Prehistoric Stone Sculptures at the Gregorio Aguilar Barea Museum, Nicaragua: Photogrammetry Practices and Digital Immersive Virtual Environment Applications for archaeology (original) (raw)
Computer Graphics and Virtual Reality: two Different Contributions in Archaeological Research
2010
This paper attempts to analyse the effectiveness of 3d modelling in archaeological research by exploring the diverse methods available to us for executing reconstructions of archaeological evidence. Starting with the simple subdivisions of com puter graphics, as pre-calculated sequences of animation with a photo-realistic rendering, and virtual reality, as inter activity in real-time, it will be possible to highlight the differences between the two methods of display, which, since they are ex perienced in highly dissimilar ways, will also have a bearing on the goals achieved. The re-examination of the case study of Grave 7 in Romito Cave, and the subsequent improvements to the research, have furnished us with the means to focus our attention on those processes which exploit in a more effective and comprehensive way the uses of 3D for archaeological purposes.
Open Archaeology
The development of digital technologies and the use of advanced photogrammetry programs for modeling archaeological excavations and sites have opened new possibilities for spatial analysis in archaeology and the reconstruction of archaeological contexts. In addition, these tools allow us to visually preserve the features of archaeological sites for future use and facilitate the dissemination of archaeological heritage to local communities and the general public. This paper summarizes 3D photographic visualization of three cave art sites (Los Cayucos and Cueva No. 1 in Punta del Este, Cuba, and José María Cave in the Dominican Republic) and two burial spaces (Canímar Abajo and Playa del Mango, Cuba) using photogrammetry software. The application of these novel methods at the cave art sites allowed us to visualize faint pictographs that were invisible to the naked eye, to better define the shapes of petroglyphs and to reconstruct the position of lost/removed panels. At the burial site...
The advent of high quality 3D scans is about to change the way archeologists work forever. Specifically the documentation of archeological findings and the creation of illustrations to be used in publications are affected. Although numerous works have been published in the field, a free and efficient software tool is still missing. We present a new free software tool called ArtefactViewer tailored specifically to the needs of archeologists working with data from 3D scans. The main features of the tool are a) inspection and lighting of the artifact with multiple user-defined light sources, b) measuring distances, angles and areas, c) the annotation of interesting features of the artifact and d) the creation of illustrations to be used in publications.
The paper discusses two uses of 3D Visualization and Virtual Reality (hereafter VR) of Cultural Heritage (CH) assets: a less used one, in the archaeological / historical research and a more frequent one, as a communication medium in CH museums. While technological effort has been mainly invested in improving the “accuracy” of VR (determined as how truthfully it reproduces the “CH reality”), issues related to scientific requirements, (data transparency, separation between “real” and “virtual”, etc.), are largely neglected, or at least not directly related to the 3D outcome, which may explain why, after more than twenty years of producing VR models, they are still rarely used in the archaeological research. The paper will present a proposal for developing VR tools as such as to be meaningful CH research tools as well as a methodology for designing VR outcomes to be used as a communication medium in CH museums.
2005
Three dimensional (3D) modelling and virtual reconstruction (VR) of archaeological features are common tools of communicating Cultural Heritage, especially for the wide public; archaeological parks, museums or websites dedicated to Cultural Heritage often display virtual 3D artefacts, structures or landscapes, enhancing the visitors’ comprehension of the past. However, the potential contribution of 3D and VR to the archaeological research is commonly neglected by the archaeological community, which often views the process of building a 3D model as a stage apart from the common research pipeline, a stage designated for merely presenting to the public in a fashionably, attractive way, the archaeological results. One of the more common critics raised by archaeologists is that 3D models are a closed box, with no possibility of evaluation and often without a particular aim, the emphasis being on computer graphics and artistic aspects, rather than on the wish to solve a particular archaeological scientific problem. The article discusses this trend, subsequently suggesting to integrate 3D modelling into the archaeological research methodology, and finally offering some scientific tools to validate the 3D model, by enabling its de-construction and evaluation.
The documentation of Prehistoric parietal art is one of the most interesting applications of 3D scanning, since it allows high resolution documentation of paintings and engravings. However, in spite of the generalization of these applications, it is still an expensive technology beyond the funding possibilities of many research projects. However, alternative low-cost methods can be implemented in order to provide small projects with limited funding access to this kind of documentation. Here we present the methodology used for documenting the Palaeolithic paintings in El Niño Cave (Spain). Using a total station and ArcGIS, a 3D photogrammetric reconstruction of these paintings was made. This reconstruction provides useful documentation for Prehistoric art study and heritage management.
Virtual Reconstructions and Computer Visualisations in Archaeological Practice
The introductory paper is followed by nine papers focusing on some major (definitely not all), aspects connecting archaeological practice and VR presentations and potentials. In doing this, we have attempted to cover some essential theoretical issues (Chapters: Introduction to virtual reconstructions; Physical vs. virtual reconstruction; Augmented reality as an output), technological aspects (Chapters: A comparison of different software solutions for 3D modeling), learning basics of visual products (Chapter: 2D and 3D visual products: First step towards virtual econstructions) and a series of case studies and examples (Chapters: About digital field documentation; Brief overview of examples of VR projects; Virtual reconstruction of the Vinča-Belo Brdo site; Examples of good practice in 3D visualisation in preventive archaeology). It is important to note here, that with the exception of three cases presented in the chapter Brief overview of examples of VR projects (Catalhöyük, Uruk and Etruscanning 3D project) all other papers derived from the archaeological field research performed by the authors who had the possibility to control all different aspects involved in a complete research, from logistics, field execution to interpretation and presentation of the results. While this may not be so relevant for the VR products themselves it is highly relevant for demonstrating some other important aspects regarding professionalism in preventive archaeology, especially the learning capacities and ‘organic’ development and transfer of knowledge of new ideas and technologies. If preventive archaeology is to go beyond the level of basic field service and strengthen its relevance, which is constantly challenged by other stakeholders in spatial development process, it is necessary also to build up on the experiences and knowledge of the practitioners of preventive research.
Photogrammetry in the Field: Documenting, Recording, and Presenting Archaeology.
The development of three-dimensional documentation technologies such as LiDAR and Structure from Motion (essentially digital photogrammetry) has led to a recording revolution, as these methods are increasingly applied to field archaeology. 3D methods have the potential to become an integral part of the archaeological toolkit, as they have the capability to produce spatially-referenced outputs, such as orthophotos and digital elevation models (DEMs), with greater efficiency than traditional methods. The combination of Structure from Motion and low-altitude aerial photography can facilitate the production of these GIS outputs, which can then be used for digitization or as basemaps. These methods allow for accurate and precise recording with a relative minimum of field time. As the existing body of 3D data increases in size, museums have the unique opportunity to be able to take advantage of these datasets to update their exhibits and display archaeological context and the process of excavation through visualizations of 3D models. The spread of 3D documentation and recording in archaeology may provide a unique opportunity for collaboration between these two professions, and allow for archaeology to improve its public outreach. The methodology presented here is based on field research in Jordan
Archeologia e Calcolatori ; 12: 221-244.
In this paper, a general framework for using Virtual Reality techniques in the domain of Archaeological Visualisation is presented. It is argued that "visualising" is not the same as "seeing", but is an inferential process to understand reality. A definition of Enhanced Reality is also presented, and how visual models can be used in order to obtain additional information about the dynamic nature of historical processes and archaeological data.
3D Graphics and Post-Processual Archaeology: A Posthumanist Approach
Audiovisual Posthumanism, Edited by Evi D. Sampanikou, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017
Introduction The aim of this chapter is to record and analyse the ways in which the representation of the past has been constructed by large groups of specialists or laymen, from Renaissance Humanism to the Posthumanist digital present, when contemporary technological developments and capabilities have opened new directions for archaeological research, turning digital creators and new scientific experts into administrators of archaeological images. We are therefore going to compare the analogic and the three-dimensional images as archaeological tools and also as humanistic (New Archaeology) and postmodern/posthumanistic (Post- Processual Archaeology) media beginning from virtual archaeology. “Virtual archaeology” is a developing scientific area using the capabilities of computers to concentrate, catalogue, group and promote archaeological material in a range of different ways and media for a wide spectrum of applications. Virtual archaeology substantially rehabilitates the geometric relationship between archaeological and architectural data and describes in visual language the researcher’s verbal descriptions and theories (Reilly, 1992, 147; Higgins, Main & Lang, 1996; Forte, Siliotti, 1997). The digital image, static or animated, is the final result of the research and interpretative procedure in the theoretical framework of Post- Processual Archaeology.