how they happen differently. So we can see these aren't the same tools, of course. And you can see how after the grinding of the seeds, this part, which was the one used, appeared really much more homogeneous than before on the upper part. And just a reminder, the blue color indicates really homogeneous, the lower value of homogeneity. So it's really homogeneous surface, while to the red is the higher value of roughness value. And you can see also here, in the natural depression, you will see before how it's making it more flat on the homogeneous after use. And on the other side, we see the area used for pounding, how it was more or less homogeneous at its natural state, and it became high in its level of roughness increased after it was used upon numerous Christmas roads. The same happened on the tool used for the proscenity of a occurrence. Here you can see in the natural pit on the upper left, how we have this increase of roughness at the bottom of the natural pit. And you can see also how it had a little decrease of roughness in the central part of which was used for grinding. And then again, an increase of the roughness values in the area that was used to pound and grind the grinding and pounding activities. So what we did, it was also try to test if actually this low roughness areas in the tools correspond to areas where actual use were developed over the surface. So we isolated the areas with the lowest value of roughness and we checked, we did a blue blind test and we checked with our user analyst if these areas actually correspond to the areas where we can see use were. And in all of the cases, we have really were in accordance. So you can see how they are different, how they are displaced across the surface. Also they correspond to polish areas on the surface. These are other examples that we used for this processing. This analysis of the surface modifications through JS allow us to actually quantify some really important aspects to determine the use of tools, which is the dimensions of the polish areas, their density and the presence of utilized surface of a given tool and also the variation of slope demanding of the activity performed and on the working material and on its status. Another part of our methodology involves the special analysis of residues. To do this, we actually divided the surface of the ground stone into six transects. We sample each transects and one and each single glass slider is mounted for each transects. And then we come to the indexed starches found in each slide, so corresponding to each transect. We focus on the indexed starches because these are the ones which give us more information regarding the species of plant that we are looking at. So for now we focus on these ones. You can see how we have differences in the displacement of residues given by the activity performed. So you can see the tools where grinding was performed. You have most of the indexed starches localized at the periphery of the surface. While, for example, where pounding was performed, a lot of indexed starches were running in the utilized area. Here we have got a little bit of grinding. You can see most of the starches are displaced on the outer parts. Again, this is the most similar pattern. Grinding was performed as well. You can see how most of the indexed specimens were outside the utilized areas. And in our tool that was used for the processing of acorns, you can see in the areas where pounding was performative on most of the indexed specimens. On the area used for grinding, most of the starches were localized outside. So in this way we managed to observe patterns related to the spatial distribution of residues across the surface of our tools. We analyzed how the different nature like seeds, roots, etc. actually affected the distribution of residues on the surface and how the activities performed as well relates to the spatial distribution of the residues. This provides us new means for residue sampling so we know maybe better where to sample where we're going to look at our archaeological collections. In this way we provide a combined approach including, as I said, both qualitative and quantitative analysis in the study of market tools specifically. We tried to test these groundbreaking techniques in recording archaeological samples for the scanning and providing new means to enhance the strategies of residue sampling. And finally we tried to limit and monitor the environment of contamination due to storage and post-expandation conditions. Of course this is an ongoing methodology. We are now focusing on also the active tools involved in our experiments. So we are working with new materials, new raw materials, different kinds of residues so we are continuing to work. Thank you very much.