“Historical Visualization in the field of 3D Archaeology”

An analytical study of methods used to gather, interpret and display data for use in 3D

archaeological visualizations

A Dissertation

By

Shaun Robert Broderick

Cover Image: Setting up the DeltaSphere-3000 3D Scanner & Partial 3D Model of Scan.

2

University of Plymouth

School of Art and Media

Ba (Hons) Digital Media and Animation

Final Year Dissertation

“Historical Visualization in the field of 3D Archaeology”

An analytical study of methods used to gather, interpret and display data for use in 3D

archaeological visualizations

A Dissertation

By

Shaun Robert Broderick

May 2012

3

ABSTRACT

This dissertation, will explore how Historical Visualization has been used in the study and interpretation of

Archaeological data. It will look at methods of data gathering currently used by archaeologists and how

these can be used to build a 3D representation of archaeological remains. Over the years, a great many large

archaeological excavations have been carried out and through extensive research it can be seen that many of

these have used high tech and very expensive equipment for gathering and displaying of data. One question

that needs to be asked is if, and when, this costly equipment is used by smaller county archaeological units

and if so, what types of electronic equipment, software and hardware are used.

The computer has been used as a tool in archaeology since the nineteen sixties, so this paper will be looking

at some of the history of how and why computers have been used in archaeology and in the development of

new methods of computerised data gathering, storage and manipulation.

One question that needs to be addressed is how 3D technology has been used over the years to increase

awareness of, and to greatly increase the popularity of Archaeology to the general public through media

such as the ‘Time Team’ program and through interactive displays in galleries and museums.

The discussion will also deal with the use of Virtual Reality technologies that are currently being used to

display archaeological remains in places such as museums and exhibitions and how this technology can be

used as a teaching aid.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE................................................................................................................................ 2

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF IMAGES............................................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER

I COMPUTERS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Introduction........................................................................................................... 6

Historical outline of computer archaeology................................................................. 7

The computer as an archaeological tool...................................................................... 10

II METHODS OF DATA GATHERING FOR VISUALIZATION

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 14

Methods of visualization..................................................................................................... 15

3D Archaeological Reconstruction and Visualization........................................................ 21

III VIRTUAL REALITY OR VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 25

Virtual Archaeology........................................................................................................... 26

The 3D Museum................................................................................................................. 31

CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................... 33

LIST OF REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................. 36

5

LIST OF IMAGES

(See List of References for source information)

Cover Image: Setting up the DeltaSphere-3000 3D Scanner & Partial 3D Model of Scan, DeltaSphere Inc,

(2012)

Fig 1. Old style computer typically used in archaeology. Lock, G. Wilcock, J. (1987)

Fig 2. Image of a square from an old gradiometer survey. Lock, G. Wilcock, J. (1987)

Fig 3. 3D Wire frame image of resistivity data. Lock, G. Wilcock, J. (1987)

Fig 4. Red/Green stereoscopic image from a contour survey. Lock, G. Wilcock, J. (1987)

Fig 5. Example of an AirPhoto image showing overlaid data. Scollar, I. (2011)

Fig 6. Geodetic Systems V-STARS Product.. Geodetic Systems, (2012)

Fig 7. Example image of photo editing in the 123D Catch software. Autodesk 123D Catch, (2012)

Fig 8. Viewing and manipulation of a model in 123D Catch. Autodesk 123D Catch, (2012)

Fig 9. Overview of system used by Pollefeys, M. et al. Pollefeys, M. et al. (2000)

Fig 10. Archaeological Process Flow, 3D Murale: A Multimedia System for Archaeology, (2001)

Fig 11. Set of Tools, 3D Murale: A Multimedia System for Archaeology, (2001)

Fig 12. A GPR slice of the Villa of Emperor Trianos, Rome. Images courtesy of Dean

Goodman, Geophysical Archaeometry Laboratory.

Fig 13. 3D GIS image of aerial photo with overlaid resistivity data. Time Team America, (2009)

Fig 14. Table of different software packages used. Boeykens, S. et al (2008)

Fig 15. 3D reconstruction of Khirbet Qumran, Cargill, R. R. (2008)

Fig 16. 1580 drawing by Sir Ferdinand Georges and construction of 3D model of Glasney Church.

Fig 17. Virtual reality astronaut training, NASA/Science Photo Library.

Fig 18. Morton Heilig’s Sensorama Simulator, M. Morano, (2009)

Fig 19. Reconstruction of the Parthenon, G. Papaioannou. et al, (ND)

Fig 20.Image of the data flow and architecture of the Virtual Archaeology system. G. Papaioannou. et al,

(ND)

Fig 21. Children exploring heritage sites on the ImmersaDesk system. Gaitatzes, A. et al. (ND)

http://www.gpr-survey.com/

6

Chapter I

COMPUTERS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

During this first chapter I will be discussing a brief history of how the development of the computer has led

to the emergence of many different kinds of new technologies and methods of storing and manipulating

archaeological data, which have been used over the years. This will only cover some of the more popular

methods and equipment that have been used and that are currently in use today.

Computers have been used in archaeology since the nineteen sixties, and have now become an almost

essential tool for archaeologists so the second part of this chapter will look into and discuss the computers

various roles and how they have been used to further the study of archaeology.

Fig 1. Old style computer typically used in archaeology

7

HISTORICAL OUTLINE OF COMPUTER ARCHAEOLOGY

When computers first appeared back in the sixties and seventies, it was often thought that computers and

archaeology were incompatible, but archaeologists soon began to realize that they would have to move with

the times as they were very often against the clock in having to rescue archaeology before it was destroyed

by construction work. New ways had to be found to speed up and simplify the tasks of data gathering and

analysis, and in the storage and retrieval of information. Archaeologists soon discovered the flexibility,

power and multiple usage of the computer. Lock, G. Wilcock, J. (1987)

We have all seen the rapid expansion of technology over the years and in particular the expansion of

computers. Early computers were very large and crude machines that needed a large room and many

operators to run them. A big part of this rapid expansion has been in the miniaturization of electronic

components, meaning that a greater level of computing power could be fitted into a much smaller device.

As far as archaeology is concerned, one of the main advantages of these much smaller devices is in

portability and usability meaning that these electronic devices can be easily used in the field. As early as the

mid sixties archaeologists were using computers for survey and excavation work in the form of two

dimensional contour maps made up of readings taken at one metre intervals. These contour maps were often

very large, containing a lot of data thus making the computer an ideal medium in which to process this

information.

One of the earliest forms of recording

geophysical anomalies was with the use

of dot density maps recorded by proton

gradiometer machines. These maps were

presented in a graphical form to allow

archaeologists to see anomalies in the

subsurface of the ground and to pick out

features such as walls, ditches, pits etc.

The gradiometer readings had to be

processed by computer before being sent

to a graph plotter.

Fig 2. Image of a square from an old gradiometer survey

Although these early methods were quite crude, they were generally very effective and gave archaeologists a

much better idea of where to place trenches and test pits. This heralded the start of a new scientific branch of

archaeological study, Geophysics.

As software and hardware advanced the images produced were of a much higher quality, and in the eighties

they were using three dimensional wire frame images, which gave much clearer indications of ground

anomalies. What is surprising is that even as far back as 1985, they were experimenting with red/green

8

stereoscopic images which greatly enhanced the user’s perception of the image, allowing them to spot

details that most likely would be missed.

Fig 3. 3D Wire frame image of resistivity data Fig 4. Red/Green stereoscopic image from a contour

survey

Another very important use of computers was in the archiving and retrieval of large amounts of

archaeological data and this was successfully demonstrated as early as the mid 1960’s. By the seventies

computers were being used for onsite data capture at excavations, which continued into the eighties.

As stated by Lock and Wilcock (1987, p.19),

‘Formal encouragement for the use of the computer by British archaeologists was given by

both the Frere Report and the Cunliffe Report. The first of these working parties, set up by

the Ancient Monuments Board for England Committee for Rescue Archaeology,

highlighted the crises in publication of archaeological excavations caused by larger and

more numerous sites, more extensive scientific and specialist studies and greatly increased

printing costs’.

There were four different levels of publication proposed in which the computer was used in level three for

printouts, articles and occasional papers, microfiche, xerography and all structural and stratigraphy

information.

Until the late eighties, it was not common for machines to actually be used in the trenches. Any gathered

data would normally be recorded on site and then transferred to computer at a later time. One example of

onsite data recording was carried out at Powlesland, Yorkshire in 1985, where operators would record data

onto small hand held micro computers, but because of memory restrictions on these small machines, all the

information had to be in a strict coded format. Lock, G. Wilcock, J. (1987)

As technology has advanced over the years computers have become increasingly more sophisticated and

ultimately much more useful as a tool for field archaeologists due to their much lighter weight and ease of

use and a much greater variety of uses have been discovered for the use of computers in archaeology

through research studies and field trials.

9

Some of the more common uses for computers in more recent times include much more sophisticated

databases using XML, thus allowing databases to easily communicate with each other over the internet.

Image capture software applications have also become widely used by archaeologists allowing the display

and manipulation of digital aerial, and satellite photography. Another area in which many advances have

been made, is in Remote Sensing, which includes techniques such as Magnetometry and GPR, (Ground

Penetrating Radar), both of which are used to gather data from sub surface areas.

Other areas of interest related to the use of computers have been GIS, (Geographic Information System),

CAD, 3D Visualization, Stratigraphic Analysis, Dendrochronology and Radio Carbon Dating. Some of these

uses of computer methods will be discussed further in later chapters of this dissertation.

10

THE COMPUTER AS AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL TOOL

Although the computer has been used as a tool by archaeologists for the past fifty years or so, it is quite

difficult to define the ways in which archaeological institutions have made use of the computer over the

years and are currently making use of computers now. This is because there have been so many different

research projects and experimentation with various different computer technologies over the years and

putting these all in to context is quite problematic. This is compounded by the fact that there are now many

new specialist subjects of study that have appeared in recent times and with the increased use of the internet

as a tool in archaeology. With this in mind, and the fact that many of the earlier methods have already been

discussed, this chapter will only be looking at some of the most popular recent methods and tools that have

been used, or are currently being used in archaeology. Digital Tools for Archaeology (ND)

In relation to computers, one of the primary methods used by archaeologists is in the use of databases and

one of the most popular of these is Microsoft Access. Other databases that are commonly used are AdLib,

MySQL, and Filemaker, Digital Tools for Archaeology. (ND) but online databases are becoming much more

common. Conducting a search of online archaeological databases will reveal a great many sites from all over

the world where data can be viewed and manipulated. Many of these sites are also available to the public

making these online databases a universal tool which is opening up the study of archaeology to everyone.

The online culture is now a daily part of our lives and enables us to find information on just about any

subject and it has certainly revolutionised the way in which archaeologists now work.

Another very important tool that is

quite often used in archaeology projects

is Image Capture. As described in

Digital Tools for Archaeology (ND, p.

3-4),’The capture and analysis of image

data is an integral part of the

archaeological process and digital

applications and techniques have

revolutionised methods of data

gathering, no more so than with

technologies such as aerial and satellite

photography’. Within this category is

the Bonn Archaeological Software

Package (BASP), which is a suite of

tools used to correct abnormalities and

problems in mapping images, scanning

extreme oblique images and

superimposing scanned maps and can

also use Digital Terrain Model (DTM)

images. BASP is a low cost solution to

the much more expensive

Fig 5. Example of an AirPhoto image showing overlaid data.

11

Photogrammetric hardware and software and so would be much more appealing to archaeological

institutions that are on a low budget, but photogrammetry, despite its cost has been used widely in many

different projects over the years. Digital Tools for Archaeology (ND)

A detailed explanation of Photogrammetric methods is needed here, as this is an area of study in which

many research projects have been conducted over the years, mainly to try and find better, faster and more

cost effective methods of making 3D models and images from photographic sources.

The basics of photogrammetry has been explained very well by Geodetic Systems (2012) in which they say

that, photogrammetry can be best described as a method of getting 3D co-ordinates from two cameras using

triangulation and this does have many similarities to the way theodolites work. It is also similar to the way

that the human eye works to judge distances, which is called depth perception. Using this method, it is

possible to get 3D stereoscopic images.

Geodetic Systems, Inc is a modern company based in the USA and a leading provider of automated high

accuracy photogrammetric systems, which can be used to obtain extremely accurate 3D co-ordinate

measurements for various industries such as the aircraft industry, aerospace, and car manufacturing and of

course these devices can be used in archaeological projects, where a high degree of accuracy is needed. The

system developed by Geodetic is called V-STARS and there are currently four different models, which come

as a package containing the high resolution camera, notebook computer (with software for automatic data

processing), plus accessories (depending on chosen model). However, the cost of these systems is very high.

Fig 6. Geodetic Systems V-STARS Products

12

Photogrammetry can be divided into three distinct stages, the first part being the photography which must be

of the highest quality. There are three important factors for good photographs and these are Field of View,

Focusing and Exposure. The V-Stars products have been specifically designed to eliminate some of the

problems encountered with normal digital cameras, such as the fixing of focal points to eliminate depth of

focus problems and enhancements to the exposure features of the cameras. The V-Stars cameras also have

medium angle lenses to provide the best accuracy and field of view.

The second stage of Photogrammetry is Metrology which is basically a process of converting 2D images

into 3D images. For this process to be accurate more than one photograph is required as otherwise, data is

lost in the process. The 3D co-ordinates from multiple photographs provide the photogrammetric results.

Because of the high precision of V-Star cameras, they are required to be calibrated, but unlike earlier

cameras, these are self calibrating making the process much easier.

The third stage is triangulation which is a method of getting 3D measurements from intersecting converging

lines, much the same way as theodolites work, except photogrammetry can measure multiple points.

Geodetic Systems (2012)

The V-Stars products are representative of the upper scale of Photogrammetric devices, but many studies

and trials have been conducted over the years using both analogue and digital style cameras. M.Pollefeys et

al (2000) have written a number of research papers on various methods of 3D Image acquisition to obtain

3D models from a series of photographic images using off the shelf cameras and their system can deal with

variable camera settings including zooming and re-focusing allowing for a very flexible method and is based

on algorithms to build a 3D model through a series of successive steps. They do admit that it is not the most

accurate method, but they do say that, ‘the visual quality is very convincing’, and has been used to great

effect in the Roman archaeological site of Sagalassos in Turkey, M.Pollefeys et al (2000) and more

information on this site is provided in a later chapter of this dissertation.

This method of 3D model

reconstruction from a series of

photographs is now directly

available to anyone, and there is

one such software package of

note which has been produced

by the highly successful

company Autodesk and is called

123D Catch. This was originally

known as Project Photofly but

has now been greatly enhanced

to include

Fig 7. Example image of photo editing in the 123D Catch software.

video animations as well as the normal photo-stitching software, and the software is also free to download

and use, making it a great potential tool for use in historical, architectural and of course archaeological

visualizations. The system does have a few limitations however and these are that the photographs taken

13

need to be stationary, under consistent lighting and should not include any transparent, reflective or glossy

surfaces.

Fig 8. Viewing and manipulation of a model in 123D Catch

Photographs need to be taken from

all around the object at about 20

degree intervals at a focal length of

F5.6 or higher to avoid blurring

caused by depth of field. These

photos are then uploaded to the cloud

where all computation takes place,

thus freeing up the computer to

perform other tasks. When

computation is complete, you are

sent an email to say that you model

has been made in 3dp. File format,

which can then be opened using the

123D Catch software in which a

range of tools are provided to view

and manipulate your model. The models can also be imported into other 3D software programs such as

Maya and 3Ds Max, where further work can be carried out on them, making this an extremely useful

software package for visualizations.

Autodesk also have a 3D printing service which can be used to make a physical model of your object in a

range of different materials, however this does cost a varying amount of money depending on the size and

complexity of your model and on the materials used.

When you look at the way that 123D Catch

works, it has remarkable similarities to

earlier photogrammetric methods, but can

be done using the cheapest of equipment at

very little or no cost. This can clearly be

seen in Fig 9, which is an overview of the

methods used by M. Pollefeys et al (2000)

in which multiple images are taken of

objects, buildings or landscapes and the

process is refined as more and more photos

are added to build up a 3D model.

Fig 9. Overview of system used by

Pollefeys et al.

14

Chapter II

METHODS OF DATA GATHERING FOR VISUALIZATION

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will be focusing on the methods of data gathering that have been used in archaeology for

visualization purposes. Visualization can be interpreted in many different ways, but in terms of archaeology

it can mean visualizing what an object, building or location may have looked like many years ago.

There have been many different methods to gather data in archaeology, but one that really does stand out is

the 3D Murale Project, J. Cosmas et al. (2001). The term visualization has also been used to describe the

data gathered from Ground Penetrating Radar as in the case of the GPR survey carried out at a large

archaeological site in Lecce, Italy, L. Nuzzo, et al. (2002), so various different methods will be discussed

during the first part of this chapter

There are many different types of electronic devices and software that are used during an archaeological

excavation to gather or display information in a digital form, so the second part of this chapter will be

focusing on the some of the more popular devices that are used, and what benefits they provide to interpret

or display archaeological data.

Part three of this chapter will focus on 3D archaeological reconstructions and visualizations. What tools and

methods are used and why visualizations are so important. This chapter will also discuss the many ways in

which the data gathered from archaeological sites is, and has been interpreted on sites where there are none

or very little remains left intact. It will also look at the various different types of hardware and software that

have been used to create 3D models and their usefulness as a method of displaying the relevant data. The

question of how and why visualizations have become so popular and so useful to both archaeologists and the

community in general will also be discussed.

15

METHODS OF VISUALIZATION

There are now many different methods and electronic devices that are used for gathering and displaying

digital data in a form that can be incredibly useful for visualizing the past. Multimedia technologies are

becoming an increasingly popular medium to display to, not just the scientific community, but also to the

general public. One such system which has been tested is 3D Murale: A Multimedia System for

Archaeology developed by a team from Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex. In this paper, they

introduce a 3D Measurement and Virtual reconstruction tool for recording, reconstruction, visualization and

database searching of archaeological sites in Europe.

Archaeology, by its very nature is a destructive process, and 2D recording of archaeological data is very

time consuming, so the teams motivation to use multimedia technology is to replace this with 3D recording

of archaeological sites and artefacts and with advances in technology, 3D devices have become much more

portable and user friendly, enabling them to be used easily in the field. The team’s second goal was to

construct 3D models of artefacts and buildings for visualization and restoration purposes and for a

permanent catalogue reference. The third task would be modelling of 3D topographical terrain data for

visualization and to enable them to pick out geographical landmarks.

Methods of producing 3D models of artefacts, buildings and landscapes needed to be developed to allow

virtual reconstruction through all phases of excavation to allow archaeologists to easily re-visit a site and to

interpret data.

A core concept of 3D Murale is in the creation of a multimedia database not just for the storage of data,, but

to enable a user to very easily navigate, manipulate and view information of an archaeological site. This

database would also be available to both the public and other archaeologists on the internet.

The archaeological test site for this project was located at the ancient city of Sagalassos in Bardur, Turkey. It

is a Greco-Roman site with a very long occupation (4th

century BC - 7th

century AD). The site has been

under excavation since 1990, by a team from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, led by Professor Marc

Waelkens. J. Cosmas et al. (2001)

A diagram of the various 3D Murale components can be seen in the multimedia system architecture. (See

Fig. 1 below)

16

Fig 10. 3D Murale: Archaeological Process Flow

The tools used in the 3D Murale project were developed to create an automated process of 3D modelling,

terrain creation and reconstruction of broken artefacts and building components using a variety of different

software packages and electronic devices and these can be seen in Fig 2. J. Cosmas et al. (2001)

Fig 11. 3D Murale: Set of Tools

17

Brief description of tool set:

Capture/recording tools: for the capture and recording of audio, video, image and text creation

Post Processing/reconstruction tools: for pre-processing of 3D graphics.

Encoding tools: which allow for the compression of files for efficient storage of content.

Indexing and Integration tools: for association between different types of content.

Search tools: for retrieval and query of Image, text and 3D using SQL and XQL query languages.

Visualization tools: for visualization of all content types which aid in the reconstruction, recording, creation

and acquisition processes. J. Cosmas et al. (2001)

Archaeology has been made much more popular over the years through TV documentaries and in particular

the long running ‘Time Team’ series, of which I have personally watched just about every episode since it

first, started back in 1994. Geophysics or “geofizz” as it is more popularly known includes several different

devices and methods that are used to try and detect the presence of anomalies prior to an excavation or to

simply gather data on a site of archaeological importance.

Early methods of Geophysics have already been discussed in an earlier chapter, but this part of the chapter

will be looking at more modern methods of data gathering. Some of the devices used in archaeology at the

present include: ground-penetrating radar (GPR), magnetometry, magnetic susceptibility mapping and

resistivity. This technology has come a long way since the 1950’s and 60’s and nowadays, rather than just

covering a few square meters, they are now able to cover thousands of square meters of ground, making

geophysics an invaluable method of gathering data and this data can now be processed and displayed using

handheld computers such as laptops.

Geophysical surveys can often reveal extremely impressive results, often showing strong features such as

ditches, wall lines, field boundaries and old roads and tracks, but there are some situations in which

geophysical methods cannot be used, or are ineffective, due to varying circumstances such as highly

mineralised ground, or in areas such as dense woodland, steep slopes and in built up areas, these can all

hamper the effort to get good results.

One of the more common tools used to gather electronic data in archaeology is the Magnetometer. As its

name suggests, the magnetometer measures the magnetism that is present in the soil. This data can then be

sent to a computer, processed and then printed to display a graphic readout of an area showing any magnetic

variations that are present in the sub soil. Magnetometers are particularly good at picking up traces of burnt

material that have been left by ancient activity and this is because burning alters the magnetic properties of

iron particles that are present in the soil. The magnetometer can detect ‘variations in soil magnetism against

the general background of the earth’s magnetic field.’ Past Perfect, (ND)

Resistivity is another form of geophysics which uses electrical currents that are sent into the ground through

metal prongs at regular intervals, (usually 0.5m – 1.0m). These resistivity devices measure the electrical

resistance in the ground, which is measured in ohms. The recorded data can then be processed by computer

and sent to a printer in the same way as magnetometry.

18

Resistivity works on the principle that all materials have a certain amount of resistivity to an electric current.

Metallic materials especially copper have a very low level of resistivity, as does water, but material such as

stone, ceramics and air have much higher resistivity. The moisture content present in the soil plays a big part

in resistivity, where soil with a much higher content of moisture such as in ditches and pits will allow the

electrical current to pass through much easier and will show up against the normal background levels in the

surrounding soil. The opposite would be true of something like a buried wall foundation where the

resistance would be much higher, allowing the wall to stand out. The processed data from resistivity is

similar in appearance to that of magnetometers and these devices are often used together on the same site to

complement each other. Past Perfect, (ND)

Fig 12. A GPR slice of the Villa of Emperor Trianos, Rome.

A much more recent and high tech

method of gathering and displaying

archaeological data can be found in

the Ground Penetrating Radar

(GPR) device. This technology can

also be seen as being one of the few

tools that archaeologist’s use, which

is capable of a true 3D display.

Although radar is quite an old

technology now, having been

developed during the Second World

War for military purposes only, it

has seen extensive use over the

years in both military and civilian

use, but mainly for use in air (for

detection of aircraft, shipping and

for navigation purposes) or under the water (for use in echo sounding or sonar devices), and it has only been

in recent years that a radar device has been utilised for subterranean use on land.

GPR has proved itself to be a very useful tool in archaeology and is particularly good at detecting the deep

stratification of walls, or voids making this an ideal choice for use on urban sites, but is much less useful on

the softer agricultural ground, where magnetometers, or resistivity would be much better suited.

The GPR device is mounted on a wheeled trolley and is usually pulled across a marked grid where readings

are taken. The data can be represented in different formats, such as plan form, section form or even in full

3D, and depending on the ground conditions, the signal strength can be altered to compensate for differing

conditions. The only downfall of this device is the expense of conducting a survey making this a much less

commonly used method. Past Perfect, (ND)

Another increasingly popular method of data gathering and sharing is the Geographical Information System,

or GIS. GIS is a method of linking data bases to mapping information. The mapping data can be in many

forms, such as topographical, geological, environmental, hydrological, as well as excavational information.

The GIS maps can be viewed in different layers, zoomed in and out, and rotated, and data can also be

presented statistically. One of the most common uses of this system in archaeology is to display Digital

Elevation Models (DEM). Two of the most commonly used software packages are ArcView and MapInfo.

19

Fig 13. 3D GIS image of aerial

photo with overlaid resistivity data.

The GIS system has great potential

in archaeology and many uses have

been found of utilising this

technology, one example is that,

‘Archaeologists have created

models of intervisibility between

prehistoric monuments such as

barrows and hillforts, this is known

as ‘viewshed’ analysis. Settlement

and agriculture have been mapped

in relation to soil types, rainfall

levels, flood zones and patterns of

light and shadow caused by hills and valleys’, Past Perfect, (ND) and this makes GIS an excellent tool for

visualization and interpretation.

There are many other methods used to gather data such as Topographical Surveys, using instruments such as

GPS devices to gather ground surface data. Aerial Photography, used to look at ground surface details such

as crop, soil and parch marks, and of course research of parish, county and national records.

In an email interview with MIfA Thomas. N. (2012) senior archaeologist at the Historical Environment

Service, (HES) Cornwall, he describes the types of equipment generally used by most county archaeological

units and these are:

1. Geophysical prospection:

Magnetometry, Resistivity (For general geophysics survey, such as on farmland etc)

Ground Penetrating Radar (For deeper subterranean survey, such as mine workings etc.)

2. Survey & Data Capture:

Total Stations, including reflectorless. (For basic survey of below ground archaeology and recording

of historic buildings)

Handheld GPS: (For locations/grid references of sites, especially when no other fixed points are

available)

Centimetre accurate GPS/GNSS: (For detailed landscape surveys)

3D Laser Scan Survey: (For sites with special requirements such as mine buildings.)

3. Computer Software:

Photo rectification software: (For air and ground based photos)

4. Material Display:

ArcView GIS: (For electronic mapping and interpretation of spatial data.)

AutoCAD Map: (For transcribing data from rectified air photos)

AutoCAD Architecture: (For general drawing and importing/processing data from survey

instruments)

Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator

The smaller archaeological units do not have their own geophysics equipment, but instead rely on specialist

contractors to carry out and to supply the data gathered from their surveys and this is a practice that is

20

common with archaeological units, and as Thomas (2012) says, ‘specialist companies tend to update their

equipment and software as needs arise, so hiring in their expertise also gives us access to the latest

technology. If we buy in our own kit, it can rapidly become out of date!’ he also says that not all projects

require geophysics, so it would not be cost effective to buy their own equipment and it actually works out

cheaper to hire the necessary equipment as and when the need arises.

To summarize all of these methods of data gathering, it can clearly be seen how useful all of these systems

are in gathering and displaying the data needed for archaeological visualization and interpretation, but this

brief description has barely scratched the surface of what these technologies are capable of and how they

have changed the way that archaeologists think, and in the way that they work towards their tasks of trying

to understand the past.

21

3D ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION AND VISUALIZATION

The principal methods of data gathering and display of archaeological data have already been outlined in

previous chapters, but this section is all about how this data is combined and analyzed to produce 3D models

for archaeological reconstructions and visualizations.

In the paper entitled Cyber-archaeology and metaverse collaborative systems by Forte, M. Kurillo, G (2010,

p.2) they describe the process of how, ‘Archaeological interpretation passes through several steps of data

capturing, recording, interpretation and communication. One of the most common outcomes is the scientific

report or the publication, whose aim it is to validate the state of the research and to share it with the broader

scientific community.’ They go on to say how the data of a report is difficult to re-analyze without having

the interaction that you can get from a model or simulation. One example that they give of a 3D

reconstruction is that it ‘can multiply or increase the level of perception, interpretation and communication’,

depending on that level of interaction. Forte, M. Kurillo, G (2010)

This explains in part why visualizations and reconstructions are important and useful, but there is another

important factor and this is explained by Grabner, M. et al. (2003) when they describe how there are large

amounts of data and geometry associated with archaeological sites and the fact that this data is constantly

being modified as the excavation progresses. This is an important point and highlights the need to have an

effective method of working with and displaying such large amounts of data, and to provide a much more

effective and easier way of interpreting this information.

Channel 4’s “Time Team” series has done much over the years to popularise archaeology and now has a

massive public following through its own website and on popular social networking sites such as Facebook

and Twitter, but how and why has it become so popular. The answer could lie in part, due to the fact that it is

a very visual program. Anyone who has ever watched Time Team will have seen the amazing 3D

reconstructions that are featured in every series and it is this visual content that people can identify with.

They can actually physically see what an area, building or artefact may have looked like many years ago and

to get this level of visual appeal and interaction would be virtually impossible using traditional means of

displaying information, such as drawings or diagrams, or by simply trying to describe in words what

something may have looked like. Of course there are other factors involved such as the recognition of

familiar characters who have appeared in the series over a long period of time, and the fact that it is a very

informative program. Time Team also like to involve the public in what they do.

The types of hardware and software used to display

and manipulate 3D models has been quite varied and

all of the methods used have their advantages and

disadvantages, some of which can be seen in Fig 15

(right), which is from a paper written be Boeykens S.

et al (2008) on “Improving Architectural Design

Analysis using 3D Modelling and Visualization

Techniques”. In this, they have highlighted the fact

that there is currently no software that will enable

every task to be carried out in just one package, thus

necessitating the need to import and export data

between different formats, programs and platforms.

Fig 14. Table of different software packages used

22

As new software is developed and existing software upgraded, this is almost certain to change and probably

has already changed quite a bit since this paper was written, but it does clearly show that there are many

problems facing both archaeologists and 3D graphic designers in the way that data has to be juggled

between different formats, and different packages and based on this, it is not surprising why there have been

so many research projects carried out over the years which have tried to find better methods of 3D

reconstruction, visualization and interpretation. So, it can be seen from this that there are no best software

packages to use, because they all have their uses in different ways depending on the requirements and on the

circumstances of each individual excavation.

One of the major problems often faced in any archaeological reconstruction, is the lack of information

required to enable an accurate construction of a 3D model. An example of this can be seen at the Ceren

archaeological site in Western El Salvador, where a team of computer graphic modellers who were working

in collaboration with anthropologists and archaeologists began to identify a number of problem areas in the

interpretation of archaeological information. Four problem areas that were identified are:

1. Inconsistent interpretations of recorded archaeological data.

2. Incorrect drawings which did not correspond to source data.

3. Inadequate charts and drawings not describing spatial relationships.

4. Insufficient 3D data. Lewin, J. Gross. M. (1996)

Most of the problems represented here are due to human error. The inconsistencies of recorded data, missing

data, incorrect measurements are just a few of the problems that face 3D modellers who are trying to make

reconstructions or visualizations from archaeological data.

The excavation at Ceren took place over a very long time period which meant that the recordings and data

were continuously being updated by many different individuals leading to different interpretations of similar

objects, missing information and many other inconsistencies, so the modellers have had to resolve these

problems by studying the original excavation report, and by consultation with archaeologists and

anthropologists to fill in gaps in the data and to obtain the dimensional information required for 3D

modelling to take place. Lewin, J. Gross. M. (1996)

When it comes to three-dimensional reconstructions and visualizations in archaeology, there is one very

important consideration that has to be made and that is the fact that it is an interpretation of the

archaeological data and so, is potentially subjected to error, this can, and has led to much controversy and

one very good example of this can be seen in

the Qumran controversy, and in particular to a

digital model of the Khirbet Qumran (see Fig

16, right), which was made by Robert R.

Cargill. This is a 3D real-time virtual

reconstruction of the complex and is supposedly

where the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered.

Cargill, R. R. (2009)

Fig 15. 3D reconstruction of Khirbet Qumran

23

The controversy surrounding the digital model was due to the fact that the excavation report for the site

carried out by Roland de Vaux was never published meaning that the model itself would have to be based on

a lot of interpretation and guesswork. This was a point clearly made by professor Jodi Magness, who is an

expert of religious studies and an archaeologist. Magness (2008, p.1-3) states in her paper, “The Qumran

Digital Model: A Response”,

‘Cargill's digital reconstruction of Qumran is a valuable tool for helping scholars and lay

people visualize the appearance of the ancient settlement. However, it is important to bear

in mind that this technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Technology does not

provide answers to the current debates about Qumran because the digital reconstruction is

generated from data entered into the system, and the data are a result of scholarly

interpretation. In other words, the outcome is determined by the selection and composition

of the dataset. Furthermore, because no final report on de Vaux's excavations has been

published, the data are incomplete, and therefore many elements of the digital

reconstruction must be considered hypothetical at best.’

In this same paper, Magness does acknowledge the response made by Cargill who says,

‘Magness is correct that the technological approach I propose here is not an end in itself. Rather, much like

photography, GPS, GPR, and hand-drawn architectural renderings, digital reconstruction is a tool that

archaeologists are beginning to harness, develop, and employ in their archaeological reporting. Digital

reconstruction is a tool used in field excavation, not a replacement of it.

One takes a considerable risk when developing a visual reconstruction. Renderings are more difficult and

time consuming to create than simple written descriptions. Moreover, renderings are not as easily forgotten

if proved incorrect.’ Magness, J. (2008)

There will always be a certain amount of controversy and debate when it comes to interpretation. It is human

nature to argue when it comes to situations that are not clearly understood, but there is very little that can be

done when a 3D modeller is faced with incorrect, incomplete or misleading data, or in fact no data at all,

other than to do the best they can to find or correct the missing data through extensive research methods and

consultation with expert knowledge. A visualization or interpretation is just that, a means of trying to

determine what something may have looked like, tens, hundreds, even thousands of years ago, and there

may be very little, or even no evidence left intact.

I have personally faced similar problems with my own visualization of the Glasney College Project, in

Penryn, Cornwall. This reconstruction and visualization is part of my Final Year Project, which, at the time

of writing, is currently in development.

Glasney College was a major ecclesiastical centre in Cornwall, founded by Bishop Bronescombe of Exeter

on 26th

March 1265, and was finally dissolved in 1548. The church itself was of a cruciform design, based

on Exeter Cathedral and the whole college complex was contained within a fortified enclosure. There are

only very small portions of the walls that still remain on the site, which is located on a recreation ground

within the town of Penryn. An archaeological survey was carried out in 2003 and a large excavation was

carried out in 2005 by the Historical Environment Service, (HES) Cornwall. Cole, D. et al, (2005)

My reconstruction of Glasney, is based on the excavation reports and, on a 1580 drawing of the site by Sir

Ferdinand Georges and this is where the problem lies. The drawing was done some 30 years after the

dissolution of the site and is believed by historical experts to have been drawn from memory, which would

mean that this drawing could not be relied upon to provide accurate information.

24

The dimensions of the church were known through records of historical measurements and by estimations

carried out during the 2005 excavation. The only other evidence that I had to work with, was remnants of

stone work that were found during the excavation, so I had a lot of blank areas to fill in. This information

was to come from an archaeological expert, John Allen, of Exeter Archaeology. John is an ecclesiastical

expert of medieval churches in South West England and was able to provide me with architectural details

that would relate to a medieval church of that time period, which in this case, is post-reformation.

Without any other reliable or accurate information, this visualization would have to rely on a certain amount

of interpretation, but I have been working very closely through all stages with the archaeologists, to get this

3D model of Glasney church as accurate as possible.

Fig 16. 1580 drawing by Sir Ferdinand Georges and construction of 3D model of Glasney Church.

25

Chapter III

VIRTUAL REALITY OR VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Virtual Reality is relatively new in archaeology so this chapter will be focusing on the various different

uses of this technology that have been used over the years in archaeology, and how it has already been

implemented on many occasions to further enhance existing archaeological remains, but has also been used

as a tool for exhibiting archaeological data to the public and educational establishments.

A number of new phrases have been coined over the years in various papers and journals such as, Virtual

Archaeology A. Gaitatzes. Et al. (ND), Virtual Heritage, D.H.Sanders, (2009), and Cyber Archaeology, M.

Forte., G Kurillo. (2010), but they are all fairly similar in their approaches and in their various uses of

technology to interpret and display archaeological data in various digital forms, so these will also be

discussed and analyzed.

We are living in a digital age, so it makes perfect sense to display archaeological data in a 3D environment

and with new technological advances and research; there are plenty of possibilities for further studies and

research in this area and one topic that is of particular interest is in the ‘Virtual Museum’, or ‘3D Museum’

environment where the use of virtual reality has been used to great effect.

26

VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY

Virtual Reality is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as:

noun

[mass noun]

the computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with

in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment, such as a helmet with a

screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors.

Fig 17. Virtual reality astronaut training. NASA/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

The image shown above is of Astronaut Phillipe Perrin, who is seen training for a mission to interact with a

simulation of the International Space Station using Virtual Reality equipment. (Science Photo Library, ND)

27

The concept of Virtual Reality was first conceived way back in

1932 in the novel Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, when he

talks of multisensory movies that he refers to as “the feelies”, in

which the viewer grips two prongs and they can feel the neural

sensation of the actors, but it was not until the early 50’s and 60’s

that any electronic devices were made.

There are two devices of note and these are the Telesphere Mask,

which was made by inventor and filmmaker Morton Heilig. This

device provided the user with 3D images and stereo sound, and

the Sensorama Simulator (see fig 2.), also developed by Heilig,

and was quite an elaborate, but rather bulky device that simulated

3D images, vibration, sound, movement of air and even smells,

Morano (2009).

Fig 18. Morton heilig’s Sensorama Simulator

Over the years various different articles and papers have been written on many different concepts related to

virtual reality and VR technologies such as in the paper written by the Foundation of the Hellenic World,

where the team have been ‘working to preserve and disseminate Hellenic culture, historical memory and

tradition through the creative use of

State-of-the-art multimedia and technology’. They are using virtual reality to display to the public, research

and scientific organizations and to promote a better understanding of the past through immersive 3D

technology A. Gaitatzes. Et al. (ND). Virtual reality has also been featured in many different TV programs

and films, such as Dr Who, Star Trek and Tron, Morano (2009).

In more recent times and with the emergence of digital technology, virtual reality has become much more

high tech, but the expense of these gadgets has put them firmly out of reach of the majority of the general

public. They are however used widely by many scientific and industry establishments such as NASA seen in

fig 17 above, and of course the archaeological community which is what this dissertation is all about. The

use of virtual reality by archaeological establishments has been quite widespread and very well documented

over the years with many different projects being carried out all over the world.

28

Donald H. Sanders (2009, p.1) states in his paper Virtual Heritage,

‘Virtual reality-based reconstructions of archaeological and other heritage sites and their

accompanying artifacts have been created and used since the early 1990’s as a way to

supplement and enhance traditional methods of understanding the past. Global growth in

the application of such new media techniques has given rise to the (relatively) new field of

Virtual Heritage. Computer graphics software and display hardware have improved so

significantly over the past fifteen years that the ease of realizing the benefits of virtual

heritage techniques for documenting, analyzing, visualizing, and disseminating cultural

information are recognized by archaeologists worldwide.’

He goes on to explain how, with the use of graphics technologies and visualizations that archaeologists have

been able to look at things in a different way than with just using 2D data, which has led to new questions

being raised and unforeseen discoveries being made.

Some archaeological sites are very difficult, or even impossible to excavate, in which case visualization is

the only possible way to display the archaeology.

Fig 19. Reconstruction of the Parthenon

An example of the difficulty imposed upon archaeologists can be

seen at the reconstruction of the Parthenon at the Acropolis of

Athens. In this location, there are a large number of fragments

which have to be moved up to 50 metres away by crane and the

restoration process is further hampered by missing or deteriorated

pieces due to damage or erosion.

Virtual Archaeologist is a system that has been set up to automate

the task of sorting large numbers of fragments, thus avoiding

having to do any kind of manual reconstruction and having to

move heavy or fragile pieces.

In the case of the Parthenon, normal visualization and

manipulation of 3D or 2D objects would not be satisfactory, so the

reconstruction team had to find a way to automate the process.

Without going too much into the scientific process, this was

achieved by data matching of fragments taking into account the

overall shape, smoothness and in particular the

29

Jaggedness of broken pieces all of which was done using computer hardware and software. There are many

mathematical equations and computations involved in this process, but the system is basically trying to

match fragments in order to visualize the structure of buildings. This process is achieved by the use of 3D

scanning, digitizing, modelling and curve interpolation, and human interaction is only normally required in

the final stages for fine tuning the positioning of the fragments.

The image shown in Fig 20 (below), shows the data flow and architecture of the Virtual Archaeologist

system. G. Papaioannou. et al, (ND).

Fig 20.Image of the data flow and architecture of the Virtual Archaeology system.

This is a great example of the need to use technology such as Virtual Reality. The sheer size, scale and vast

number of artefacts and the fact that many of these artefacts are heavy or fragile, makes it almost a necessity

to be able to work in a virtual environment, thus avoiding potential damage, or injury, and to be able to

automate this colossal task of data matching and reconstructing fragments.

This is just an example of a very specific use of virtual reality, but here are many other ways in which this

technology that has been used to great effect to enable a user to, for example, explore a virtual

archaeological site in full 3D, and even be able to manipulate objects within that 3D space. One good

example of this can be found in a paper written by the Foundation of the Hellenic World, ‘Hellenic Cultural

Heritage through Immersive Virtual Archaeology’. In the background information of this paper Gaitatzes et

al (ND, p.1) speak of how VR technologies have, ‘matured enough to expand research from the military and

scientific visualization realm into more multidisciplinary areas, such as archaeology, education, art, and

30

physchology,’ and how VR interfaces and devices have improved with regards to interaction and motivation.

They also speak of the value of this technology in institutions such as education, research and museums.

The main aim of the FHW, is to promote the understanding, history, and life of the Hellenic World, and to

create a virtual platform in which ‘archaeologists, historians, scientists, and artists’, can within the context of

the Hellenic culture, research and visualize their ideas, using audiovisual and interactive media.

Fig 21. Children exploring heritage sites on the ImmersaDesk system.

The virtual reality equipment

used by the team include

immersive VR systems, an

example being the

ImmersaDesk, (see Fig 21,

below) which is a 45 degree,

tilted, back-projected panel, 2m

x 2.38m and provides stereo

viewing using shutter type

glasses and also includes head

and hand tracking. It has input

through a hand held device and

includes audio through a speaker system.

The usefulness of virtual reality as an educational tool has been described very well by Gaitatzes et al (ND,

p.5) when saying how,

‘With the use of the navigational device, children are free to choose their own path

in visiting important public buildings. They can examine the architectural details and

landscape from many different perspectives, practice their orientation skills and get to

understand the sense of scale, proportion, and space used by their ancestors. If they choose

to fly close up to the columns, the architectural elements of the 3-D models fade into layers

of higher detail, enabling the participants to experience an accurate reconstruction. Our

next step in enhancing the educational experience is to add construction ability, where the

children can switch between elements and compare the evolution of style through the

evolution of time in the city

31

THE 3D MUSEUM

Virtual Reality is an ideal medium for the education and interactive display within a museum setting and

several hybrid technologies have arisen over the years that use virtual reality as a new and innovative way of

displaying information to the public. One such system is SHAPE, “Situating Hybrid Assemblies in Public

Environments”, developed under the Disappearing Computer initiative.

They have used the term disappearing computer, Hall et al (2002) to describe how they are trying to make

the traditional desktop computer vanish, to be replaced by an augmented interactive experience and they

believe that computers particularly in public places can be obtrusive and can limit interaction, but there is

some debate on this topic.

So the idea of SHAPE is to create a virtual or augmented reality archaeology experience that will enhance

people’s interaction and knowledge of history and antiquities in public galleries and museums, making the

museum a very different and interesting place to visit. In effect, a 3D Museum.

So far the SHAPE system has been introduced as a “Living Exhibition” in three locations, Nottingham

Castle Museum, Nottingham, England, The Hunt Museum, Limerick, Ireland and The Technical Museum,

Stockholm, Sweden.

One of the consortiums areas of exploration has been in the use of a hybrid reality archaeological scenario,

in which they investigated ways to provide a more interactive and educational benefit to visitors of

museums. The reasoning behind this is, as Hall et al (2002, p.2) explains, ‘There are a number of features of

archaeological activity that seem to make ‘archaeology’ an appropriate metaphor for designing technology

to enhance education and interaction in museums’. When working on an archaeological dig as part of a

team, you are sharing the work load with your associates with the potential of making dramatic discoveries,

and this collaboration is what gives archaeology its appeal, so the team are trying to bring this concept into

the museum and have identified several benefits for education and interactivity in the study of archaeology

and these are as follows:

1. Practical exploration of artefacts

2. Collaboration/discussion among participants;

3. Excitement created by curiosity and sense of imminent discovery;

4. Exploration of interesting, problematic issues surrounding the making of inferences about history

based on artefacts, the material residue of the past.

32

This, they believe will make the museum a much more beneficial and practical experience over the more

traditional museum approach and which will encourage discussion and collaboration. Hall et al (2002).

33

CONCLUSION

In terms of Historical Visualizations and archaeological data gathering, computers are essentially the core

element of all the technologies and methods used, much like the engine of a car and I have been lucky

enough to witness the birth of the computer revolution. I have seen massive changes within the computer

industry, not just in the speed with which computers technology has advanced, but also in the way that

computers are being used in everyday life. In terms of history and archaeology, The “Time Team” TV

program has been like my barometer for measuring changes in the advancement of technology and the way

it has been used, but also in changing attitudes between the use of traditional archaeological techniques and

electronic devices.

I have been lucky enough to have watched Time Team from the very first series back in 1994 and have

watched virtually every episode since then, and can remember seeing an early episode in which the team

used magnetometers and resistivity for the first time and seeing the excitement and fascination of the

archaeologists as they were watching these images being printed, showing features such as wall lines and

ditches. I can say with great certainty that the Time Team program has been a great source of inspiration to

me and is without doubt the main reason for my interest in history and in archaeology.

Attitudes have also changed greatly over the years and one good example of this has been the much wider

acceptance of technology being used in archaeology for gathering and manipulating data and the acceptance

of the use of metal detectors, which has until quite recently been greatly shunned by archaeologists. Being

an experienced metal detectorist myself, I have personally witnessed this first hand, but archaeologists began

to realize the importance of responsible metal detecting and they were gradually accepted and can now be

seen in most Time Team episodes working alongside archaeologists and helping to find small metallic

artefacts and coins, which are very useful for provide good dating evidence.

I have also highlighted some of the problems faced with archaeological visualizations and in the

interpretation of historical data, including my own personal experiences of constructing the 3D model of

Glasney Church. This has given me a good insight into what can be expected in any future historical or

archaeological visualization that I may undertake in the future.

This dissertation has given a brief glimpse of the many ways in which archaeologists have used electronic

devices to gather, interpret and manipulate archaeological data and through much of my research I have

discovered that many of the more expensive methods of data gathering and display, such as 3D Laser

scanning and GPR surveys have been used in high profile, large excavations, but one of the questions that I

wanted to answer is if, and when these costly high tech devices are used by the smaller county

archaeological institutions and I have managed to find out this information through email interviews with

archaeologists at the Historical Environment Service, (HES) Cornwall.

It is fascinating to see how virtual reality technologies have been used to solve many problems in the field of

3D archaeology and the many uses that this technology is being used as an educational tool to enhance our

experience of the past in a very unique way that would be impossible to replicate with other forms of media.

34

LIST OF REFERENCES

Autodesk 123D Catch, (2012), ‘Take and Make’, Take ordinary photos and turn them into extraordinary 3D

Models. Available at: http://www.123dapp.com/catch (Accessed on: 09/04/2012)

Boeykens, S. et al. (2008) ‘Improving Architectural Design Analysis using 3D Modelling and Visualization

Techniques’, VSMM 2008 Digital Heritage-Proceedings of the 14th

International Conference on Virtual

Systems and Multimedia. pp. 1-7. [Online], Available at:

http://kuleuven.academia.edu/StefanBoeykens/Papers/828825/Improving_architectural_design_analysis_usi

ng_3D_modeling_and_visualization_techniques (Accessed: 13/04/2012)

Cargill, R. R. (2008) ‘Virtual Qumran.com’, Digital Model of Qumran Enters Final preparations for

Release to Public, [Online], Available at: http://virtualqumran.blogspot.co.uk/ (Accessed: 16/04/2012)

Cole, D. et al, (2005) ‘Glasny College, Penryn, Cornwall’, Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation

Trenching Report No.2005R061, pp. 1-131

Cosmas, J. et al. (2001) ‘3D MURALE: ‘A Multimedia System for Archaeology’, pp. 1-9. [Online],

Available at: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/CosmasVAST01.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

DeltaSphere Inc, (2012) ‘Capture, Preserve, and Present Archaeological Sites and Antiquities’, The

Herculaneum Conservation Project, [Online], Available at:

http://www.deltasphere.com/deltasphere_archaeology.htm (Accessed : 20/04/2012)

Digital Tools for Archaeology.(ND) ‘A Methods Network Working Paper’, pp. 1-20 [Online], Available at:

http://www.methodsnetwork.ac.uk/redist/pdf/wkp06.pdf (Accessed on: 30/03/2012)

Forte, M. Kurillo, G (2010) ‘Cyber-archaeology and metaverse collaborative systems’, Metaverse Creativity

Volume 1 Number 1.pp. 1-14, [Online], Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/mecr

(Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Gaitatzes, A. et al. (ND) ‘Hellenic Cultural Heritage through Immersive Virtual Archaeology’, pp. 1-8.

[Online], Available at: http://vrbytes.bizhat.com/Publications/VSMM-2000.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Geodetic Systems, (2012), ‘V-STARS Picture Perfect Measurements’. Available at:

http://www.geodetic.com/products/systems/v-stars-s.aspx (Accessed on: 04/04/2012)

Grabner, M. et al. (2003) ‘Web-based visualization of virtual archaeological sites’, 4th

International

Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage (2003), pp. 1-12. [Online],

Available at:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=8538033057248065919&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

(Accessed: 13/04/2012)

Hall, T. et al. (2002) ‘The Visitor as Virtual Archaeologist: Explorations in Mixed Reality Technology to

Enhance Educational and Social Interaction in the Museum’.pp. 1-7. [Online], Available at:

http://www.nuigalway.ie/education/staff/tony_hall/downloads/vast01.pdf (Accessed 14/01/2012)

Lewin, J. Gross. M. (1996) ‘Resolving Archaeological Site Data with 3D Computer Modelling: The Case of

Ceren’, pp. 1-12. [Online], Available at:

http://code.arc.cmu.edu/archive/dmgftp/public_html/publications/pdfs/ceren.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

http://www.123dapp.com/catchhttp://kuleuven.academia.edu/StefanBoeykens/Papers/828825/Improving_architectural_design_analysis_using_3D_modeling_and_visualization_techniqueshttp://kuleuven.academia.edu/StefanBoeykens/Papers/828825/Improving_architectural_design_analysis_using_3D_modeling_and_visualization_techniqueshttp://virtualqumran.blogspot.co.uk/http://www.cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/CosmasVAST01.pdfhttp://www.deltasphere.com/deltasphere_archaeology.htmhttp://www.methodsnetwork.ac.uk/redist/pdf/wkp06.pdfhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/mecrhttp://vrbytes.bizhat.com/Publications/VSMM-2000.pdfhttp://www.geodetic.com/products/systems/v-stars-s.aspxhttp://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=8538033057248065919&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1http://www.nuigalway.ie/education/staff/tony_hall/downloads/vast01.pdfhttp://code.arc.cmu.edu/archive/dmgftp/public_html/publications/pdfs/ceren.pdf

35

Lock, G. Wilcock J. (1987) Computer Archaeology. Haverfordwest: Shire Publications Ltd

Magness, J. (2008) The Qumran Digital Model: A Response, Near East Archaeology 71:4

Morano, M. (2009) A comprehensive timeline of virtual reality up to Ron Moore’s Virtuality, Blastr.com,

Available at: http://blastr.com/2009/06/a-comprehensive-timeline.php

Nuzzo, L. et al. (2002) ‘Application of 3D visualization techniques in the analysis of GPR data for

archaeology’: Annals of Geophysics, Vol, 45, N, 2. pp.1-17. [Online], available at:

http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/viewFile/3517/3562 (Accessed on 15/03/2012)

Papaioannou, G. et al, (ND) ‘Virtual Archaeologist: Assembling the past’, pp. 1-9. [Online], Available at:

http://www.aueb.gr/Users/gepap/papers/va_cga.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Pollefeys, M. et al. (2000) ‘Automated reconstruction of 3D scenes from sequences of images’, ISPRS

Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, 1185, pp. 1-17. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/PollefeysJISPRS00.final.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Past Perfect, (ND) ‘Archaeology’, Geophysics. [Online], Available at:

http://www.pastperfect.org.uk/archaeology/geophys.html (Accessed on: 10/04/2012)

Sanders, D.H. (2009) Virtual Heritage, Near East Archaeology 72 no1 Mr 2009

Science Photo Library, NASA. (ND) Virtual reality astronaut training, Available at:

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/335744/enlarge (Accessed: 12/01/2012)

Scollar. I. (2011) Bonn Archaeological Software Package, [Online], Available at: http://www.uni-

koeln.de/~al001/baspgif/airfoto.jpg Accessed on: (04/04/2012)

Thomas, N. MIfA. (2012) Senior Archaeologist, HES Cornwall. [Email Interview by Broderick. S., 11th

April 2012 – 18th

April 2012], Available email: nthomas@cornwall.gov.uk

http://blastr.com/2009/06/a-comprehensive-timeline.phphttp://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/viewFile/3517/3562http://www.aueb.gr/Users/gepap/papers/va_cga.pdfhttp://www.cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/PollefeysJISPRS00.final.pdfhttp://www.pastperfect.org.uk/archaeology/geophys.htmlhttp://www.sciencephoto.com/media/335744/enlargehttp://www.uni-koeln.de/~al001/baspgif/airfoto.jpghttp://www.uni-koeln.de/~al001/baspgif/airfoto.jpgmailto:nthomas@cornwall.gov.uk

36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Lock, G. Wilcock J. (1987) Computer Archaeology. Haverfordwest: Shire Publications Ltd

PDF Documents:

Balzani, M. et al. (2004)’Laser Scanner 3D Survey in Archaeological Field: the Forum of Pompeii’,

International Conference on Remote Sensing Archaeology, Beijing. pp. 1-7. [Online], Available at:

http://www.pompeiana.org/research/22-Balzani_Santopuoli.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Boeykens, S. et al. (2008) ‘Improving Architectural Design Analysis using 3D Modelling and Visualization

Techniques’, VSMM 2008 Digital Heritage-Proceedings of the 14th

International Conference on Virtual

Systems and Multimedia. pp. 1-7. [Online], Available at:

http://kuleuven.academia.edu/StefanBoeykens/Papers/828825/Improving_architectural_design_analysis_usi

ng_3D_modeling_and_visualization_techniques (Accessed: 13/04/2012)

Cole, D. et al, (2005) ‘Glasny College, Penryn, Cornwall’, Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation

Trenching Report No.2005R061, pp. 1-131

Cosmas, J. et al. (2001) ‘3D MURALE: ‘A Multimedia System for Archaeology’, pp. 1-9. [Online],

Available at: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/CosmasVAST01.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Digital Tools for Archaeology.(ND) ‘A Methods Network Working Paper’, pp. 1-20 [Online], Available at:

http://www.methodsnetwork.ac.uk/redist/pdf/wkp06.pdf (Accessed on: 30/03/2012)

El-Hakim, S. F. (2001) ‘3D Modeling of Complex environments’, SPIE Proceedings Vol 4309,

Videometrics VII San Jose, Jan 21-26, 2001, pp. 1-12. [Online], Available at:

http://www.irisa.fr/prive/kadi/GPS/elhakim.pdf (Accessed on: 05/04/2012)

Gaitatzes, A. et al. (ND) ‘Hellenic Cultural Heritage through Immersive Virtual Archaeology’, pp. 1-8.

[Online], Available at: http://vrbytes.bizhat.com/Publications/VSMM-2000.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Grabner, M. et al. (2003) ‘Web-based visualization of virtual archaeological sites’, 4th

International

Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage (2003), pp. 1-12. [Online],

Available at:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=8538033057248065919&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

(Accessed: 13/04/2012)

Forte, M. Kurillo, G (2010) ‘Cyber-archaeology and metaverse collaborative systems’, Metaverse Creativity

Volume 1 Number 1.pp. 1-14, [Online], Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/mecr

(Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Hall, T. et al. (2002) ‘The Visitor as Virtual Archaeologist: Explorations in Mixed Reality Technology to

Enhance Educational and Social Interaction in the Museum’.pp. 1-7. [Online], Available at:

http://www.nuigalway.ie/education/staff/tony_hall/downloads/vast01.pdf (Accessed 14/01/2012)

http://www.pompeiana.org/research/22-Balzani_Santopuoli.pdfhttp://kuleuven.academia.edu/StefanBoeykens/Papers/828825/Improving_architectural_design_analysis_using_3D_modeling_and_visualization_techniqueshttp://kuleuven.academia.edu/StefanBoeykens/Papers/828825/Improving_architectural_design_analysis_using_3D_modeling_and_visualization_techniqueshttp://www.cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/CosmasVAST01.pdfhttp://www.methodsnetwork.ac.uk/redist/pdf/wkp06.pdfhttp://www.irisa.fr/prive/kadi/GPS/elhakim.pdfhttp://vrbytes.bizhat.com/Publications/VSMM-2000.pdfhttp://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=8538033057248065919&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/mecrhttp://www.nuigalway.ie/education/staff/tony_hall/downloads/vast01.pdf

37

Hynst, S. et al. (2001), ‘A Work-flow and data model for reconstruction, management, and visualization of

archaeological sites’, pp. 1-10. [Online], Available at:

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:_mqZRYlQsysJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt

=0,5&as_vis=1 (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Lewin, J. Gross. M. (1996) ‘Resolving Archaeological Site Data with 3D Computer Modelling: The Case of

Ceren’, pp. 1-12. [Online], Available at:

http://code.arc.cmu.edu/archive/dmgftp/public_html/publications/pdfs/ceren.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Nuzzo, L. et al. (2002) ‘Application of 3D visualization techniques in the analysis of GPR data for

archaeology’: Annals of Geophysics, Vol, 45, N, 2. pp.1-17. [Online], available at:

http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/viewFile/3517/3562 (Accessed on 15/03/2012)

Papaioannou, G. et al, (ND) ‘Virtual Archaeologist: Assembling the past’, pp. 1-9. [Online], Available at:

http://www.aueb.gr/Users/gepap/papers/va_cga.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Pollefeys, M. et al. (2000) ‘Automated reconstruction of 3D scenes from sequences of images’, ISPRS

Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, 1185, pp. 1-17. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/PollefeysJISPRS00.final.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Pollefeys, M. et al. (ND) ‘Image-based 3D Acquisition of Archaeological Heritage and Applications’, pp. 1-

7. [Online], Available at: http://cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/PollefeysVAST01a.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Sanders, D.H. (2009) Virtual Heritage, Near East Archaeology 72 no1 Mr 2009

Se, S. Jasiobedzki, P. (2006) ‘Photo-realistic 3D Model Reconstruction’, pp. 1-7. [Online], Available at:

http://stephense.com/research/papers/icra06.pdf (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Stirling, M. W. et al. (ND) ‘Electronics and Archaeology’, pp. 1-6. [Online], Available at:

http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/2-4/Electronics.pdf (Accessed:

11/10/2011)

PDF Documents obtained through Plymouth Portal:

Wolff, E. (2004)’Virtual Archaeology’, Stereo Animation Brings a Lost World to Life, An article in the

Animation Magazine 18 no7 July 2004, pp. 1-4

Barton, J. (2009) 3D laser scanning and the conservation of earthen architecture: a case study at

the UNESCO World Heritage Site Merv, Turkmenistan, World Archaeology, 41:3, 489-504

Cargill, R. R. (2009) The Qumran Digital Model, An Argument for Archaeological reconstruction in Virtual

Reality, Near Eastern Archaeology 72:1

Cooper, D. B. (2009) camera-Array Scanning of Archaeological Artifacts and Structures, Near East

Archaeology 72 no1 Mr 2009

Mahoney, D. (1998) 'Time travels', Computer Graphics World, 21, 4, p. 81, Business Source Premier,

EBSCOhost, viewed 6 November 2011.

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:_mqZRYlQsysJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:_mqZRYlQsysJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1http://code.arc.cmu.edu/archive/dmgftp/public_html/publications/pdfs/ceren.pdfhttp://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/viewFile/3517/3562http://www.aueb.gr/Users/gepap/papers/va_cga.pdfhttp://www.cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/PollefeysJISPRS00.final.pdfhttp://cs.unc.edu/~marc/pubs/PollefeysVAST01a.pdfhttp://stephense.com/research/papers/icra06.pdfhttp://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/2-4/Electronics.pdf

38

Nicholson, P. T. (2001) Three-dimensional imaging in archaeology: its history and future, Antiquity 75

no288 402-9 Je 2001

Willis, A. R.(2009) Scanning of Archaeological Artifacts and Structures, Near East Archaeology 72 no1 Mr

2009

Magness, J. (2008) The Qumran Digital Model: A Response, Near East Archaeology 71:4

Sanders, D. H. (2009) Virtual Heritage, Near East Archaeology 72 no1 Mr 2009

Internet Sources:

arts-humanities.net, (ND), ‘Archaeology and 3D technology forum’. Available at: http://www.arts-

humanities.net/forumtopic/welcome_archaeology_3d_technology_forum (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Autodesk 123D Catch, (2012), ‘Take and Make’, Take ordinary photos and turn them into extraordinary 3D

Models. Available at: http://www.123dapp.com/catch (Accessed on: 09/04/2012)

Avern, G. (2008), ‘Archaeology’, University of Southampton. Available at:

http://www.soton.ac.uk/archaeology/profiles/avern.html (Accessed: 11/10/2011)

Cargill, R. R. (2008) ‘Virtual Qumran.com’, Digital Model of Qumran Enters Final preparations for

Release to Public, [Online], Available at: http://virtualqumran.blogspot.co.uk/ (Accessed: 16/04/2012)

Geodetic Systems, (2012), ‘V-STARS Picture Perfect Measurements’. Available at:

http://www.geodetic.com/products/systems/v-stars-s.aspx (Accessed on: 04/04/2012)

Morano, M. (2009) A comprehensive timeline of virtual reality up to Ron Moore’s Virtuality, Blastr.com,

Available at: http://blastr.com/2009/06/a-comprehensive-timeline.php

Past Perfect, (ND) ‘Archaeology’, Geophysics. [Online], Available at:

http://www.pastperfect.org.uk/archaeology/geophys.html (Accessed on: 10/04/2012)

Science Photo Library, NASA, (ND), Virtual reality astronaut training, Available at:

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/335744/enlarge (Accessed: 12/01/2012)

Time Team America, (2009), ‘Time Team America’, Fieldwork: GIS and Archaeology, Available at:

http://www.pbs.org/opb/timeteam/field/fieldwork_gis.php Accessed on: (11/04/2012)

http://www.arts-humanities.net/forumtopic/welcome_archaeology_3d_technology_forumhttp://www.arts-humanities.net/forumtopic/welcome_archaeology_3d_technology_forumhttp://www.123dapp.com/catchhttp://www.soton.ac.uk/archaeology/profiles/avern.htmlhttp://virtualqumran.blogspot.co.uk/http://www.geodetic.com/products/systems/v-stars-s.aspxhttp://blastr.com/2009/06/a-comprehensive-timeline.phphttp://www.pastperfect.org.uk/archaeology/geophys.htmlhttp://www.sciencephoto.com/media/335744/enlargehttp://www.pbs.org/opb/timeteam/field/fieldwork_gis.php