Main Article Content
After excavating the Praedia of Iulia Felix at Pompeii in 1755, architect Karl Weber published the building with an axionometric illustration that showed the remains in three-dimensional perspective. In doing so, Weber communicated additional information about the form of the building in a manner that was both visually accessible to a lay audience and sufficiently “scientific” for a scholarly one. By contrast, digital 3D documentation methods in current archaeological practice can reinforce a division between “scientific” models intended for internal consumption by the project that produces them, and external communication in the form of lower-quality online digital displays. Using recent fieldwork at the Greek colonial site of Histria in Romania as a case-study, this paper explores the space between high-resolution contextualized 3D documentation used only by an internal audience and down-scaled, decontextualized 3D content designed for public consumption. In particular, it explores whether measurable 3D models derived from photogrammetrical capture are useful in communicating excavation results to non-specialists – and if so, in what ways. It presents several scenarios for the role of high-quality 3D documentation in both formal and informal scholarly communication, and discusses the potential for the reuse of such documentation to answer new research questions.
From 18 May 2018, the contents of Studies in Digital Heritage are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). Our submitting authors pay no fee and retain the copyright to their own work.
How this works: to submit their work to the journal, authors grant Studies in Digital Heritage a nonexclusive license to distribute the work according to a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Once an article is published, anyone is free to share and adapt its contents—provided only that they do so for noncommercial purposes and properly attribute the shared or adapted information. Details of these terms can be found on the Creative Commons website.
Studies in Digital Heritage will insert the following note at the end of any work published in the journal:
© [Year] by the authors. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-NC 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Denard, H., and Baker, D. 2012. Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage. Ashgate, Farnham.
Berggren, Å., Dell’Unto, N., Forte, M., et al. 2015. Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük: integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel’s edge. Antiquity 89, 344, 433–448. http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0003598X1400043X
Carter, M. and Elendt, M. 2017. The life of attributes: meta and paradata as 3D point and object DNA for heritage providence. CAA 2017. 45th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315250711_The_Life_of_Attributes_Meta_and_Parada ta_as_3D_Point_and_Object_DNA_for_Heritage_Providence
Carter, W.M. 2017. Getting to the point: making, wayfaring, loss and memory as meaning-making in virtual archaeology. Virtual Archaeology Review 8, 16, 97–102. https://polipapers.upv.es/index.php/var/article/view/6056
Clarke, J.R. 2016. 3D model, linked database, and born-digital e-book: an ideal approach to archaeological research and publication. In: S. Münster, M. Pfarr-Harfst, P. Kuroczyński and M. Ioannides, eds., 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage II. Springer, Cham, 136–145.
Compton, M.E., Martin, K., and Hunt, R. 2017. Where do we go from here? Innovative technologies and heritage engagement with the MakerBus. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 6, 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.002
De Felice, G. 2016. The new trend of 3D archaeology is… going 2D. In: S. Campana, R. Scopigno, G. Carpentiero and M. Cirillo, eds., CAA 2015. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archaeopress Archaeology, Oxford, 363–368.
De Reu, J., Plets, G., Verhoeven, G., et al. 2013. Towards a three-dimensional cost-effective registration of the archaeological heritage. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 2, 1108–1121. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312003949
Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Camporesi, C., Galeazzi, F., and Kallmann, M. 2015. 3D Printing and immersive visualization for improved perception of ancient artifacts. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 24, 3, 243–264.
Forte, M. 2014. 3D archaeology: new perspectives and challenges—the example of Çatalhöyük. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies 2, 1, 1–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.2.1.0001
Galeazzi, F., Franco, P.D.G.D., and Matthews, J.L. 2015. Comparing 2D pictures with 3D replicas for the digital preservation and analysis of tangible heritage. Museum Management and Curatorship 30, 5, 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2015.1042515
Galeazzi, F. 2016. 3D Recording Las Cuevas Project (dataset). https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/lascuevas_uchn_2016/
Galeazzi, F., Callieri, M., Dellepiane, M., Charno, M., Richards, J., and Scopigno, R. 2016. Web-based visualization for 3D data in archaeology: The ADS 3D viewer. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.06.045
Gant, S. and Reilly, P. 2018. Different expressions of the same mode: a recent dialogue between archaeological and contemporary drawing practices. Journal of Visual Art Practice 17, 1, 100–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702029.2017.1384974
Huvila, I. 2013. The unbearable complexity of documenting intellectual processes: Paradata and virtual cultural heritage visualisation. Human IT: Journal for Information Technology Studies as a Human Science 12, 1. https://humanit.hb.se/article/view/96
Huvila, I. and Huggett, J. 2018. Archaeological Practices, Knowledge Work and Digitalisation. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology 1, 1. http://journal.caa-international.org/article/10.5334/jcaa.6/
Lieberwirth, U., Metz, M., and Kühnle, K. 2015. Applying low budget equipment and open source software for high resolution documentation of archaeological stratigraphy and features. In: A. Traviglia, ed., Across Space and Time. Papers from the 41st Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 104-119. http://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=624891#page=105
Jensen, P. 2018a. Evaluating authenticity: the authenticity of 3D models in archaeological field documentation. In: P. Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, F. Galeazzi and V. Vassallo, eds., Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, 57–74.
Jensen, P. 2018b. Semantically enhanced 3D: a web-based platform for spatial integration of excavation documentation at Alken Enge, Denmark. Journal of Field Archaeology 43, sup1, S31– S44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2018.1510299
Matthews, N. 2008. Aerial and Close-Range Photogrammetric Technology: Providing Resource Documentation, Interpretation, and Preservation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado. https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo67520/TN_428.pdf
Morgan, C. and Wright, H. 2018. Pencils and pixels: drawing and digital media in archaeological field recording. Journal of Field Archaeology 43, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488
Morgan, C. and Scholma-Mason, N. 2017. Animated GIFs as expressive visual narratives and expository devices in archaeology. Internet Archaeology 44. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue44/11/index.html
Mudge, M. 2012. Transparency for empirical data. In: A. Bentkowska-Kafel, A. Baker and H. Denard, eds., Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage. Ashgate, Farnham, 177–188.
Münster, S., Pfarr-Harfst, M., Kuroczyński, P., and Ioannides, M. 2016. 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage II: How to Manage Data and Knowledge Related to Interpretative Digital 3D Reconstructions of Cultural Heritage. Springer, Cham.
Olson, B.R. and Caraher, W.R. 2015. Visions of Substance: 3D Imaging in Mediterranean Archaeology. The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND. https://thedigitalpress.org/portfolio/visions-of-substance-3d-imaging-in-mediterraneanarchaeology/
Olson, B. 2016. The things we can do with pictures: image-based modeling and archaeology. In: E. Averett, J. Gordon and D. Counts, eds., Mobilizing the Past. The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, 237–250. https://dc.uwm.edu/arthist_mobilizingthepast/11/
Opitz, R. and Limp, W.F. 2015. Recent developments in high-density survey and measurement (HDSM) for archaeology: implications for practice and theory. Annual Review of Anthropology 44, 1, 347–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-013845
Opitz, R., Mogetta, M., and Terrenato, N., eds. 2018. A Mid-Republican House From Gabii. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9231782
Pollefeys, M., Van Gool, L., Vergauwen, M., Cornelis, K., Verbiest, F., and Tops, J. 2001. Image-based 3D acquisition of archaeological heritage and applications. Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Virtual Reality, Archeology, and Cultural Heritage, 255–262. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/584993.585033
Parslow, C.C. 1995. Rediscovering Antiquity: Karl Weber and the Excavation of Herculaneum, Pompeii, and Stabiae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rabinowitz, A., Eve, S., and Trelogan, J. 2007. Precision, accuracy, and the fate of the data: experiments in site recording at Chersonesos, Ukraine. In: J. Clark and E. Hagemeister, eds., Digital Discovery: Exploring New Frontiers in Human Heritage, CAA 2006. Proceedings of the 34th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeolingua, Budapest, 243–256. https://proceedings.caaconference.org/paper/cd27_rabinowitz_et_al_caa2006/
Roosevelt, C.H., Cobb, P., Moss, E., Olson, B.R., and Ünlüsoy, S. 2015. Excavation is destruction digitization: advances in archaeological practice. Journal of Field Archaeology 40, 3, 325–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/2042458215Y.0000000004
Sanders, G.D.R., James, S., and Carter Johnston, A. 2017. Corinth Excavations Archaeological Manual. The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND. https://thedigitalpress.org/corinth-excavations-archaeological-manual/
Sapirstein, P. 2016. Accurate measurement with photogrammetry at large sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 66, 137–145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440316000042
Sapirstein, P. 2017. Review: A Mid-Republican House at Gabii. Society for Classical Studies Blog. https://classicalstudies.org/scs-blog/philip-sapirstein/review-mid-republican-house-gabii
Schroer, C. and Mudge, M. 2017. A Context Metadata Collection and Management Tool for Computational Photography Projects. In: Archiving Conference. Society for Imaging Science and Technology, 99–104. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ist/ac/2017/00002017/00000001/art00022
Scopigno, R., Callieri, M., Dellepiane, M., Ponchio, F., and Potenziani, M. 2017. Delivering and using 3D models on the web: are we ready? Virtual Archaeology Review 8, 17, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2017.6405
Statham, N. 2019. Scientific rigour of online platforms for 3D visualization of heritage. Virtual Archaeology Review 10, 20, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2019.9715
Tschauner, H. and Siveroni Salinas, S. 2007. Stratigraphic modeling and 3D spatial analysis using photogrammetry and octree spatial decomposition. In: J. Clark and E. Hagemeister, eds., Digital Discovery: Exploring New Frontiers in Human Heritage, CAA 2006. Archeolingua, Budapest, 256– 270. https://proceedings.caaconference.org/paper/cd28_tschauner_siveroni_caa2006/
Wendrich, W., Simpson, B., and Elgewely, E. 2014. Karanis in 3D: recording, monitoring, recontextualizing, and the representation of knowledge and conjecture. Near Eastern Archaeology (NEA) 77, 3, 233–237. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/neareastarch.77.3.0233