In the analysis of object or material form and structure, especially micro-structure, correlations of material properties with their microstructure, and of structures with their production history and function, are at the heart of much of artifact and fossil analysis in archaeometry. Presently, a great deal of such examination of archaeomaterials is either:

∎ qualitative, descriptive and anecdotal, comparing “representative” specimens to illustrate the differences of mean, typical, or normative structures, and forms; or

∎ limited to measurement of parameters which oversimplify the structure or are easily measured by hand, e.g., length, width, and thickness.

These do not differentiate shape variation or describe irregular shapes effectively. Hand measurements, even simple ones, are often difficult to derive on microstructures or on irregular macroscopic-sized objects and normally involve too few data points for statistical interpretation. Images of tesselated mosaics and multiphase microstructures in materials such as metals or ceramics are often chaotic and irregular in form, size variation and distribution of elements, inclusions and phases. Because of this, they are difficult to quantify precisely or accurately. Moreover, analysis is often limited more by the need to minimize destruction to an irreplacable artifact or art object than by a method's ability to generate significant data. Sample size is often held at the minimum threshold of significance or adequacy. Thus, any method which enhances the quality and quantity of such data should be welcome in archaeometric research.