Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 75, Issue 7, pp 3677–3691 | Cite as

Decision support system for classifying archaeological pottery profiles based on Mathematical Morphology

  • M. LucenaEmail author
  • A. L. Martínez-Carrillo
  • J. M. Fuertes
  • F. Carrascosa
  • A. Ruiz


We present a decision support system to help archaeologists in classifying wheel-made pottery pieces by its profile. A novel shape characterization method, using Mathematical Morphology, is introduced for this purpose. Each profile is represented as a vector, obtained by sampling the so called morphological curves (erosion, dilation, opening and closing), and Euclidean Distance is used as a similarity measure. We show results of our method applied to a profile database of Iberian Pottery from the upper valley of Guadalquivir River (Spain).


Pottery profiles Typologies Shape matching Mathematical Morphology 



This work has been supported by the Excellent Projects Program of CICE (regional government), the European Union ERDF funds under research projects P07-TIC-02773, and the Computer Graphics and Geomatics Research Group (TIC-144) of the University of Jaén, and the Andalusian Economics, Innovation, Science and Employment Council under project TIC-7278.


  1. 1.
    Belongie S, Malik J, Puzicha J (2002) Shape matching and object recognition using shape contexts. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(4):509–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brande S, Saragusti I (1996) A morphometric model and landmark analysis of acheulian hand axes from northern israel. In: Marcus L, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor G, Slice D (eds) Advances in morphometrics, NATO ASI Series, vol 284. Springer, US, pp 423–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchanan B (2006) An analysis of folsom projectile point resharpening using quantitative comparisons of form and allometry. J Archaeol Sci 33(2):185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buchanan B, Collard M (2007) Investigating the peopling of North America through cladistic analyses of Early Paleoindian projectile points. J Anthropol Archaeol 26(3):366–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buxeda i Garrigos J, Gordaliza A (2011) Morphometrics and compositional classes. the study of anthropomorphic sculptures from teotihuacan (Mexico). In: Villalonga G, Annabel E, Juan J, Tolosana-Delgado R, Ortego M. (eds) Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Compositional Data Analysis, pp. 1–21Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chapa T, Pereira J, Madrigal A, Mayoral V (1997) La Necrópolis ibérica de Castellones de Ceal (Hinojares, Jaén). Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía, SpainGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forel B, Gabillot M, Monna F, Forel S, Dommergues CH, Gerber S, Petit C, Mordant C, Chateau C (2009) Morphometry of Middle Bronze Age palstaves by discrete cosine transform. J Archaeol Sci 36(3):721–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuertes J, Lucena M, de la Blanca NP, Fdez-Valdivia J (2001) Combining morphological filters and deformable models to design a 2d shape based retrieval system. In: 12th Scandinavian Conference on Image Analysis (SCIA 2001), vol. 1, pp. 646–653. Bergen (Norway)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fuertes J, Lucena M, de la Blanca N, Ruiz N (2003) Objects matching combining color and shape. In: Video/Image Processing and Multimedia Communications, 2003. 4th EURASIP Conference focused on, vol. 1, pp. 201–208. doi: 10.1109/VIPMC.2003.1220462
  10. 10.
    Gilboa A, Karasik A, Sharon I, Smilansky U (2004) Towards computerized typology and classification of ceramics. J Archaeol Sci 31:681–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halir R, Flusser J (1997) Estimation of profiles of sherds of archaeological pottery. In: TP (ed.) Proc. of Czech pattern Recognition Workshop, pp. 126–130Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haralick R, Sternberg S, Zhuang X (1987) Image analysis using mathematical morphology. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 9(4):532–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kampel M, Sablatnig R (2003) An automated pottery archival and reconstruction system. J Vis Comput Animat 14(3):111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karasik A, Smilansky U (2011) Computerized morphological classification of ceramics. J Archaeol Sci 38(10):2644–2657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lettner M, Mara H, Müller A, Sablatnig R, Singer M, Krenn M (2006) PAT: profile analysis tool for the documentation of archaeological finds. In: Proc. of Electronic Imaging & the Visual Art - Digital Cultural Heritage - Essential for Tourism, pp. 83–90Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lycett S (2009) Quantifying transitions: morphometric approaches to palaeolithic variability and technological change. In: Camps M, Chauhan P (eds) Sourcebook of paleolithic transitions. Springer, New York, pp 79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maaten L, Lange G, Boon P (2009) Visualization and automatic typology construction of pottery profiles. In: Frischer B (ed) Making history interactive: computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), BAR International Series, vol 2079. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 356–362Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matheron G (1975) Random sets and integral geometry. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mom, V (2006) Where did i see you before. holistic method to compare and find archaeological artifacts. In: Decker R, Lenz H (eds) Advances in data analysis. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft fr Klassifikation. Springer, Freie Universitt BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Monnaa F, Jebrane A, Gabillot M, Laffon R, Specht M, Boharda B, Camizuli E, Petit C, Chateaue C, Alibert P (2013) Morphometry of middle bronze age palstaves. Part II - spatial distribution of shapes in two typological groups, implications for production and exportation. J Archaeol Sci 40(1):507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nautiyal V, Kaushik VD, Pathak VK, Dhande S, Nautiyal S, Naithani M, Juyal S, Gupta RK, Vasisth AK, Verna KK, Singh A (2006) Geometric modeling of Indian archaeological pottery: a preliminary study. In: Clark J, Hagemeister E (eds) Exploring new frontiers in human heritage. CAA2006. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, FargoGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pereira Sieso J (1989) La cerámica ibérica de la cuenca del Guadalquivir. Trab Prehist 46:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rice PM (1987) Pottery analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruiz Rodríguez A, Hornos Mata F, Choclán C, Cruz Garrido J (1984) La necrópolis ibérica Finca Gil de Olid (Puente del Obispo-Baeza). Cuad Prehist Univ Granada 9:195–234Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ruiz Rodríguez A, Molinos M, López J, Crespo J, Choclán C, Hornos F (1983) El horizonte ibérico antiguo del Cerro de la Coronilla (Cazalilla, Jaén). Cortes Cuad Prehist Univ Granada 8:251–295Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saragusti I, Karasik A, Sharon I, Smilansky U (2005) Quantitative analysis of shape attributes based on contours and section profiles in artifact analysis. J Archaeol Sci 32(6):841–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Serra J (1983) Image analysis and mathematical morphology. Academic Press, Inc., OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shennan S, Wilcock J (1975) Shape and style variation in central german bell beakers. Sci Archaeol 15:17–31Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slice D (2005) Modern morphometrics. In: Slice D (ed) Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology, developments in primatology: progress and prospects. Springer, US, pp 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Small C (1996) The statistical theory of shape. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith N, Karasik A, Narayanan T, Olson E, Smilansky U, Levy T (2012) The pottery informatics query database: a new method for mathematic and quantitative analyses of large regional ceramic datasets. J Archaeol Method TheoryGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zelditch M, Swiderski D, Sheets H (2012) Geometric morphometrics for biologists. Elsevier, San DiegozbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Lucena
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. L. Martínez-Carrillo
    • 2
  • J. M. Fuertes
    • 1
  • F. Carrascosa
    • 1
  • A. Ruiz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of JaenJaenSpain
  2. 2.Research University Institute for Iberian Archaeology, University of JaenJaenSpain

Personalised recommendations