III Congreso Internacional de Arqueología e Informática Gráfica

Transcription

1
ISBN: 978-84-695-6946-7
Alfredo Grande León
Víctor Manuel López-Menchero Bendicho
Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma
(eds.)
III Congreso Internacional de Arqueología e Informática Gráfica, Patrimonio e Innovación
Sevilla 21-24 de Junio de 2011
2
ORGANIZADORES:
PATROCINADORES:
COLABORADORES CIENTÍFICOS:
COLABORADORES COMERCIALES:
3
ACTAS ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2011:
ALFREDO GRANDE LEÓN (dir.)
VÍCTOR MANUEL LÓPEZ-MENCHERO BENDICHO (coord.)
ÁNGELES HERNÁNDEZ-BARAHONA PALMA (coord.)
EDITORES:
ALFREDO GRANDE LEÓN
VÍCTOR MANUEL LÓPEZ-MENCHERO BENDICHO
ÁNGELES HERNÁNDEZ-BARAHONA PALMA
PROPIEDAD:
Copyright © 2011 SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. SEAV
C/ CANTUESO, 5 DOS HERMANAS
41089 – SEVILLA
Copyright © 2011 de los textos e ilustraciones
SUS AUTORES
TODOS LOS DERECHOS RESERVADOS
EDICIÓN:
DISEÑO:
Alfredo Grande
ISBN:
978-84-695-6946-7
DEPÓSITO LEGAL:
SE 545-2013
4
III CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGÍA E INFORMÁTICA GRÁFICA,
PATRIMONIO E INNOVACIÓN, ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0
III INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON GRAPHIC ARCHAEOLOGY AND INFORMATICS,
CULTURAL HERITAGE AND INNOVATION, ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0
SEVILLA, ESPAÑA
21-24 JUNIO 2011
Centro Cultural de La Villa, San José de La Rinconada. La Rinconada. Sevilla
Edificio Da Vinci, Parque Tecnológico Cartuja 93. Sevilla
Alfredo Grande León, Víctor Manuel López-Menchero Bendicho
y Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma (Eds.)
5
III CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGÍA E INFORMÁTICA GRÁFICA,
PATRIMONIO E INNOVACIÓN, ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0
III INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON GRAPHIC ARCHAEOLOGY AND INFORMATICS,
CULTURAL HERITAGE AND INNOVATION, ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0
COMITÉ DE HONOR
COMITÉ ORGANIZADOR
PRESIDENTE DE HONOR
Excmo. Sr. D. José Antonio Griñán
Presidente de la Junta de Andalucía.
MIEMBROS DE HONOR
Excmo. Sr. D. Paulino Plata Cánovas.
Consejero de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía.
Excmo. Sr. D. Antonio Ávila Cano.
Consejero de Economía, Innovación y Ciencia.
Junta de Andalucía.
Excmo. Sr. D. Fernando Rodríguez Villalobos.
Presidente de la Diputación de Sevilla.
PRESIDENTE
D. Alfredo Grande León
Presidente de SEAV
SECRETARÍA CIENTÍFICA
D. Víctor López-Menchero Bendicho
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. España.
SECRETARÍA TÉCNICA
Dª. Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma
Secretario de SEAV
Excmo. Sr. D. Joaquín Luque Rodríguez
Rector Magnífico de la Universidad de Sevilla
Excmo. Sr. D. Francisco J. Fernández de los Ríos.
Alcalde de La Rinconada. Sevilla.
VOCALES
Dª. Raquel Vega Coca.
Ayuntamiento de La Rinconada. Sevilla. España
D. Antonio Castro
Ayuntamiento de La Rinconada. Sevilla. España.
D. José Manuel Rodríguez Hidalgo
Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. España.
D. José Beltrán Fortés
Universidad de Sevilla. España.
Dª. Sandra Rodríguez de Guzmán
Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. España
6
COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO
DIRECTOR CIENTÍFICO
D. Alfredo Grande
SECRETARIO CIENTÍFICO
D. Víctor Manuel López-Menchero
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. España.
EQUIPO CIENTÍFICO
Mr. Bernard Frischer.
University of Virginia. USA
D. Pedro Cano Olivares
Universidad de Granada. España.
Mr. Maurizio Forte
University of California, Merced. USA.
D. José Beltrán Fortes
Ms. Eva Pietroni
CNR VH-LAB, Roma. Italia
D. José Manuel Rodríguez Hidalgo
Ms. Lucrezia Ungaro
Musei dei Fori Imperiali. Roma. Italia.
D. Francisco Javier Melero Rus
D. Francisco Serón
Universidad de Zaragoza. España.
Dª. Sandra Rodríguez de Guzmán
D. Juan Carlos Torres Cantero
D. José Luis Gómez Merino
Director de Arte de BALAWAT. Toledo. España.
D. Luis Hernández Ibáñez
Universidade a Coruña. A Coruña. España.
D. Julián Flores González
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. España.
D. Francisco R. Feito Higueruela
Universidad de Jaén. España.
D. Francisco Perales
Universidad Islas Baleares. Mallorca. España.
D. Mariano Flores Gutiérrez
Universidad de Murcia. Murcia. España.
D. Sebastián Rascón Marqués
Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares. España.
7
CONFERENCIAS / CONFERENCES
CONFERENCIAS PREMIOS TARTESSOS 2011/ TARTESSOS AWARD 2011 CONFERENCES
Juan Antonio Barceló. ESPAÑA, Consuelo León Lozano. ESPAÑA, Víctor López Menchero Bendicho. ESPAÑA y
Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA.
SAMPLED 3D MODELS FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE: WHICH USES BEYOND VISUALIZATION
Roberto Scopigno
17
18
CROWDS, CLOUDS, AND CULTURE: THE PAST'S DIGITAL FUTURE
Alonzo C. Addison
AUGMENTED REALITY IN THE FIELD
Nick Ryan
LOS PASOS PERDIDOS. INVESTIGACIÓN E INNOVACIÓN PARA LA CARACTERIZACIÓN DE UN PATRIMONIO INVISIBLE
Arturo Ruiz Rodríguez
SESIÓN PLENARIA / PLENARY SESSION
FORUM INTERNACIONAL DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL / INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY
RED INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. INNOVA /
VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY INTERNATIONAL NETWORK. INNOVA
Alfredo Grande. ESPAÑA
VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY INTERNATIONAL NETWORK. INNOVA
Mohamed Farouk
Willen Derde
Bernard Frischer
FORUM INTERNACIONAL DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL / INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY
BORRADOR INTERNACIONAL DE LA CARTA DE SEVILLA/
CARTA DE SEVILLA INTERNATIONAL DRAFT
Víctor López-Menchero Bendicho
25
ICOMOS Y LAS GRANDES CARTAS INTERNACIONALES
Jean-Louis Luxen
26
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL CHARTER IN THE FIELD OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY
29
LA CARTA DE SEVILLA. AVANCES HACIA EL PRIMER BORRADOR DE LA CARTA INTERNACIONAL
DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL
Víctor López-Menchero Bendicho
33
UNESCO Y LAS RECOMENDACIONES INTERNACIONALES
Alonzo C. Addison
8
MESAS PONENCIAS / TABLES OF LECTURES
MESA PONENCIAS_1 / TABLE OF LECTURES_1
REINVENTANDO LA DIFUSIÓN. PROYECTOS DE INNOVACIÓN/
RETHINKING HERITAGE PRESENTATION. INNOVATION PROJECTS
Antonio Serrato Combe. USA
38
THE PERSEPOLIS3D PROJECT, THE METHODOLOGY OF THE VIRTUAL RECONSTRUCTION OF PERSEPOLIS
Kourosh Afhami
39
RECREANDO ALEJANDRIA, DOS VISIONES DISTINTAS DE LA MISMA CIUDAD. LOS DECORADOS DIGITALES
DE LA PELÍCULA “ÁGORA” Y LA PIEZA ESTEREOSCÓPICA “ALEJANDRIA, EL SUEÑO DE ALEJANDRO MAGNO”
Magoga Piñas Azpitarte
42
THE WAY IT MAY HAVE LOOKED - THE FUTURE OF VISUALIZATION OF THE PAST
Antonio Serrato Combe
NUEVOS RETOS Y PERSPECTIVAS DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL EN EL SIGLO XXI. ¿UN CAMBIO DE PARADIGMA?/
NEW CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR THE VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE XXI CENTURY A PARADIGM CHANGE?
50
Juan Antonio Barceló Álvarez. ESPAÑA
COMPUTER SIMULATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY. ART, SCIENCE OR NIGHTMARE?
Juan Antonio Barceló Álvarez
51
INTERPRETING HERITAGE CROSS-CULTURALLY: DIFFERENT VIEWS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THE PAST
IN EUROPE AND CHINA AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE ENAME CHARTER
Willen Derde
ENCUENTROS EN LA TERCERA FASE: CONTACTO. LA REALIDAD VIRTUAL Y SUS AUDIENCIAS INVISIBLES
Mikel Asensio Brouard
EL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO Y EL SIGLO XXI. UNA APUESTA DE FUTURO EN ESPAÑA/
ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE AND XXI CENTURY. A FUTURE PERSPECTIVE IN SPAIN
Julián Flores González. ESPAÑA
56
SIALH (SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN DE LA ALHAMBRA).
NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS EN LA TUTELA DEL CONJUNTO MONUMENTAL DE LA ALHAMBRA Y GENERALIFE.
Francisco A. Lamolda y Antonio M. Montufo
57
INFOGRAFIA Y ARQUEOLOGIA
Diego Bravo
62
PÓRTICO DE LA GLORIA VIRTUAL:
APLICACIÓN 3D INTERACTIVA EN TIEMPO REAL PARA LA EXPLORACIÓN VIRTUAL DEL PÓRTICO DE LA GLORIA.
Julián Flores González
65
PATRIMONIO PALEOBIOLÓGICO SIGLO XXI: UN RECURSO NATURAL PARA LA CULTURA /
PALEOBIOLOGICAL HERITAGE IN XXI CENTURY. NATURAL RESOURCE FOR THE CULTURE
Eloisa Bernáldez. ESPAÑA
70
LA INVESTIGACIÓN EN PALEONTOLOGÍA COMO MOTOR DE TURISMO CULTURAL
Ignacio Canudo
71
PATRIMONIO PALEOBIOLÓGICO SIGLO XXI: NUEVAS TÉCNICAS, NUEVAS IDEAS PARA UNA NUEVA SOCIEDAD.
Eloisa Bernáldez
76
9
VENTA MICENA (ORCE): PALEONTOLOGÍA DEL FUTURO
Bienvenido Martínez Navarro
80
PROCESOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN; CONSERVACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN. EXPERIENCIAS SINGULARES /
RESEARCH, CONSERVATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS. UNIQUE EXPERIENCES
George Giannoulis. GRECIA
85
SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN EN PATRIMONIO HISTÓRICO
Juan Carlos Torres
86
DEPLOYING 3D TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE DOCUMENTATION OF TANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
Karina Rodriguez-Echevarria
91
ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS OF ICT APPLICATIONS IN CULTURAL HERITAGE “VIRTUAL MUSEUM” CONTEXT:
THE PERMANENT CHALLENGE OF RECONCILIATION OF DIVERGING SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL,
OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES
George Giannoulis
96
LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. UNA VISIÓN DESDE LOS MUSEOS Y LOS YACIMIENTOS ARQUEOLÓGICOS MUSEALIZADOS /
VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY. MUSEUMS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES POINT OF VIEW
Sebastián Rascón. ESPAÑA
LA APLICACIÓN DE TÉCNICAS 3-D EN ARQUEOLOGÍA: INVESTIGACIÓN Y PÚBLICO
Julia Beltrán de Heredia Bercero
VIDEOJUEGOS Y ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. UNA VENTANA AL PASADO
Gonzalo Suárez Girard
LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. UNA VISIÓN DESDE LOS MUSEOS Y LOS YACIMIENTOS ARQUEOLÓGICOS MUSEALIZADOS
Sebastián Rascón
PRESENTACIÓN / PRESENTATION
PROYECTO ARTSENSE /
ARTSENSE PROJECT
Ana Cabrera Lafuente. ESPAÑA
102
PROYECTO ARTSENSE
Ana Cabrera Lafuente
103
SESIÓN CAA ESPAÑA 2011 / CAA SPAIN SESSION 2011
COMPUTER APLICATIONS AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN ARCHAEOLOGY. CAA ESPAÑA /
COMPUTER APLICATIONS AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN ARCHAEOLOGY. CAA ESPAÑA
Juan Antonio Barceló Álvarez. ESPAÑA.
NÚMEROS, GEOMETRÍAS Y DATOS. LA ARQUEOLOGÍA COMPUTACIONAL EN ESPAÑA Y EN EUROPA, 1974-2011
Juan Antonio Barceló Álvarez
DOCUMENTACIÓN ESPACIAL DEL PATRIMONIO: DEL TEODOLITO A LOS VUELOS NO TRIPULADOS
José Julio Zancajo Jimeno.
DOCUMENTIA 2.0 / DOCUMENTIA 2.0
SESIÓN DOCUMENTIA 2.0_1 / DOCUMENTIA 2.0 SESSION_1
SISTEMAS DE INFORMACIÓN. ARQUEOLOGÍA, PAISAJE Y TERRITORIO /
INFORMATION SYSTEMS. ARCHAEOLOGY, LANDSCAPE AND TERRITORY
Jorge Angás Pajas. ESPAÑA
108
10
MÉTODOS, TÉCNICAS Y ESTÁNDARES PARA LA DOCUMENTACIÓN GEOMÉTRICA DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL.
Jorge Angás y Alfredo Serreta
109
REQUISITOS DE UN SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN PARA GESTIÓN DE PATRIMONIO
Mª Victoria Luzón, Domingo Martín, Germán Arroyo, José Ramón López, Julia Herce, Rocío Izquierdo, Álvaro Jiménez,
Juan Bosco Martínez, Marta Pérez, Francisco Lamolda, Elena Correa y Ramón Rubio
114
CityGML COMO MODELO DE DATOS PARA LA REPRESENTACIÓN, INTERCAMBIO Y VISUALIZACIÓN
DE INFORMACIÓN SOBRE EL PATRIMONIO ARQUITECTÓNICO.
Iñaki Prieto, Aitziber Egusquiza, Francisco Javier Delgado y Rubén Martínez
119
INTEGRACIÓN DE SIG CON VISUALIZACIÓN 3D INTERACTIVA PARA LA GESTIÓN
Y SEGUIMIENTO DE EXCAVACIONES ARQUEOLÓGICAS.
Antonio José Seoane Nolasco, Luis Antonio Hernández Ibáñez
124
DOCUMENTACIÓN DIGITAL Y PROCESADO DE INFORMACIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO /
DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION PROCCESING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
Coordinador / Coordinator: Jorge Angás Pajas. ESPAÑA
129
GENERACIÓN DE MODELOS DE INFORMACIÓN PARA LA GESTIÓN DE UNA INTERVENCIÓN
DE REHABILITACIÓN: LA CÁRCEL DE LA REAL FÁBRICA DE TABACOS DE SEVILLA.
Juan Enrique Nieto Julián
130
SISTEMAS DE BAJO COSTE EN LEVANTAMIENTO Y RESTITUCIÓN VIRTUAL:
EL CASO DEL PALAUET NOLLA DE MELIANA
Xavier Laumain, Ángela López Sabater, Jorge Ríos Alós y Carlos Huerta Gabarda
136
LA CARÉNCIA (VALENCIA, ESPAÑA) Y SU TERRITORIO. COMBINACIÓN DE METODOLOGÍAS
DIGITALES PARA EL ANÁLISIS ARQUEOLÓGICO Y LA DIFUSIÓN PATRIMONIAL
Rosa Albiach, Héctor A. Orengo, Josep Blasco, Anna Ejarque.
141
DIGITALIZACIÓN 3D DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO I /
3D DIGITALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE I
Daniel y Víctor Baceiredo Rodríguez. ESPAÑA
145
LIENZOS DEL SALÓN DE ABD AL-RAHMAN III DE MADINAT AL-ZAHRA (CÓRDOBA) Y DOLMEN DE MENGA
EN ANTEQUERA (MÁLAGA), EXPERIENCIAS SOBRE DIGITALIZACIÓN 3D Y DIVULGACIÓN
DE LA DOCUMENTACIÓN GRÁFICA OBTENIDA
Daniel Baceiredo Rodríguez y Víctor Baceiredo Rodríguez
146
LA CAPACIDAD PROSPECTIVA Y DE VISUALIZACIÓN DEL ESCÁNER LÁSER 3D APLICADO AL PLAN
DE CONSERVACIÓN PREVENTIVA DEL CONJUNTO CERÁMICO, PIEDRA Y HIERRO DE ANTONI GAUDÍ
JOSEP MARÍA JUJOL EN LA CATEDRAL GÓTICA DE MALLORCA.
Juan Antonio Ruiz, Simón Garcés, Mercé Gambús, Catalina Mas, Francisco J. Perales y Xisco Ponseti
152
REGISTRO TRIDIMENSIONAL ACUMULATIVO DE LA SECUENCIA ESTRATIGRÁFICA.
FOTOGRAMETRÍA Y SIG EN LA INTERVENCIÓN ARQUEOLÓGICA DE LO BOLIGNI (ALACANT).
Ana María Charquero Ballester y Jordi A. López Lillo
156
AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF STIPPLING ILLUSTRATIONS FROM TWO PHOTOGRAPHS
Germán Arroyo, Domingo Martín y M. Victoria Luzón
164
LA CABEZA MAORÍ DE ROUEN Y SU DIGITALIZACIÓN
Sébastien Varea, Sébastien Minchin, Jean-Baptiste Lemerle y Josep Blasco I Senabre
169
DIGITALIZACIÓN 3D DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO II /
3D DIGITALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE II
Daniel y Víctor Baceiredo Rodríguez. ESPAÑA
173
LA UTILIZACIÓN DEL LÁSER SCANNER EN EL REGISTRO ARQUEOLÓGICO: LA EXPERIENCIA
DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE ALCALÁ.
Lauro Olmo Enciso, Manuel Castro Priego y Miguel López Macía
174
DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE LOWER PECOS CANYON LANDS
Carolyn E. Boyd, Francisco Marcos Marin, Christopher Goodmaster, Angel Johnson, Amanda Castaneda y Benjamin Dwyer
179
RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTUAL: A DOMUS DO MITREO DE LVCVS AVGVSTI
(LA DOMUS DEL MITREO DE LUCUS AUGUSTI)
11
Alicia Colmenero Fernández y Celso Rodriguez Cao
185
INTEGRACIÓN DE SENSORES AÉREOS Y TERRESTRES PARA LA PRODUCCIÓN DE CARTOGRAFÍA
MULTIESCALA 3D DE PRECISIÓN EN LA ALHAMBRA Y SU TERRITORIO
Antonio Manuel Montufo Galán y José Manuel López Sánchez
190
MADINAT AL-ZAHRA. LA CIUDAD BRILLANTE
Antonio Vallejo Triano e Irene Montilla Torres
195
MESAS COMUNICACIONES / TABLES OF COMMUNICATIONS
MESA COMUNICACIONES_1 / TABLE OF COMMUNICATIONS_1
REALIDAD VIRTUAL: HERRAMIENTAS DE INVESTIGACIÓN, CONSERVACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO
ARQUEOLÓGICO / VIRTUAL REALITY: TOOLS OF RESEARCH, CONSERVATION AND DISSEMINATION OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
Luis Hernández. ESPAÑA
200
TRIMÁLAGA
Jesús Guerrero-Strachan Carillo y Miguel Ángel Contreras López
201
VIRTUAL ACROPOLIS. DIGITAL RECREATION OF A SICILIAN ARCHAIC SANCTUARY
F. Stanco y D. Tanasi
206
UNDERSTANDING VIRTUAL OBJECTS THROUGH REVERSE ENGINEERING
Vera Moitinho y Juan Antonio Barceló
211
ESCANEADO 3D E INTERPRETACIÓN VIRTUAL DEL TEATRO ROMANO DE CÓRDOBA
José Luis Gómez Merino
215
DESARROLLO DE PROYECTOS ORIENTADOS AL ARTE Y LA RESTAURACIÓN DE PATRIMONIO:
EJEMPLO DEL PROYECTO HIPERSCAN 3D
Luis Granero, Francisco Díaz, Rubén Domínguez, Yolanda San Juan y Josué Jiménez
219
DIFUSIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO EN EL SIGLO XXI: NUEVOS MÉTODOS DE COMUNICACIÓN /
HERITAGE DIFFUSION IN THE XXI CENTURY. NEW COMMUNICATION METHODS
Mariano Flores Gutiérrez. ESPAÑA.
224
DISPOSITIVOS MÓVILES COMO GUÍAS 3D PARA EL CONOCIMIENTO DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO
José María Noguera, Rafael J. Segura y Carlos J. Ogáyar
225
GUÍAS MÓVILES EN REALIDAD VIRTUAL PARA LA INTERPRETACIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO. UN CASO PRÁCTICO:
RUTA DEL MEGALITISMO DE GORAFE
Jon Arambarri Basañez, Unai Baeza Santamaría y Antonio López Marcos
231
MUSEO VIRTUAL HIPERREALISTA
Pedro Ortiz Códer
234
PUESTA EN VALOR DE YACIMIENTOS ARQUEOLÓGICOS AMORTIZADOS.
LA HIPÓTESIS VIRTUAL AL SERVICIO DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA DE GESTIÓN Y LA DIFUSIÓN CULTURAL.
José Ramón Almeida Olmedo y Pedro Javier Cruz Sánchez
238
RECONSTRUCCIÓN O ANASTILOSIS VIRTUAL DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO /
VIRTUAL RECONSTRUCTION OR ANASTILOSIS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
Francisco Perales. ESPAÑA
242
LA RESTAURACIÓN VIRTUAL DE PIEZAS ARQUEOLÓGICAS A PARTIR DE DATOS PROCEDENTES DE ESCÁNER 3D:
RECONSTRUCCIÓN DE UNA JARRITA ISLÁMICA DEL MUSEO ARQUEOLÓGICO MUNICIPAL DE BURRIANA
Daniel Tejerina Anton, Trinidad Pasíes Oviedo, José Manuel Melchor y Javier Esclapés Jover
243
12
LA BASÍLICA DE SANTA MARÍA DE OVIEDO: DEL PANTEÓN REAL A LA CATEDRAL DOBLE.
HIPÓTESIS DE RESTITUCIÓN EN FUNCIÓN DEL ANÁLISIS COMPOSITIVO Y METROLÓGICO
Francisco José Borge Cordovilla
247
LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL: CONSTRUYENDO UN PUENTE ENTRE LA SOCIEDAD MODERNA
Y LA ESCUELA INNOVADORA
Mª. Luz Husillos García
252
ENSAYO DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTUAL DE UN TÚMULO FUNERARIO:
EL TÚMULO DEL MORTÓRUM (CABANES, CASTELLÓN)
José Luján Valderrama y Gustau Aguilella Arzo
257
ANASTILOSIS VIRTUAL CON BLENDER:
LAS TERMAS DEL YACIMIENTO VILLA ROMANA DE L’ALBIR (L’ALFÀS DEL PI, ALICANTE)
Daniel Tejerina Antón, Laia Fabregat Bolufer, Jaime Molina Vidal y Carolina Frías Castillejo
262
METODOLOGÍAS Y HERRAMIENTAS DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTUAL. INNOVACIÓN /
METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS FOR VIRTUAL RECONSTRUCTION. INNOVATION
Francisco Feito Igueruela. ESPAÑA.
266
EXPLORACIÓN EN TIEMPO REAL DE LA RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTUAL
DE LOS INSTRUMENTOS DEL PÓRTICO DE LA GLORIA
Roi Méndez, Antonio Otero, Samuel Jarque y Julián Flores
267
ANALISI SPAZIALE IN ARCHEOLOGIA DEI PAESAGGY: IL PROJECTTO N.D.S.S.
(NORTHERN DAUNIAN SUBAPPENNINO SURVEY)
Felice Stoico y Luca d´Altilia
272
ANASTILOSIS DE LA SCAENAE FRONS DEL TEATRO ROMANO DE ITÁLICA
Francisco Pinto Puerto, José María Guerrero Vega y Roque Angulo Fornos
277
DOCUMENTACIÓN 3D DE PINTURAS RUPESTRES CON PHOTOMODELER SCANNER:
LOS MOTIVOS ESQUEMÁTICOS DE LA COVA DEL BARRANC DEL MIGDIA (JÁVEA, ALICANTE)
Daniel Tejerina Antón, Marco Aurelio Esquembre Bebia y José Ramón Ortega Pérez
282
RECONSTRUCCIÓN DE FRAGMENTOS ARQUEOLÓGICOS MEDIANTE CORRESPONDENCIA DE PATRONES
Eduardo Vendrell Vidal y Carlos Sánchez Belenguer
286
COMPUTER TOOL FOR AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED 3D ILLUSTRATION IN REAL TIME
FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCANNED PIECES
Luis López, Germán Arroyo y Domingo Martín
291
MUSEOGRAFÍA VIRTUAL ONLINE: NUEVAS TENDENCIAS /
ONLINE VIRTUAL MUSEOGRAPHY: NEW TRENES
Juan Carlos Torres Cantero. ESPAÑA.
296
INTEGRACIÓN DE CONTENIDOS 3D DE LA CULTURA IBÉRICA EN EUROPEANA
A. L. Martínez Carrillo, Francisco Gómez y Alberto Sánchez Vizcaíno
297
MUSEOS VIRTUALES. UN CASO PRÁCTICO: MUSEO NACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGÍA SUBACUÁTICA. ARQUA
Jon Arambarri Basáñez y Unai Baeza Santamaría
301
EVOLUCIÓN DE LAS TECNOLOGÍAS UTILIZADAS EN EL DESARROLLO DE MUSEOS VIRTUALES
María Dolores Robles Ortega, Francisco R. Feito Higueruela, Juan J. Jiménez Delgado y Rafael J. Segura Sánchez
304
CUENCA, REALIDAD VIRTUAL
Concepción Rodríguez Ruza, Adela Mª Muñoz Marquina, Aurelio Lorente González y Virginia Cañas Córdoba
309
ESPACIOS EXPOSITIVOS VIRTUALES: PROYECTO UMUSEO, UNA NUEVA OPCIÓN PARA DIFUSIÓN ARTÍSTICA
Francisco Javier Caballero Cano
314
PUESTA EN VALOR: LA HIPÓTESIS VIRTUAL ARQUEOLÓGICA EN INVESTIGACIÓN, DOCUMENTACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN
ENHANCEMENT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIRTUAL HIPOTHESIS IN RESEARCH, DOCUMENTATION AND DIFUSIÓN
José Manuel Rodríguez Hidalgo. ESPAÑA
320
13
APLICACIÓN PARA LA INSPECCIÓN ESPACIAL, VOLUMÉTRICA Y SECCIONAL INTERACTIVA
DE LA CATEDRAL DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA.
Viviana Barneche Naya, Luis Hernández Ibáñez, Alberto Jaspe Villanueva y Gustavo Fariña Fernández
321
RECONSTRUCCIÓN INFOGRÁFICA DEL CASTELLUM DE TAMUDA (TETUÁN, MARRUECOS)
Javier Bermejo Meléndez, Juan Manuel Campos Carrasco, Salvador Delgado Aguilar, Lucía Fernández Sutilo,
Clara Toscano Pérez y Javier Verdugo Santos
326
PROYECTO DE MUSEALIZACIÓN DE LOS RESTOS HALLADOS EN LA ESTACIÓN DE ÓPERA
(METRO DE MADRID). RECONSTRUCCIONES INFOGRÁFICAS, ESCANEADO LÁSER 3D Y DIGITALIZACIÓN
DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO.
Eduardo Penedo Cobo, Patricia Moraga Vaz, Elia Organista Labrado,
Áurea Izquierdo Zamora y Ana Belén Martínez Granero
331
COMUNICACIÓN VISUAL MEDIANTE TÉCNICAS GIS EN EL LITORAL DEL CAMPO DE DALÍAS:
LA DEFENSA COSTERA DE LOS PUEBLOS DEL INTERIOR.
Enrique Villanueva Ojeda y Andrés Miguel García Lorca
336
DOCUMENTACIÓN, VALORIZACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO HIDRAÚLICO ROMANO
EN EL VALLE MEDIO DEL EBRO.
Paula Uribe, Jorge Angás, María Ángeles Magallón y Jorge Víctor Miranda
341
NUEVAS APORTACIONES A LA RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTUAL DEL CASTILLO DE AGUILAR DE LA FRONTERA
Francisco Cabezas Pérez y Carmen Carbajo Cubero
346
PÓSTERS / POSTERS
PROJECT PRADIGEO 2009 – 2011
Mario Antonacci
DEMOCRATIZACIÓN DE APLICACIONES 3D EN LA DIGITALIZACIÓN ARQUEOLÓGICA:
LA PRESA ROMANA DE MUEL (ZARAGOZA).
Paula Uribe, Jorge Angás y Ángeles Magallón
EL REGISTRO Y LA DOCUMENTACIÓN GRÁFICA EN ARQUEOLOGÍA: LA CIUDAD ROMANA DE CÁPARRA. (2009/2010)
Eulalia Gijón Gabriel|, Javier García González y Román Rivera Jofré
14
VIRTUAL MUSEUM TRANSNATIONAL NETWORK / V-MUST.NET
V-MUST.NET THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING / V-MUST.NET THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING
Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA & Victor Manuel Lopez Menchero ESPAÑA
INTRODUCTION
Daniel Pletinckx
ESTUDIO DE CASO DE RESTAURACIÓN DIGITAL /
CASE STUDY ON DIGITAL RESTORATION
DIGITAL RESTORATION OF ANCIENT SCULPTURES
Bernard Frischer
ESTUDIO DE CASO DE DIGITALIZACIÓN DE OBJETOS DE MUSEO /
CASE STUDY ON DIGITISATION OF MUSEUM OBJECTS
THE IMAGINARTE PROJECT
Julio Ruiz y Luis Rovés
ESTUDIO DE CASO DE DIGITALIZACIÓN DE MONUMENTOS /
CASE STUDY ON DIGITISATION OF MONUMENTS
3D DIGITISATION OF THE MEDIEVAL CASTLE RUIN OF BOUVIGNES WITH IMAGE-BASED TOOLS
Daniel Pletinckx y Massimiliano Corsini
INVESTIGACIONES EN CURSO /
ONGOING RESEARCH
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE AENEAS GROUP THROUGH A HYBRID HUMAN-COMPUTER APPROACH
Antonio Adán Oliver
INVERSE PROCEDURAL MODELLING
Markus Mathias and Anđelo Martinović
DIGITAL HERMENEUTICS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Maurizio Forte
ANUNCIO DEL THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING 2
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING 2
ANUNCIO DEL THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING 2
Victor Manuel Lopez Menchero
V-MUST.NET SME / SME V-MUST.NET
ENCUENTRO DE CENTROS DE COMPETENCIA /
MUST.NET COMPETENCE CENTRE MEETING
Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA
INTRODUCTION
Daniel Pletinckx
15
II ENCUENTRO DE EMPRESAS DE ARQUEOLOGÍA Y PATRIMONIO /
2ND MEETING OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE COMPANIES
ENCUENTRO DE EMPRESAS SEAV / SEAV BUSINESS MEETING
II ENCUENTRO DE EMPRESAS DE ARQUEOLOGÍA Y PATRIMONIO /
2ND MEETING OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE COMPANIES
Consuelo León Lozano. ESPAÑA.
INTRODUCCIÓN
Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma & Alfredo Grande León
EL NUEVO ENTORNO DE LAS TIC
Guillermo Martínez
INTERNACIONALIZACIÓN DE LAS EMPRESAS DE ARQUEOLOGÍA Y PATRIMONIO: SALIR O MORIR /
Manuel Jiménez Diaz & Marcos Prieto Sánchez
EXPERIENCIAS /
EXPERINCES
O HACEMOS ALGO O VAMOS A VIVIR MUCHO PEOR QUE NUESTROS PADRES
Héctor José García Fernández
DE LAS TABLILLAS DE CERA AL SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN DIGITAL
Lucas Gonsálvez Ciria
PRODUCTO CULTURAL + SOCIAL MEDIA = CONSUMO CULTURAL
Sergio Raya Trasierras y Dolores Lobillo Aranda
DEBATE /
DEBATE
Guillermo Martínez
Manuel Jiménez Diaz
Marcos Prieto Sánchez
Héctor José García Fernánde.
Lucas Gonsálvez Ciria.
Sergio Raya Trasierras y Dolores Lobillo Aranda.
Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma.
Alfredo Grande León.
Consuelo León Lozano.
16
III EXPO ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2011 / III EXPO ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2011
EXPOSICIÓN INTERNACIONAL / INTERNATIONAL EXPO
III EXPO ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2011 /
3RD EXPO ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2011
GRAN TENOCHTITLAN
Universidad de Utah. Salt Lake City. Utah. Estados Unidos. USA
TIRO EL CEMENTERIO FENICIO DE ALBAS (2008) EL BARCO FENICIO DE MAZARRON 1, 2 y 3. SIGLO VII a C.
Diego Bravo Infografía. Madrid. España
PERSEPOLIS 3D
Demana Vision. Architecture and Archaeology. Alemania
DIGITAL KARNAK PROJECT
Universidad de California UCLA. Estados Unidos. USA
ESCUELA DE ESTUDIOS ÁRABES
Escuela de Estudios Árabes. CSIC. Granada. España
MEDIEVAL DUBLÍN II
Noho Ltd. Dublin. IRLANDA
CARNUNTUM 2009-2011 – REBORN CITY OF EMPERORS (2011)
7Reasons. Salzburgo. AUSTRIA
NERO AND THE DOMUS AUREA Y VIRTUAL EGIPT 3D (2011)
Altair4. Roma. ITALIA
EL PÓRTICO DE LA GLORIA 3D
MAR. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. ESPAÑA
MADINAT AL-ZAHRA
Conjunto Arqueológico de Madinat Al-Zahra. Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. Córdoba. España
CATEDRAL DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA INTERACTIVA
VIDEAlab Universidade da Coruña. A Coruña. España
17
THE CENOBIUM WEB SYSTEM, SUPPORTING VISUAL ACCESS TO MEDIEVAL CLOISTER SCULPTURES.
ISTITUTO DI SCIENZA E TECNOLOGIE DELL'INFORMAZIONE, CNR, PISA, ITALY
CONFERENCIA / CONFERENCE
SAMPLED 3D MODELS FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE:
WHICH USES BEYOND VISUALIZATION?/
SAMPLED 3D MODELS FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE:
WHICH USES BEYOND VISUALIZATION?
18
Sampled 3D models for Cultural Heritage:
which uses beyond visualization?
Roberto Scopigno
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione, CNR, Pisa, Italy
Resumen
Las tecnologías digitales están ahora maduras para la producción de réplicas de alta calidad digital del patrimonio cultural (CH). Los resultados de la
investigación producidos en la última década han mostrado una impresionante evolución y consolidación de las tecnologías para la adquisición de alta calidad, los
modelos digitales 3D (escaneado 3D) y para la prestación de esos modelos a la velocidad interactiva.
La tecnología es ahora lo suficientemente madura como para empujarnos a ir más allá de la simple visualización de los activos, la elaboración de nuevas
herramientas capaces de ampliar nuestra visión y capacidades de intervención y de revisar los procedimientos actuales para la investigación consolidados CH y
gestión. El artículo presenta algunas experiencias recientes en los modelos de alta calidad en 3D se han utilizado en CH investigación, restauración y conservación.
Estos ejemplos constituyen una amplia revisión de los diferentes usos de los activos digitales 3D en el dominio CH.
Palabras Clave: MODELOS DIGITALES 3D, ESCANEO 3D, PROCESAMIENTO GEOMÉTRICO
ASISTIDO POR ORDENADOR RESTAURACIÓN.
Abstract
Digital technologies are now mature for producing high quality digital replicas of Cultural Heritage (CH) artefacts. The research results produced in the last decade
have shown an impressive evolution and consolidation of the technologies for acquiring high-quality digital 3D models (3D scanning) and for rendering those models
at interactive speed.
Technology is now mature enough to push us to go beyond the plain visualization of those assets, devising new tools able to extend our insight and intervention
capabilities and to revise the current consolidated procedures for CH research and management. The paper presents a few recent experiences where high-quality 3D
models have been used in CH research, restoration and conservation. These examples constitutes a broad review of different uses of digital 3D assets in the CH
domain.
Key words: DIGITAL 3D MODELS, 3D SCANNING, GEOMETRIC PROCESSING, COMPUTER-AIDED RESTORATION.
1. Introduction
data and to get new insight (STANCO et al. 2011), the near
future should bring a much larger diffusion and use of digital
models in the CH domain.
The evolution of the technologies for creating digital models of
reality has been impressive in the last decade. The virtual
representation of real or imaginary worlds is now a common
resource in many application domains, with astonishing
utilizations in entertainment industry. Even if most of those
technologies have been developed for industrial applications
(among others, rapid prototyping and movies), they find an ideal
application to the Cultural Heritage (CH) domain. Most of the
technologies developed for digital sampling the real world (we
usually term them the 3D scanning) can be used for producing
digital 3D models of CH artefacts. Available digitization
technologies allow to cover all the scale, from the smaller (a
jewel or a small prehistoric stone tool) up to the larger artefacts
(a building or an entire historical city). The evolution of
acquisition devices has been paired with the improvement of
sampled data processing and visual presentation technologies.
Therefore, the advent of a wide availability of sampled 3D
models might bring to the CH domain an impact similar to those
brought at the end of 19th century by the advent of
photography. Due to the introduction of low cost devices, of
inexpensive 3D acquisition methods based on digital photography and on the advent of new capabilities to process 3D
So far, most of the CH applications have been limited to
visualization over different media or platforms, e.g. desktop-based
multimedia presentations, museums kiosks, or videos produced
with computer animation. There is a general agreement that new
visualization technologies have a paramount effect on our
capabilities to disseminate CH knowledge. An easy example is
education at all levels, that can increase the awareness of our
common CH, allowing us to know different cultures and to help
us in creating a common multi-cultural background.
Even if visualization has a great potential, producing just digital
images is perceived as an intermediate goal by CH scholars and
practitioners. They are questing to go beyond plain visualization,
asking for new tools to assist research on CH by means of digital
3D models, for example to help assessing the conservation
status or to plan and document CH restoration. The scope of
this work, that is mostly based on a recent paper (SCOPIGNO
et al. 2011) is therefore to present just very briefly the status of
3D acquisition and visualization technologies, to leave most of
the space to the presentation of a few experiences that can show
how we can use digital 3D models to affect the daily work of CH
scholars, curators and restorers.
19
2. Digital 3D models - Acquisition and
visualization
Technologies for the digital sampling of reality appeared around
twenty years ago and consolidated in the last decade. A good
survey is presented in (STANCO et al. 2011). The most well
known approach is laser-based 3D scanning, that is often the
subject of articles on the press or of television programs, but this
is not the only approach available today. A full range of
technologies is available, that differentiate either in terms of the
sampling methodology or of the sampling scale supported (how
big could be the sampled volume and, usually accordingly, how
dense is the sampling). 3D data can be sampled by adopting a
scanning device or also by one of the recent image-based
approaches (which return raw 3D data by processing set of
images, looking for stereo-matching of feature points).
The improvement of the technology has been impressing since
the Digital Michelangelo Project (LEVOY et al. 2000), that is
usually considered a pioneering project in the CH domain. We
have now much better resolution (number of samples and
density of those samples on the measured surface), improved
accuracy, faster acquisition time, largely improved postprocessing instruments and, finally, a reduced cost of
technology. Nowadays, 3D scanning systems are priced in the
range 3,000 -100,000 USD, with the less expensive devices
playing a very important role: opening the market to the wide
public and increasing awareness on the potential and on
technology know-how. Consequently, the availability of free
software solutions is also an important asset. This is the case of
both reconstruction systems based on images and multi-stereo
matching (e.g. Arc3D http://www.arc3d.be/) and processing tools
for raw sampled data (see for example the open-source MeshLab
tool http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/ ).
The reduction of the cost of the devices and of the time needed
for processing the raw sampled data are making 3D digitization
an affordable action. While the scanning of a single statue took
around one month of work ten years ago, a high-resolution and
high-quality 3D model can be produced nowadays in a couple of
days of work.
We should also look to the other side of the coin: are we able to
visualize the huge digital models produced with 3D sampling
devices? Models made of up to hundreds million triangles can
now be rendered in real time on commodities PCs, thanks to the
impressing progress of graphics processing units (driven by the
video-game industry) and the efficient multi-resolution
visualization methods developed in the last decade. Moreover,
we are now ready to move those 3D data on the web (for
example, endorsing the new WebGL standard, see
http://www.khronos.org/webgl/ and http://www.spidergl.org/).
3. Using 3D models in Cultural Heritage
Initially, the most obvious CH applications of 3D sampled data
focused on different incarnations of visualization-oriented
applications. Being able to present visually an artwork is valuable
for several tasks and to different potential users (art scholars,
restorers, students, tourists and ordinary people). Therefore, by a
large extent visual communication is the most common
utilization of digital 3D models in the CH domain.
With the attempt to go beyond naive visualization, several
previous experiences (see for example (CALLIERI et al. 2004))
have already shown that digital 3D models can be used for two
major tasks:
Studying artworks with digital 3D models (and related
processing methodologies). Given the availability of digital
3D models, we can devise new processes able to execute
specific investigations directly on the digital replica. Here
the availability of a digital clone and of innovative
modelling and shape-based analysis methodologies might
allow us to gather new knowledge and new insight.
Digital 3D models as a support medium for indexed
archival of knowledge. The knowledge gathered from the
different studies and analysis undertaken on a work of art
can be mapped, annotated, indexed, retrieved, visualized,
compared by means of the use of digital 3D models.
Another important distinction is among visual media used for
story-telling purposes (e.g. animations produced to present a
virtual reconstruction) and visual media used to increase
knowledge or to provide quantitative experiences/insight. In the
second case, the high accuracy of the digital model is basic
requirement for any serious work: the level of accuracy satisfied
by a given digital 3D model is a parameter of basic importance.
This implies that models have to be produced adopting a
sampling-based approach and, moreover, that digital data have to
be paired with provenance data. Provenance data is of paramount
importance in any scientific process or research, since it is crucial
to document how a digital model has been created and up to
what extent it can be considered a good representation of the
real artefact. Provenance data should include complete
information on the technology used to produce the digital model
(sampling device used, specs of the sampling campaign, software
used to process the sampled data, complete specification of all
the post-processing filters used over the sampled data).
We cannot propose here a comprehensive presentation of all
major experiences done in the last few years on this domain.
Conversely, we present briefly just a few examples of enhanced
use of 3D data either for improving knowledge or for offering
enhanced opportunities for data presentation and integration.
4. Studying artworks with the help of the digital
3D medium
Digital 3D models would allow scholars to study artworks on a
much wider scale than in real life, since the availability of good
digital 3D models can allow scholars to dissolve the space and
time constraints (e.g. virtual ”hands on” experience on object
located far away, no more time limitation due to museum
working time and access rights). A crucial requirement for
imposing digital models as the modern replacements of printed
materials is the availability of: enhanced searching over digital
libraries; interactive visual analysis (possibly, with no
compromise on model accuracy and quality); flexible tools for
shape comparisons and improved shape reasoning capabilities.
With the potential of current technologies, this can be much
easier accomplished in a connected web-based environment than
in the real word. The integration of different media and the
availability of good, searchable metadata and provenance data is
a must to envision the digital library of the future.
20
A first step in this sense has been performed with the design of
the CENOBIUM syste, designed in 2006 as a pioneering
example of integration between textural descriptions, highresolution images and 3D models (CORSINI et al. 2010). The
CENOBIUM goal was to provide art scholars with a resource
for studying Medieval sculpture by means of digital multimedia
representations, at the highest level of quality available but in a
very open approach. All the results of the digitization process
(high-resolution images and high-resolution 3D models) are thus
made available for remote consultation, by means of easy to use
tools. The CENOBIUM web site (http://cenobium.isti.cnr.it)
provides an integrated access to those different media. It is
therefore possible to analyze and compare visually in a
coordinated manner images or 3D models at full resolution (see
Figure 1).
Searching is an important component in this vision. Even if
shape-based search methodologies have evolved considerably in
the last few years, we are still far from the performances
expected by CH scholars: it is thus not sufficient to recognize a
vase from a chair. More advanced characterization methods are
needed, which should be able to discern between similar objects
and, ideally, to characterize even the workshop of provenance.
An example of a shape comparison project concerned the
evaluation of the attribution of a bronze horse statuette,
conserved at the National Archeological Museum in Florence
and attributed to Benvenuto Cellini (DELLEPIANE et al. 2007).
The goal here was to find some numerical shape-based evidence
to the similarity noticed with a Leonardo's metal-point drawing
(RLW no.12358, Windsor Royal Collection). We confronted the
two artworks by devising a shape-matching experiment between
the 3D-scanned model of the bronze horse and the digitized 2D
drawing (see Figure 2). The shape comparison was based on a
technology that allows register a photo (or a drawing, as in this
case) on a 3D model, following tightly the perspective projection
rules. The results of the matching were extremely good,
demonstrating that the drawing could have been produced from
the bronze statuette by using some sort of camera obscura from
two different points of view (the horse body and three legs in
the drawing come from a first orientation, while the front-most
leg and the head are traced according to a second position).
Fig. 2: We used geometric processing to estimate the shape similarity
between two artworks, a bronze horse statuette and a drawing, and to find
evidence for a new attribution hypothesis.
Another more recent experience with shape-matching, still in
course of development, is the study of the residual traces left by
carving instruments over unfinished Michelangelo's sculptures.
We aim at a new methodology to perform the characterization
and comparison of unfinished carved surfaces that still maintain
traces of the carving process and of the instruments used. The
final goal is to have more evidence and knowledge to get new
light on the artist's sculpting procedure and, eventually, on some
disputed attribution hypothesis.
Fig. 1: The CENOBIUM web system, supporting visual access to medieval
cloister sculptures. The web page presenting the data available for the single
capitol is presented in the image above, while an interactive inspection session
(three photographs and a 3D model) is in the image below.
Methods for visualizing and measuring residual traces have been
developed in the framework of the Digital Michelangelo Project
(LEVOY et al. 2000). The classical approach experimented so
far in the digital domain has been to produce accurate digital 3D
models of the artefact and to work with cut-through planes and
with the corresponding section lines produced. Those section
lines give us some information on the depth and the 2D shape
of sections of the residual chisel traces. Main issues with this
approach are that the selection of those cut-trough planes is not
easy and, more important, it is a subjective choice. Section lines
represent only a partial representation of a given chisel mark.
Moreover, since the surface regions to be compared have
different basic shapes, this make very complex also the
comparison of the extracted section lines.
Conversely, we are working on an approach where a new "digital
instrument" should allow the CH expert to make measurements
and comparisons in a radically new way. Our idea is to design a
new methodology based on the following three major ideas:
21
At the level of the digital 3D representation, split the basic
shape description (the overall shape of the sculpture) from
the high-frequency detail corresponding to the remains of
the chisel marks (the shape detail over the statue
corresponding to just the traces of the sculptor's carving
tools).
Encode the high-frequency detail using a mapping from 3D
space to 2D space, thus encoding with images the chisel
marks shape detail. We maintain at the same time full
control over the metric information encoded in the 2D
image (since image gray levels are directly proportional to
the depth of the chisel marks and are encoded in a known
scale) and the accuracy of this encoding transformation (a
pre-requisite is that the 3D-to-2D mapping transformation
should be as much as possible isometric).
Finally, design new tools for performing easy comparisons
and analysis of the traces over and among the 2D
representations. These tools will work on the 2D
representation and will be sufficiently flexible to allow the
CH expert to compute several different types of measures
and matches.
5. Supporting documentation for on-site
archaeology
Archaeology has been a pioneering domain for the use of digital
technologies. Excavations require a sophisticated representation
of the destructive digging process and of its intermediate results
and findings. This originated, first, the use of Data Base
Management technologies and, later on, an early adoption of
Geographic Information Systems. In this domain, digital
representations have been based so far mostly on 2D or 2D 1/2
spaces. Very few are the experiences so far going towards a real
3D documentation of the excavation process and of its findings.
of use in all environments. The availability of inexpensive 3D
sampling solutions (e.g. the ARC3D web-based multi-stereomatching reconstruction server coupled with the MeshLab
processing tool) is a great advancement for a domain where low
budget is the norm. Some issues inherent with this specific data
sampling approach are that the quality of reconstruction can
vary among scenes, and also inside a single scene, depending on
factors related to the object (texture, scale of features, optical
characteristics), but also on the environment (illumination,
sharpness of photos, completeness of photographic coverage).
Moreover, dense stereo matching data are usually generated with
an unknown scale, and a scale factor is needed to bring the data
in a usable 3D space.
Anyway, it has been demonstrated that those technologies can
be proficiently used to document the excavation status on a daily
time frequency, replacing the usual 2D images with 3D models
(DELLEPIANE et al. 2011). The availability of 3D models that
depict the status of the excavation opens a large number of
different ways to monitor and analyze the progress: production
of cut-through sections, computation of relative depths and
distances, relocation of the findings in proper locations,
production of high-resolution images, etc. The usually
destructive excavation process can thus be recorded in its full
space: 3D plus color plus time, since we can to put in the same
reference space all the acquired 3D models enhanced by
photographic detail. Therefore, we can visualize spatial and
temporal information at the same time (see Figure 3).
6. Supporting the restoration of fragmented
artwork
Virtual reconstruction has been so far one of the most common
CH applications of 3D graphics. The reconstruction of artefacts
which are not existent anymore, using the available historical
material (photographs, maps, drawing, knowledge) is a
fascinating opportunity. In this domain, procedural
reconstruction methods present a huge potential for the
construction of realistic and navigable models of ancient
monuments or even entire cities (DYLLA et al. 2009).
The focus of these technologies is not just to produce visual
representations, but to allow us to experiment and assess
different reconstruction hypothesis, thus helping us to increase
the knowledge on the artwork.
3D technologies can also be proficiently used for either real or
virtual reassembly of broken or dismantled artworks. An
example is the restoration of the Pietranico's Madonna (a painted
terracotta, XV cent., L'Aquila Museum, Italy). This statue has
been severely damaged during a recent earthquake in central
Italy, since it was fragmented in 19 large pieces and several
smaller remains. In this case the goal was not just using digital
3D models to document the restoration project, but to actively
contribute to the restoration with the definition and rehearsal of
virtual reassembly hypothesis.
Fig. 3: Four different 3D models showing the progress of an excavation
(3D models produced with Arc3D and MeshLab).
On-site documentation of archaeology excavations is an ideal
application domain for the new 3D sampling solutions based on
dense stereo matching or structure from motion, due to their minimal
hardware requirements (just a digital photo camera) and easiness
Reconstructing a fragmented artefact is a slow process usually
performed manually by archaeologists or restorers, with several
iterations of the cycle: fragments visual analysis - devising
matching hypothesis - rehearsal by adjoining pieces. Checking
matching pairs is a critical step, since the pieces are often fragile
and holding together a few pieces (if not the entire reassembled
set) is highly complex in the physical space. Restorers perform
this action either by gluing/fixing the fragments or by building
22
specific supporting structures. Moreover, the rehearsal and
assessment phase cannot be done by just considering a subset of
the pieces; we should build the entire puzzle to have a global
view and a solid assessment of the hypothesis, which makes the
job even more complicated. This makes reassembly a really
complex and highly time consuming task.
Fig. 4: The digital assembly of the Madonna of Pietranico from the digitized
fragments (image above) and the design of the two supporting elements (head
and bust) created as digital shapes and then constructed using rapid
prototyping for the real assembly.
Digital reassembly has been studied in several projects, focusing
on reassembly of shreds of ancient pottery, statues, frescos, basrelieves, etc. The adoption of a computer-aided approach can be
requested in case of: extreme fragility of the artefact,
complicated manipulation (being the fragments too heavy to be
easily manipulated) or the very high number of shreds, that make
the manual search extremely complex (a good example is the
case of fragmented frescos, decomposed in a huge number of
pieces (TOLER-FRANKLIN et al. 2010)). Most of the
approaches present automatic matching solutions (HUANG et
al. 2006), focusing on the shape properties of the shreds or, in
some cases, by taking into account also the pictorial and
decoration content of the pieces.
In the case of the Pietranico's Madonna, the virtual
reconstruction was performed by keeping the CH experts in the
loop. Conversely than adopting pure automatic solutions, we
asked the restorers to show us all the matches they have
individuated in the first analysis phase (based on fragments'
shape, decoration, finishing, etc). Since the fragments were
sufficiently small and lightweight to be manipulated by the
restorers (even if with a lot of care to avoid further damages),
we asked the restorer to hold each of these matching pairs in the
adjoining pose and acquired a single range map of the two joined
fragments. This single range map has been used to translate the
fragments in the correct position in the virtual digital space (see
Figure 4). While working on the digital space, we validated the
matching pairs proposed by restorers, individuated some other
matches induced by the initial ones (those new joins hypothesis
have been communicated to the restorers and further checked
with them), and finally made an overall validation of the entire
graph of pair-wise matches and of the proposed re-assembly. the
latter work was also done by comparing the results of the digital
reunion with the available historical photos of the artefact.
Once a recombining scheme was agreed, the real physical
reassembly started. A restoration goal was to avoid to simply
glue the fragments, but to design and build a structure which
should hold all fragments in their correct reciprocal position.
Here again the availability of a digital model was helpful. The
final supporting structure is based on two solid pieces that fill
up the internal void space in the inside of the terracotta statue,
i.e. the chest and the back of the head; these two pieces are
connected by an iron bar and are used to hold and glue all the
fragments. These internal filling components have been designed
by using the digital 3D models of the reassembled fragments (see
Figure 4) and have been produced by using rapid reproduction
technology (3D printing). The design of the filling parts has been
performed with MeshLab by reconstructing the shape of the
internal void space bounded by the statue fragments. This
resulting shape was then manually edited in order to correct
small meshing problems (minor interpenetrations, protruding
surfaces) and to remove some protrusions with the aim of
facilitating the proper assembly of the fragments on top of the
internal nucleus.
Another important issue in terms of virtual restoration is the
study and visual presentation of the original aspect of
archaeological sculptures or architectures. Due to the
deteriorating effect of both time and human activities, most
archaeological findings lost their original painted decoration or
present severe deteriorations. The Pietranico Madonna lost most
of the painted decoration and thus a digital restoration of its
original aspect was also envisioned. This work resulted much
more complex than expected. An extensive analysis of the
original polychrome decoration done over the Madonna revealed
a very complex structure: we had a base of preparatory plaster
and several different layers of painted detail, including also the
use of metal leaf (silver and gold) attached to the surface to
increase the transparency and lightness of the painted
decoration. Our plan was to produce a virtual restoration of the
polychrome decoration over the digital 3D model, by using the
painting features of the MeshLab tool. Two major problems
emerged from this case study and clarified some limitations of
the current technology:
Thick layers of preparation material usually allow to have a
basic surface that is much smoother than the raw terracotta
surface; this means that we should be able to simulate the
deposition of this thick layer, by changing the surface
geometry (i.e. applying a material that has both tint and
thickness, possibly in a progressive manner);
Polychromy is usually implemented by the overlap of
different pigments layers, in such a way that the final
appearance is produced by the way the light interfere with
those layers. This implies that an accurate simulation
requires to encode explicitly the existence of those layers
(possibly, encoding also the reflection properties of each of
those materials) and not just the composition of different
RGB values. The presence of metal leaf in some regions
and an underground reflective layer makes this even more
complex.
The results obtained with the current capabilities of MeshLab
are shown in Figure 5.
23
7. Concluding remarks
This paper briefly presented some experiences where digital 3D models and geometry processing technologies have been used to support
the work of CH scholars and restorers. Since we have very good and consolidated technologies for constructing digital replicas of works
of art, it is now time to enlarge the offer of interactive tools based on visual computing technologies. Those new tools should become the
instruments of the new millennium for CH expert or practitioner (archaeologist, scholars, restorers, students).
Fig. 5: A snapshot of MeshLab during the repainting of the head section of the Madonna.
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/20072013) under grant agreements no. 231809 (IST IP "3DCOFORM") and no. 270404 (IST NoE "V-Must.Net").
References
CALLIERI M., CIGNONI P., GANOVELLI F., IMPOCO G., MONTANI C., PINGI P., PONCHIO F., SCOPIGNO R. (2004)
"Visualization and 3D data processing in David’s restoration". IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications 24, 2 (Mar.-Apr. 2004), 16– 21.
CORSINI M., DELLEPIANE M., DERCKS U., PONCHIO F., CALLIERI M., KEULTJES D., MARINELLO A., SIGISMONDI R.,
SCOPIGNO R., WOLF G. (2010) "Cenobium - putting together the romanesque cloister capitals of the mediterranean region". In Bar International
Series BAR S2118 2010 (Proc. of III International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology, 17th-21st August 2009) (2010), S.
Campana M. F., Liuzza C., (Eds.), pp. 189–194.
DELLEPIANE M., CALIERI M., DELL’UNTO N. (2011) "Monitoring archeological excavation using dense stereo matching techniques". Tech. rep.,
CNR-ISTI, Pisa, Italy, 2011.
DELLEPIANE M., CALLIERI M., FONDERSMITH M., CIGNONI P., SCOPIGNO R. (2007) "Using 3D scanning to analyze a proposal
for the attribution of a bronze horse to Leonardo da Vinci". In The 8th Int. Symp. on International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology
and Cultural Heritage (VAST 07) (Nov 2007), Eurographics, pp. 117–124.
DYLLA K., FRISCHER B., MUELLER P., ULMER A., HAEGLER S. (2009) "Rome Reborn 2.0: A case study of virtual city reconstruction using
procedural modeling techniques". In 37th Proceedings of the CAA Conference, March 22-26, 2009 (2009), pp. 62–66.
HUANG Q.-X., FLORY S., GELFAND N., HOFER M., POTTMANN H. (2006) "Reassembling fractured objects by geometric matching". ACM
Trans. Graphics 25, 3 (2006), 569–578.
24
LEVOY M., PULLI K., CURLESS B., RUSINKIEWICZ S., KOLLER D., PEREIRA L., GINZTON M., ANDERSON S., DAVIS J.,
GINSBERG J., SHADE J., FULK D. (2000) "The Digital Michelangelo Project: 3D scanning of large statues". In SIGGRAPH 2000, Computer
Graphics Proceedings (July 24-28, 2000), Annual Conference Series, AddisonWesley, pp. 131–144.
SCOPIGNO, Roberto et al. (2011): "Sampled 3D models for CH: beyond plain visualization", IEEE Computer, IEEE Press, July-Aug. 2011, pp.
(in press).
STANCO F., BATTIATO S., GALLO G., (ED.) (2011) "Digital Imaging for Cultural Heritage Preservation". Taylor & Francis Group, 2011.
TOLER-FRANKLIN C., BROWN B., WEYRICH T., FUNKHOUSER T., RUSINKIEWICZ S. (2010) "Multi-feature matching of fresco
fragments". ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia) 29, 6 (2010), 185–197.
25
FORO INTERNACIONAL DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL 2011.
BORRADOR INTERNACIONAL DE LA CARTA DE SEVILLA
SESIÓN PLENARIA / PLENARY SESSION
FORO INTERNACIONAL DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL 2011:
BORRADOR INTERNACIONAL DE LA CARTA DE SEVILLA/
INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY 2011:
SEVILLE CHARTER INTERNATIONAL DRAFT
26
On Cultural Heritage Conventions and Charters.
Jean-Louis Luxen
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione, CNR, Pisa, Italy
President of CHEDI. Culture, Heritage & Development – International. Bruselas. Bélgica.
Resumen
Los debates internacionales han profundizado y ampliado las nociones de Patrimonio y Conservación. Esta evolución ha incluido la elaboración de Convenios y
Cartas. En el curso de los últimos años, ha habido un aumento considerable en dichos documentos. En la actualidad hay decenas de ellos, cientos de páginas
publicadaos. Los estudiosos y expertos en conservación se refieren regularmente, en sus estudios y prácticas, a los principios contenidos en estos documentos, que
están destinados a ser universales en su alcance. En general, se cree que estos principios hacen posible el avance en al menos tres áreas principales: en la práctica, en
la doctrina y en el diálogo entre las culturas. Hoy, sin embargo, surgen preguntas en cuanto a la realidad de estas contribuciones. Existe una creciente inquietud
sobre estos convenios y estatutos, la relevancia y la autoridad de la que a veces promulgan..
Palabras Clave: CARTAS INTERNACIONALES, PRINCIPIOS, RECOMENDACIÓN, UNESCO, ICOMOS
Abstract
International debates have deepened and expanded the notions of heritage and conservation. This evolution has included the drawing up of Conventions and
Charters. In the course of the last few years, there has been a considerable increase in such documents. There are now dozens of them, constituting hundreds of
published pages. Scholars and conservation experts regularly refer, in their studies and practices, to the principles contained in these documents, which are intended
to be universal in scope. It is generally believed that these principles make possible advancement in at least three major areas: in practice, in doctrine, and in the
dialogue among cultures. Today, however, questions are being raised as to the reality of these contributions. There is growing unease over these Conventions and
Charters, the relevance and authority of which are sometimes contested.
Key words: INTERNATIONAL CHARTER, PRINCIPLES, RECOMMENDATION, UNESCO, ICOMOS
With regard to practice, some critics cite examples in which the
norms laid out in charters and conventions are not respected,
either through ignorance or by deliberate choice. Diverging
interpretations can also be observed, with professionals opting
for contradictory interventions in the name of the same
principles.
In terms of doctrine, many people criticize these texts for
seeking a common denominator and often for being too general.
At the same time, the proliferation of documents appears to
undermine their credibility. Some compare texts and raise
questions regarding their coherence, suggesting that their
juxtaposition creates confusion and leaves too much room for
differing interpretations.
With respect to international dialogue, charters and conventions
are criticized for having a high rate of failure. Imbalances
between different regions and types of heritage have led to
different approaches to conservation, fueling tensions and
undermining exchanges of ideas and experiences. In addition,
the multilateral approach to heritage is losing ground in the
context of international cooperation.
As a matter of fact, international standards are not applied with
the same rigor everywhere. This is more the consequence of the
economic and social conditions of the different countries and
regions rather than the result of differing cultural approaches.
This can also been observed among European countries.
Admittedly, norms were originally influenced by the European and even the Mediterranean- context, but they have been
enriched considerably by contributions from other regions of the
world. After all, the conservation and restoration methods of
Japanese temples or Chinese tombs follow a long tradition of
rigor, which applied the concepts of the Charters before they
were even written. And management methods based on strong
traditional customs and practices are considered to be the
equivalent of "management plans".
Terminology
Before an analysis of these highly varied documents is carried
out, it is important to define their terminology and scope.
"Conventions" and "Recommendations" emanate from
intergovernmental organisations such as UNESCO, the Council
of Europe, and other public international agencies.
Once Conventions - such as the Convention on the Illicit Traffic
of Cultural Property (1970), the Convention on Biological
Diversity (1992), or the European Convention on Landscapes
(2000) - are signed and ratified, they are binding for the member
states.
"Recommendations" do not have the force of law, they bring
together for public authorities and other stakeholders highly
recommended management guidelines. Examples include the
Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of Landscapes
27
and Sites (1962), the Recommendation for the Protection of
Movable Cultural Property (1978), and numerous
recommendations by the Council of Europe.
These norms are considered public international law, and before
being adopted and applied, they are subject to meticulous
preparations and consultations between states to ensure the
widest possible consensus.
"Charters", "Codes of ethics", "Principles" and other
"Documents" have moral rather than legal authority. They
usually set forth principles and codes of good conduct that
professionals set for themselves to serve as guidelines for their
practices. The virtues of this self-regulatory collective approach
include its flexibility and its ability to adapt to change. This
category includes the Charter of Athens (1931) and the Charter
of Venice (1964), the specific Charters on Historic Gardens
(1987) and Cultural Tourism (1999), and the Codes of ethics of
the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the
International Council of Archives (ICA), as well as the "Nara
Document on Authenticity" (1994). To acquire strong moral
credibility, these norms need to be the outcome of very broad
consultations, involving as many professionals as possible from
all regions of the world.
It should be noted that a fertile relationship can grow between
Charters and Conventions of varying scopes. Thus, the Charter
on Underwater Cultural Heritage (1996) prepared the ground for
UNESCO to adopt the Convention of 2001 on the same theme.
Likewise, it frequently happens that public authorities
responsible for museums refer to the ICOM Code of Ethics or
that courts base their decisions on the principles of a given
Charter (soft law).
All these documents form a considerable corpus of norms to be
combined with national, regional, and municipal legislation in
each country. In addition to cultural heritage, they cover regional
and urban planning, as well as the protection of nature and the
environment. Who can claim to have complete knowledge and
understanding of these norms? It is easy to understand why
most people get lost in the profusion of documents.
Dissemination
Frequently, these norms are not well disseminated. A striking
example is the lack of knowledge of the Recommendation
Concerning the Protection, at National Level, of Cultural and
Natural Heritage, adopted in 1972, in the same year as the widely
known Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage. While these UNESCO texts are
complementary, the Recommendation is much more
comprehensive and concrete, and hence more useful for
everyday management, but it is not nearly as well known.
On the whole, better dissemination is required so that the
stakeholders can refer to the texts themselves, preferably in their
native language. These texts are far from being readily available,
and they are even less available in accurate translations.
Another factor is that these texts are not always accompanied by
detailed and clear commentaries that would make them more
understandable to the site managers. Because of this lack of
knowledge, an initiative is often taken to prepare a new Charter
for a problem already dealt with. For example, the ICOMOS
Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban
Areas (1987), also known as the Washington Charter, did not
contribute anything new to the Recommendation Concerning
the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas,
adopted by UNESCO 11 years earlier! We can also wonder
whether the Recommendation on Urban Cultural Landscapes in
preparation would really be innovative in this field.
Not enough emphasis has been placed on the need to review
existing documents before aspiring to innovate. In general,
priority should be given to the broad and effective dissemination
of existing texts. While efforts have been made in this direction,
especially through Internet sites, they remain inadequate.
It should be acknowledged that the formulation of norms is, in
many cases, very general, since they seek to cover a wide variety
of specific situations. Consequently, this general formulation
leaves the door open to differing interpretations. Efforts have
been made to overcome this difficulty by developing guidelines
geared toward the particular circumstances of a country. Thus,
the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China
(2002) consist of two distinctive parts: the "Principles," of
general scope, and the "Commentary," which deals in a detailed
and explicit manner with Chinese heritage. Another example is
the Burra Charter, which provides a synthesis of the latest ideas
on conservation applicable to Australia, with a very clear outline
of the decision-making process, illustrations and commentaries.
In the same spirit, more practical manuals can also be proposed
to guide site managers and decision makers on the measures to
be taken day by day. The "Management Guidelines for World
Cultural Sites" and the "Guidelines for Risk Preparedness",
published by ICCROM, convert the major principles of Charters
and Conventions into advice on management. Similarly, the
World Tourism Organization has taken the initiative to publish
the handbook "Visitor Management in Cultural and Natural
Sites". These publications illustrate the Global Code of Ethics of
this organisation and the Charter on Cultural Tourism in
concrete terms, using models of good practice. The time is
clearly ripe for the publication of works that are simple, clear,
inexpensive, and available in several languages.
Indeed, it is simple and clear language that is often missing.
There is an unfortunate tendency to develop a specific jargon
and concepts whose definitions are not obvious to all, especially
given language differences. Thus, the problems raised and the
vocabulary used during the discussions on the implementation of
the Convention on the World Heritage and, more specifically, in
the latest version of the Operational Guidelines, are probably
fully understood by no more than 200 people worldwide, and by
few site managers.
Another difficulty that has arisen relates to the adaptation of
norms to changes in ideas, social life, and techniques. This is
why revising Conventions can turn out to be a problematic
exercise. It required many years, for example, to adopt the
Additional Protocol to The Hague Convention of 1954. Another
example is provided by the recent adoption, in 2003, of the
Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage, at a
time when it appeared impossible to many states to extend
further the concepts and arrangements of the Convention on the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972. But was a new
Convention really necessary? Some people question whether this
was the moment to treat the intangible aspect separately instead
of carrying out a more in-depth study on the relationship
between the physical and intangible dimensions of heritage.
As for Charters, ICOMOS has decided not to update the 1964
Charter of Venice and instead has opted to adopt
complementary Charters and Principles dealing with specific
types of heritage and new themes. This approach has led to the
28
drawing up of new texts of unequal value, superimposed over
already existing ones, a practice that intensifies the impression of
proliferation. In this regard, the option chosen by ICOM and
ICA of periodic but infrequent revisions of their Codes of ethics
seems more appropriate. This is also the approach made in
respect to the Australian Burra Charter, which is revised from
time to time.
Professional discipline
Nongovernmental organisations have an important role to play
in the name of civil society. Because they have the necessary
distance from the political authorities, it is up to scholars and
professionals to remain in active contact, to stimulate the debate,
and to highlight constantly the universal values of heritage and
the basis for its conservation: authenticity, integrity, management
plans, integrated conservation, reversibility of interventions, and
the presentation and interpretation of sites. Today, taking into
account new communication technologies, a priority is to
respond to the increasing demand of visitors for a plural and
interactive reading of heritage and the cultures it reflects.
Used wisely, Recommendations, Charters, Codes of ethics, and
other handbooks continue to be vital tools for the protection of
heritage. Because there is already a considerable corpus of
normative texts, a reflection of the impressive extension of the
concepts related to heritage, priority should be given to the
dissemination of these documents, through public awareness
campaigns and training, and to their effective implementation. It
would also be very useful to adapt international norms to the
specific situations of regions or countries, in more accessible,
explicit, and detailed guidelines and in the local language, a
process already undertaken in some places. In addition, there is a
need for practical handbooks on specific topics, such as visitor
management and site interpretation.
Given that there is a constant need for intellectual development
and progress in practice - through the international exchange of
ideas and experiences - it is probable that new Conventions,
Charters, and the like will be drawn up. One would hope that
more normative texts would be developed only if they bring
added value, avoid divergent interpretations, and reflect a wide
consensus among heritage professionals and different regions of
the world. In grappling with all of these issues, we should not
lose sight of what is, or should be, the ultimate objective of
heritage conservation: the affirmation of universal values and the
encouragement of mutual understanding.
29
The implementation of an International Charter
in the field of Virtual Archaeology
Alfredo Grande y Víctor Manuel Lopez-Menchero Bendicho
Sociedad Española de Arqueología Virtual (SEAV). España
Resumen
La visualización del patrimonio cultural asistida por ordenador, como el concepto de Arqueología Virtual, es algo muy nuevo. Sin embargo, en los últimos diez
años los diferentes grupos de expertos han trabajado en la creación de estándares y recomendaciones dedicadas específicamente al campo de las TIC y el patrimonio
cultural. Las recomendaciones de Lund y Carta de Londres son dos buenos ejemplos de ello. Sin embargo, la aplicación de las TIC en el ámbito del patrimonio
arqueológico no tiene, por el momento, un documento específico o estándares. Desde su creación en 2008, la Sociedad Española de Arqueología Virtual (SEAV)
agrupa a más de 23 grupos de investigación y 21 empresas privadas preocupadas por el futuro de la arqueología virtual en el mundo. Por esta razón SEAV ha
puesto en marcha el Foro Internacional de Arqueología Virtual, un foro internacional de expertos destinadas a establecer el fundamento teórico del futuro
internacional de Arqueología Virtual. El primer objetivo del Foro Internacional de Arqueología Virtual es liderar la creación transnacional de la Carta
Internacional de Arqueología Virtual, llamada Carta de Sevilla (Seville Charter). Para gestionar este proceso SEAV ha creado el Encuentro Internacional de
Arqueología e Informática Gráfica, Innovación y Patrimonio (ARQUEOLOGICA 2,0), la revista científica Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), y el portal
web www.arqueologiavirtual.com
Palabras Clave: SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL, ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL, ESTÁNDARES,
PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO, CARTA DE SEVILLA, CARTA DE LONDRES
Abstract
Computer-based visualisation of cultural heritage, like the concept Virtual Archaeology, is something very new. Nevertheless in the last ten years different groups of
experts have worked in the creation of standars and recommedations devoted specifically to the field of ICT and cultural heritage. Lund recommendations and
London Charter are two good examples of it. However the application of ICT in the field of archaeological heritage haven´t, by the moment, specific
recommedations or standars. Since its creation in 2008 the Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology (SEAV) groups more than 23 research groups and 21
private companies concerned about the future of virtual archeology in the world. For this reason SEAV has set up the International Forum of Virtual
Archaeology, an international forum of experts intended to establish the theoretical foundation of the international future of Virtual Archaeology. The first purpose
of the International Forum of Virtual Archaeology is lead the transnational creation of the International Charter of Virtual Archaeology, called Carta de Sevilla
(Seville Charter). To manage this process SEAV has created the International meeting of archaeology and graphic informatics, heritage and innovation
(ARQUEOLOGICA 2.0), the online scientific journal Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), and the website www.arqueologiavirtual.com.
Key words: SPANISH SOCIETY OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY, STANDARS,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE, SEVILLE CHARTER, LONDON CHARTER.
1. Introduction
If we refer to the development of art history, the representation
of reality has undergone a major evolution. The lucky invention
of perspective is an important step in the visualization of space,
but, however, is a limited resource, because there is more than a
flat representation of three-dimensional space. Had to spend
much time to reach the 3D representation of space in a generic
environment that allows the user to feel, to some extent, which
is in the place represented, more unique experience if done in an
area of interest.
Introduced as a new millennium, it is necessary to rethink our
thinking and adapt to technological advances around us. The
possibilities offered by current computer should be seriously
considered, to take advantage of that horizon opened by digital
technology, especially computer graphics technologies, with its
possibilities and benefits are revolutionizing the fields of
audiovisual production. It is, therefore, that technology can help
in the representation of reality and can become a powerful ally of
History.
Of all the applications of new technologies in the field of
Humanities and Culture in general, archaeology where they are
getting excellent examples of virtual historical reconstruction and
of preservation and dissemination of archaeological heritage.
The concept “Virtual Archeology” was first proposed by Paul
Reilly in 1990, describing it as “a set of computer techniques that
allow 3D visualization and realistic virtual representation of
objects and buildings whose remains are gone or are in a poor
state of preservation as to make it impossible or very difficult its
interpretation” [4]. Virtual Archaeology, in fact, can depict
immediately complex contexts relating to the past or forward
readings of historical, architectural, territorial or social situations,
proving to be a valid contribution to the transposition of
information, thus proposing a potent instrument for the cultural
transmission.
30
In recent years the impact of new technologies has been very
strong in the way of representing the archaeological heritage.
Knowledge has been change from exclusive, erudite and almost
inbred in the way of representing and managing the
archaeological heritage, to a completely different way. Despite
what one might think, the discipline of Virtual Archaeology born
with certain conceptual maturity. In its few years of life and
based on some experiences of failure, has managed to hold and
try to design, as a scientific discipline, far removed from the
external printing as fun toy, that has been seen by some.
Why should this certain conceptual maturity? Virtual
Archaeology germinate in a field where long and farreaching
international charters and recommendations have created
specific rules in the field of research, conservation, restoration
and dissemination of conventional archaeological heritage. Many
professionals have been able to extrapolate the guiding principles
of these charters and recommendations to the new virtual
archaeological projects. However, many professionals have
forgotten this obvious relationship between the conventional
archaeological heritage and virtual archeology, justifying this
attitude by the seemingly neutral character of virtual archeology.
However, despite the innocuous nature of virtual archeology for
the physical dimension of heritage, play a very active role in the
dissemination of it. In a society where we live under the tyranny
of the image, a simple failed recreation can override the more
complete and thorough archaeological scientific research. A
superficial walk by the world wide web can offer many examples
of unfortunate digital interventions that can, with its iconological
value, contaminated us with a false history difficult to eradicate
later.
Nevertheless, when the 3D tools are applied in optimum
conditions, the resulting product passes far beyond the primary
objective of seeing what no longer exists. Opens a new avenue
for research, recording, preservation and dissemination, where
the universal language of the image becomes the key to ensuring
effective integrated management of archaeological heritage.
However, at this point the question arises: What are these
optimum conditions to ensure the quality of the resulting
product? Or better yet, under what criteria are set the quality of
virtual archaeological project?
2. The historical background in the creation of
Standars for the Computer-based Visualisation
of Cultural Heritage
In June 2000 the eEurope 2002 Action Plan endorsed by the EU
Member States in the European Council in Feira (Portugal). The
objective of this Plan was to stimulate European contents in
global networks, thus take full advantage of opportunities
created by the advent of digital technologies.
Within this overall objective there was a specific joint action of
States and the Commission aimed at creating a coordination
mechanism for digitization programs in the Member States.
Almost a year later, on April 4, 2001, met in Lund (Sweden)
representatives and experts from Member States to discuss this
issue and recommend measures to promote better coordination
and add value to digitization activities in a sustainable manner in
time. The meeting agreed that European resources in the field of
culture and scientific knowledge provide a unique public asset
that represents the collective memory and experience of our
different societies and provide a solid foundation for the
development of our digital content industries in a sustainable
knowledge society.
Likewise representatives and experts at Lund stressed the value
and importance of cultural and scientific digital content in
Europe, so long as these contents represent: An accessible and
sustainable heritage. The cultural and scientific heritage of
Europe is a unique and valuable asset. The digitization of their
resources is an essential activity to make them more accessible to
citizens and preserve the collective cultural heritage (both past
and future) in Europe.
A support for cultural diversity, education and content
industries. Digital cultural goods are essential to maintain and
promote cultural diversity in the current worldwide and are a key
resource for education and tourism industries and the media.
A resource of great variety and richness. Member States have
invested large sums of money on programs and projects of
digitalization of cultural and scientific content. These activities
cover various fields and content types, such as museum artefacts,
public records, archaeological sites, audiovisual archives, maps,
historical documents and manuscripts.
Parallel to the declaration of Lund in recent years of the
twentieth century and early twenty-first many researchers began
to stress the importance of open international debates on
epistemological, ontological and theoretical questions on the use
of virtual reality in the field of cultural heritage . Authors such as
Maria Roussou (Foundation of the Hellenic World), Juan
Antonio Barcelo (Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona), Nick
Ryan (University of Kent), Bernie Frisher (University of
Virginia) or Franco Niccolucci (The Cyprus Institute) posed
openly interpretive problems that are associated with any
attempt to reconstruct virtually a thing of the past. The debate
originally centered on the credibility and transparency of the
virtual reconstructions gradually drifted into a wider debate
based on acceptance by researchers from the premise that “not
anything goes” when it comes to reconstructing the past or use
the new technologies applied to cultural heritage.
The growing concern over these issues led to the creation in
2000 the organization's Virtual Reality Cultural Organisation
(CVRO) and one year after the group Virtual Archaeology
Special Interest Group (VASIG), whose work was crucial to
keep alive and enhance the debate within the most important
international academic forums as CAA (Computer Applications
and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology) or VAST
(International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage).
In 2005 the King's Visualisation Lab (KVL) belonging to King's
College London was launching a project called Making Space
whose purpose was “to investigate a methodology for
documenting the cognitive process of research based on threedimensional visualization”. Between 23 and 24 February, 2006,
50 researchers debated the issue of scientific transparency in the
British Academy. As a result of that meeting on 25 February, a
smaller group of researchers led by Franco Niccoluccio prepared
a document to serve as a preliminary draft of the Charter of
London, but above all, laid the foundation for what would be
the Advisory Board Charter responsible to continue to improve
the document for months and even years later. The Advisory
Board was jointly chaired by Richard Beacham (King's College
London) and Franco Niccolucci (The Cyprus Institute), under
31
the overall coordination of Hugh Denard (King's College
London) and Sorin Hermon (The Cyprus Institute).
In March 2006 Hugh Denard, circulated the first draft of The
London Charter, structured mode Ename Charter for discussion,
improvement and adoption. In June of that year decided to
publish the first version of the Charter that was housed and
displayed to the public in August 2006 in www.londoncharter.org
under the title “The London Charter for the Use of 3D Visualisation in
the Research and Communication of Cultural Heritage” [1].
Fig. 1: www.londoncharter.org
In November 2007, published the translation of the Charter for
the Italian and Japanese, and a year later saw the light the first
version in spanish through collaboration between Alfredo
Grande (President of Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology
SEAV) and Victor M. López-Menchero (University of CastillaLa Mancha).
After strenuous debates about the principles emanating from the
first draft of the London Charter in February 2009 appeared a
new and improved version of the document known as Draft 2.1,
whose title also suffered some changes compared with version
1.1, running under the title “The London Charter for the
Computerbased Visualisation of Cultural Heritage”. The first
authorized translation of the new draft was on this occasion the
spanish version that would run again by Alfredo Grande and
Victor M. López-Menchero, Spanish representatives approved
for that purpose by the Advisory Board of the Charter.
The London Charter for the Computer-based Visualisation of Cultural
Heritage has served to establish a set of general principles and
recommendations that serve to increase the scientific rigor with
which new technologies are being applied worldwide in the field
of cultural heritage. This aspiration is supported by a strong
belief that computer visualization applied to the field of cultural
heritage is not simply a tool or an auxiliary technique, but that
really is, or may constitute, a discipline itself able to develop a
method and specific techniques designed to meet an object of
particular study. However, as the London Charter recognized the
application of computer visualization applied to the field of
cultural heritage is a theme too broad that it requires much more
precise specification. It is at this point the idea to create an
international charter of virtual archeology. The Spanish Society
of Virtual Archaeology (SEAV) will be responsible for
coordinating the entire process.
3. The historical background of the
International Charter Of Virtual Archaeology
Since its creation in 2008 the Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology
(SEAV) groups more than 23 research groups and 21 private
companies concerned about the future of virtual archeology in
the world. For this reason SEAV has set up the International
Forum of Virtual Archaeology, an international forum of experts
intended to establish the theoretical foundation of the
international future of Virtual Archaeology. The first purpose of
the International Forum of Virtual Archaeology is lead the
transnational creation of the International Charter of Virtual
Archaeology, called Carta de Sevilla (Seville Charter). To manage
this process SEAV has created in 2009 the International meeting of
archaeology and graphic informatics, heritage and innovation
(ARQUEOLOGICA 2.0). In Sevilla, June 2009, at the I
International Meeting on Archaeology and Graphic Informatics,
Heritage and Innovation ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0, several major
purposes were pointed out. Among the most significant aims
was to have feedback from the experts of this discipline in order
to seek for an opportunity to create an international charter
which should apply the London Charter especifically to Virtual
Archaeology.
This was the purpose of the lecture session called “Reflections
about the London Charter”, where three of its signers, Richard
Beacham from King's Visualisation Lab. King's College, Sorin
Hermon from Digital Cultural Heritage and Archaeological
Sciences of Cyprus and Juan A. Barcelo from the Universidad
Autónoma de Barcelona, joined SEAV's initiative in order to
create a new document, counting on wide international
agreement, and linked to ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 [2].
After such session, the Plenary Assembly called “Foundations of
Virtual Archaeology” took place. Thirty well-known experts and
researchers of this field of knowledge took part at it, and they
claimed it was highly necessary to define, shape and properly
ground Virtual Archaeology, which has not been yet set up in
spite of its success and use worldwide.
Fig. 2: Session called “Reflections about the London Charter”. I
International Meeting on Archaeology and Graphic Informatics, Heritage
and Innovation ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2009
32
The conclusions of the first meeting of the International Forum
left no room for doubt: it was an urgent need to start working to
create an international charter of virtual archeology. The SEAV
then began intensive work to produce a first draft of the
international charter of virtual archaeology. This draft was
presented in Sevilla, June 2010, during the second meeting of the
international forum within the II International Meeting on
Archaeology and Graphic Informatics, Heritage and Innovation,
ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0. receiving a great welcome by those
attending the forum [3].
Parallel to the celebration of ARQUEOLOGICA 2010 and since
one of the central objectives of International Forum was
confirm Virtual Archaeology as an independent and recognized
field of research, in 2010 born the online scientific journal
Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR) with the objective of
consolidating itself as an prestigious international publication.
The creation of VAR is playing a major role in the drafting of
the Seville Charter. So, for example, the number four of the
journal is dedicated exclusively to treat theoretical aspects of the
discipline, which is essential to establish real scientific standars.
Furthermore, and to improve the dissemination and knowledge
that the international community have about the process of
drafting the Seville Charter, has created web portal
www.arqueologiavirtual.com. This site provides not only the
disclosure of the International Charter of Virtual Archaeology
but also of accompanying activities, such as the International
Forum, ARQUEOLOGICA 2.0 or Virtual Archaeology Review.
4. Conclusions
Despite the work done by the working team of the International
Forum of Virtual Archaeology is still necessary to continue
leading the transnational creation of the International Charter of
Virtual Archaeology.
To achieve this purpose The International Forum of Virtual
Archaeology conceive the following activities:
ENCOURAGE open and permanent cooperation
between the Seville and London Charters.
COORDINATE supporting actions and the spread of
Virtual Archaeology together with major international
entities.
PROMOTE transnational discussion about the
theoretical foundation of Virtual Archaeology.
OFFER researchers from the field of virtual
archaeology an adequate edition to have their research
results, theoretical contributions and procedures
properly publicated.
RATIFY the international draft of Seville Charter at
the Plenary Assembly of the IV International Meeting
on Archaeology and Graphic Informatics, Heritage
and Innovation ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 which will
take place in Sevilla, June 2012.
Figure 3:Web portal www.arqueologiavirtual.com
ENSURE the spread and proper performance of the
Seville Charter principles.
References
[1] BEACHAM, R., DENARD, H., NICCOLUCCI, F.: An Introduction to the London Charter, The E-volution of ICTechnology in Cultural
Heritage, Papers from the Joint Event CIPA/VAST/EG/EuroMed Event, 2006.
[2] LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M.: Propuesta para profundizar en la carta de londres y mejorar su aplicabilidad en el campo del patrimonio arqueológico,
Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), vol. 2 nº. 4, 2011, 65-69.
[3] LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M., GRANDE, A.: Hacia una carta internacional de arqueología virtual. El borrador SEAV, Virtual Archaeology
Review (VAR), vol. 2 nº. 4, 2011, 71-75.
[4] REILLY, P.: Towards a virtual archaeology, Computer Applications in Archaeology, Edited by K.Lockyear and S.Rahtz. oxford: British
Archaeological Reports (Int. Series 565), 1991, 133-139.
33
La Carta de Sevilla. Avances hacia el primer borrador
de la Carta Internacional de la Arqueología Virtual
Victor Manuel López-Menchero Bendicho y Alfredo Grande León
Sociedad Española de Arqueología Virtual (SEAV). España
Resumen
Tras más de tres años de duro trabajo el presente paper recoge la versión más actualizada de la Carta Internacional de la Arqueología Virtual más conocida como
Carta de Sevilla. Esta vez se presenta un primer borrador elaborado y consensuado por el International Forum of Virtual Archaeology que viene a ampliar,
matizar y mejorar el trabajo que ya fuera realizado años atrás por parte de la Sociedad Española de Arqueología Virtual (SEAV). Por su parte esta nueva
versión, con algunas ligeras modificaciones que serán añadidas a finales de 2011, servirá de base para la discusión trasnacional entre más de cien grupos de
investigación y empresas de medio mundo.
Palabras Clave: ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL, CARTA DE SEVILLA, STANDARDS.
Abstract
After more than three years of hard work, this paper includes the latest version of the International Charter of Virtual Archaeology known as Seville Charter.
This time we present a first draft drawn up and agreed by the International Forum of Virtual Archaeology comes to expand, refine and enhance the work already
carried out years ago by the Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology (SEAV). Meanwhile this new version, with some slight modifications that will be added in
late 2011, will serve as a basis for a transnational discussion between more than one hundred research groups and companies worldwide.
Key words: VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY, SEVILLE CHARTER, STANDARDS.
1. Preámbulo
La aplicación a nivel mundial de la visualización asistida por
ordenador en el campo del patrimonio arqueológico presenta a
día de hoy un panorama que podría ser calificado como de
“luces y sombras”. El espectacular crecimiento del turismo
cultural y los increíbles avances tecnológicos desarrollados en los
últimos años han propiciado la elaboración y ejecución de un sin
fin de proyectos encaminados a investigar, preservar, interpretar
y presentar distintos elementos del patrimonio arqueológico a
partir de la utilización de la visualización asistida por ordenador.
Estos proyectos han servido para demostrar el extraordinario
potencial que la visualización asistida por ordenador encierra en
si misma pero también han dejado al descubierto numerosas
debilidades e incongruencias. Por ello se hace ineludible plantear
un debate teórico de implicaciones prácticas que permita a los
gestores del patrimonio aprovechar lo mejor que las nuevas
tecnologías pueden ofrecernos en esta materia minimizando sus
aplicaciones más controvertidas. En definitiva se trata de
establecer unos principios básicos que regulen las prácticas de
esta pujante disciplina.
La Carta de Londres (http://www.londoncharter.org) constituye hasta
la fecha el documento internacional que más ha avanzado en esta
dirección. Sus diversas actualizaciones revelan la necesidad
imperante de encontrar un documento cuyas recomendaciones
sirvan como base para diseñar nuevos proyectos cada vez con
mayor rigor dentro del ámbito del patrimonio cultural, pero
también para plantear nuevas recomendaciones y guías adaptadas
a las necesidades específicas de cada rama del saber y comunidad
de expertos. Es por ello que entre los objetivos que se marca La
Carta de Londres se encuentra “Ofrecer unos sólidos
fundamentos sobre los que la comunidad de especialistas pueda
elaborar criterios y directrices mucho más detalladas”. Y es que
no debemos olvidar la inconmensurable amplitud que presenta el
concepto de Patrimonio Cultural dentro del cual quedan
englobados campos tan amplios como los de patrimonio
monumental, etnográfico, documental, industrial, artístico, oral y
por supuesto arqueológico.
La Carta de Londres es plenamente consciente de la amplitud
conceptual que posee el Patrimonio Cultural, y por consiguiente
de las necesidades específicas que pueden requerir cada una de
las partes que lo componen. Es por ello que en su Preámbulo,
La Carta de Londres ya reconoce estas necesidades: “en la
medida en que las pretensiones que motivan el uso de los
métodos de visualización varían ampliamente de unos campos a
otros, Principio 1: “Implementación”, se deben elaborar
directrices específicas que resulten apropiadas para cada
disciplina y para cada comunidad de expertos”. Por su parte el
Principio 1.1 recomienda: “Cada comunidad de expertos, ya sea
académica, educativa, conservativa o comercial, debe desarrollar
las directrices de implementación de la Carta de Londres de
manera coherente con sus propias pretensiones, objetivos y
métodos”. Parece pues evidente que, dada la importancia que el
patrimonio arqueológico tiene dentro del patrimonio cultural, y
reconocida por muchos la existencia de una comunidad de
expertos propia que trabaja de manera habitual entorno al
concepto de Arqueología Virtual, se deba plantear la redacción
de guías, documentos y recomendaciones que aun siguiendo las
directrices generales que marca La Carta de Londres tomen en
34
consideración el carácter específico que posee la Arqueología
Virtual.
Los Principios que se expondrán a continuación pretenden
aumentar las condiciones de aplicabilidad de La Carta de
Londres de cara a su mejor implantación en el campo específico
del patrimonio arqueológico, incluido el patrimonio
arqueológico
industrial,
simplificando
y
ordenando
secuencialmente sus bases, al mismo tiempo que se ofrecen
algunas recomendaciones nuevas que toman en consideración la
peculiar naturaleza del patrimonio arqueológico con respecto al
patrimonio cultural.
2. Definiciones
Arqueología Virtual: es la disciplina científica que tiene por objeto
la investigación y el desarrollo de formas de aplicación de la
visualización asistida por ordenador a la gestión integral del
patrimonio arqueológico.
Patrimonio arqueológico: es el conjunto de elementos materiales,
tanto muebles como inmuebles, hayan sido o no extraídos y
tanto si se encuentran en la superficie o en el subsuelo, en la
tierra o en el agua, que junto con su contexto, que será
considerado también como formante del patrimonio
arqueológico, sirven como fuente histórica para el conocimiento
del pasado de la humanidad. Estos elementos, que fueron o han
sido abandonados por las culturas que los fabricaron, tienen
como sello distintivo el poder ser estudiados, recuperados o
localizados usando la metodología arqueológica como método
principal de investigación, cuyas técnicas principales son la
excavación y la prospección, sin menoscabo de la posibilidad de
usar otros métodos complementarios para su conocimiento.
Gestión integral: comprende las labores de inventario, prospección,
excavación, documentación, investigación, mantenimiento,
conservación,
preservación,
restitución,
interpretación,
presentación, acceso y uso público de los restos materiales del
pasado.
Restauración virtual: comprende la reordenación, a partir de un
modelo virtual, de los restos materiales existentes con objeto de
recuperar visualmente lo que existió en algún momento anterior
al presente. La restauración virtual comprende por tanto la
anastilosis virtual.
Anastilosis virtual: recomposición de las partes existentes pero
desmembradas en un modelo virtual.
Reconstrucción virtual: comprende el intento de recuperación visual,
a partir de un modelo virtual, en un momento determinado de
una construcción u objeto fabricado por el ser humano en el
pasado a partir de las evidencias físicas existentes sobre dicha
construcción u objeto, las inferencias comparativas
científicamente razonables y en general todos los estudios
llevados a cabo por los arqueólogos y demás expertos vinculados
con el patrimonio arqueológico y la ciencia histórica.
Recreación virtual: comprende el intento de recuperación visual, a
partir de un modelo virtual, del pasado en un momento
determinado de un sitio arqueológico, incluyendo cultura
material (patrimonio mueble e inmueble), entorno, paisaje, usos,
y en general significación cultural.
3. Objetivos
Dado que el marco teórico de referencia para la los Principios de
Sevilla es la propia Carta de Londres el documento asumiría
todos los objetivos aprobados por la Junta Consultiva de dicha
Carta. A estos objetivos generales sería necesario añadir algunos
nuevos, a saber:
Generar criterios fácilmente comprensibles y
aplicables por toda la comunidad de expertos, ya sean
estos informáticos, arqueólogos, arquitectos,
ingenieros, gestores o especialistas en general en la
materia.
Establecer directrices encaminadas a facilitar al
público un mayor entendimiento y mejor apreciación
de la labor que desarrolla la disciplina arqueológica.
Establecer principios y criterios que sirvan para medir
los niveles de calidad de los proyectos que se realicen
en el campo de la arqueología virtual.
Promover el uso responsable de las nuevas tecnologías
aplicadas a la gestión integral del patrimonio
arqueológico.
Contribuir a mejorar los actuales procesos de
investigación, conservación y difusión del patrimonio
arqueológico mediante el uso de nuevas tecnologías.
Abrir nuevas puertas a la aplicación de métodos y
técnicas digitales de investigación, conservación y
difusión arqueológica.
Concienciar a la comunidad científica internacional de
la necesidad imperante de aunar esfuerzos a nivel
mundial en el creciente campo de la arqueología
virtual.
4. Principios
Principio 1: Interdisciplinariedad
Cualquier proyecto que implique la utilización de nuevas
tecnologías, ligadas con la visualización asistida por ordenador,
en el campo del patrimonio arqueológico, ya sea para
investigación, conservación o difusión, debe de estar avalado por
un equipo de profesionales procedentes de distintas ramas del
saber:
1.1 Dada la compleja naturaleza que presenta la visualización
asistida por ordenador de patrimonio arqueológico, esta no
puede ser abordada únicamente por un solo tipo de experto sino
que necesita de la colaboración de un buen número de
especialistas
(arqueólogos,
informáticos,
historiadores,
arquitectos, ingenieros…).
1.2 Un trabajo verdaderamente interdisciplinar implica el
intercambio de ideas y opiniones entre especialistas de distintos
campos de una manera habitual y fluida. El trabajo dividido en
compartimentos estanco nunca podrá ser considerado como
interdisciplinar aunque participen en él expertos procedentes de
distintas disciplinas.
1.3 Entre los especialistas que deben colaborar en este modelo
interdisciplinar es indispensable contar con la presencia concreta
35
de arqueólogos e historiadores, preferiblemente de aquellos que
tienen o tuvieron a su cargo la dirección científica de la
excavación o del resto arqueológico sobre el que se pretende
trabajar.
Principio 2: Finalidad
Previamente a la elaboración de cualquier visualización asistida
por ordenador siempre debe quedar totalmente claro cual es la
finalidad última de nuestro trabajo, es decir, cual es el objetivo
final que se persigue alcanzar.
2.1 Cualquier proyecto de visualización asistida por ordenador
siempre tendrá el objetivo de mejorar aspectos relacionados o
bien con la investigación, o bien con la conservación o bien con
la difusión del patrimonio arqueológico. La finalidad de todo
proyecto debe quedar encuadrada dentro de alguna de dichas
categorías (investigación, conservación y/o difusión). La
categoría referente a difusión engloba tanto proyectos con fines
educativos, ya sea educación reglada o informal, como proyectos
con fines recreativos (turismo cultural).
2.2 Además de esclarecer cual es el objetivo o finalidad principal
de la visualización asistida por ordenador siempre será necesario
definir objetivos más concretos que sirvan para conocer con más
exactitud cual es el problema o problemas que se pretenden
resolver.
2.3 La visualización asistida por ordenador debe estar siempre al
servicio del patrimonio arqueológico y no el patrimonio
arqueológico al servicio de la visualización asistida por
ordenador. Las nuevas tecnologías aplicadas a la gestión integral
del patrimonio arqueológico deben poder satisfacer, como
objetivo primordial, las necesidades reales de arqueólogos,
conservadores, restauradores, museógrafos, gestores y/o
profesionales en general del mundo del patrimonio, y no al revés.
2.4 En última instancia la finalidad principal de la arqueología
virtual siempre será servir a la sociedad en su conjunto y
contribuir al incremento del conocimiento humano.
Principio 3: Complementariedad
La aplicación de la visualización asistida por ordenador en el
campo de la gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico debe
de ser entendida como complementaria, no como sustitutiva, de
otros instrumentos de gestión más clásicos pero igualmente
eficaces.
3.1 La visualización asistida por ordenador no debe aspirar a
sustituir a otros métodos y técnicas en el campo de la gestión
integral del patrimonio arqueológico (por ejemplo la restauración
virtual no debe aspirar a sustituir a la restauración real al igual
que la visita virtual no debe aspirar a sustituir a la visita real).
3.2 La visualización asistida por ordenador debe buscar vías de
colaboración con otros métodos y técnicas de distinta naturaleza
que ayuden a mejorar los actuales procesos de investigación,
conservación y difusión del patrimonio arqueológico. Para ello el
cumplimiento del Principio 1: Interdisciplinariedad, se revelará
como fundamental.
3.3. Pese a todo, las visualizaciones asistidas por ordenador
podrán tener un carácter sustitutivo cuando los restos
arqueológicos originales hayan sido destruidos (por ejemplo por
la construcción de grandes infraestructuras), se encuentren en
lugares de difícil acceso (por ejemplo sin carreteras) o corran
riesgo de deterioro ante la visita masiva de turistas (por ejemplo
las pinturas rupestres).
Principio 4: Autenticidad
La visualización asistida por ordenador trabaja de manera
habitual reconstruyendo o recreando edificios, artefactos y
entornos del pasado tal y como se considera que fueron, es por
ello que siempre debe ser posible saber que es real, veraz,
auténtico y que no. En este sentido la autenticidad debe ser un
concepto operativo permanente para cualquier proyecto de
arqueología virtual.
4.1 En tanto en cuanto la disciplina arqueológica no es una
ciencia exacta e incontestable, sino compleja, se debe apostar
abiertamente por realizar interpretaciones virtuales alternativas
siempre y cuando presenten igual validez científica. Cuando no
exista esa igualdad se apostará únicamente por la hipótesis
principal.
4.2 Cuando se realicen restauraciones o reconstrucciones
virtuales se debe mostrar de forma explícita o bien mediante
interpretación adicional los distintos niveles de veracidad en los
que se sustenta la restauración o reconstrucción.
4.3 En la medida que muchos restos arqueológicos han sido y
siguen siendo restaurados o reconstruidos en la realidad la
visualización asistida por ordenador debe ayudar tanto a los
profesionales como al público a diferenciar claramente entre: los
restos que se han conservado “in situ”, los restos que han vuelto
a ser colocados en su posición originaria (anastylosis real), las
zonas que han sido reconstruidas parcial o totalmente sobre los
restos originales, y finalmente las zonas que han sido restauradas
o reconstruidas virtualmente.
Principio 5: Rigurosidad histórica.
Para lograr unos niveles de rigurosidad y veracidad histórica
óptimos cualquier forma de visualización asistida por ordenador
del pasado debe estar sustentada en una sólida investigación y
documentación histórica y arqueológica.
5.1 La rigurosidad histórica de cualquier visualización asistida
por ordenador del pasado dependerá tanto de la rigurosidad con
la que se haya realizado la investigación arqueológica previa
como de la rigurosidad con la que se use esa información para la
creación del modelo virtual.
5.2 Todas las fases históricas registradas durante la investigación
arqueológica tienen un gran valor. Por lo tanto, no se
considerará riguroso mostrar únicamente el momento de
esplendor del resto arqueológico reconstruido o recreado sino
todas las fases, incluidas las de decadencia, por las que pudo
atravesar. Tampoco se debe mostrar una imagen idílica del
pasado con edificios que parecen recién construidos, personas
que podrían pasar por modelos, etc.., sino real, es decir con
edificios en diferente estado de conservación, personas de
distinto tamaño y peso, etc.
5.3 El entorno, contexto o paisaje asociado a un resto
arqueológico es tan importante como el resto arqueológico en sí
(Carta de Cracovia, 2000). Las investigaciones antracológicas,
paleobotánicas, paleozoológicas y de paleoantropología física
deben servir como base para la realización de recreaciones
virtuales del paisaje y del contexto rigurosas. No se pueden
mostrar sistemáticamente ciudades sin vida, edificios solitarios o
paisajes muertos, pues ese es un falso histórico.
5.4 Las nuevas técnicas de documentación del patrimonio
arqueológico sustentadas en el uso de nuevas tecnologías como
los escáneres láser o la fotogrametría pueden servir para
aumentar los niveles de rigurosidad histórica, ya que cuanto
36
mejor sea la documentación del patrimonio arqueológico
realizada mayor será rigurosidad histórica obtenida.
sin menoscabo de la creación de bases de datos de este tipo de
ámbito nacional o regional.
Principio 6: Eficiencia
Principio 8: Formación y evaluación
El concepto de eficiencia aplicada al campo que nos ocupa pasa
inexorablemente por lograr una ajustada sostenibilidad
económica y tecnológica. Usar menos recursos para lograr cada
vez más y mejores resultados será la clave de la eficiencia.
La arqueología virtual constituye una disciplina científica
asociada a la gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico que
posee un lenguaje y unas técnicas que le son propias. Como
cualquier otra disciplina académica requiere de programas
específicos de formación y evaluación.
6.1 Cualquier proyecto que implique la utilización de la
visualización asistida por ordenador en el campo del patrimonio
arqueológico debe evaluar previamente cuales serán las
necesidades de mantenimiento económico y tecnológico que
generará una vez se instale y ponga en funcionamiento.
6.2 Se debe apostar por sistemas que aunque en un primer
momento presenten una elevada inversión inicial a largo plazo
impliquen un bajo coste de mantenimiento económico y una alta
fiabilidad de uso, es decir sistemas resistentes, fáciles de reparar
o modificar y de bajo consumo.
6.3 Siempre que sea posible se aprovecharán los resultados
obtenidos por proyectos de visualización anteriores, evitando la
duplicidad, es decir, la realización de los mismos trabajos por dos
veces.
Principio 7: Transparencia científica
Toda visualización asistida por ordenador debe de ser
esencialmente transparente, es decir, contrastable por otros
investigadores o profesionales, ya que la validez, y por lo tanto el
alcance, de las conclusiones producidas por dicha visualización
dependerá en gran medida de la capacidad de otros para
confirmar o refutar los resultados obtenidos.
8.1 Deben fomentarse los programas de formación posgraduada
de alto nivel que potencien la formación y especialización de un
número suficiente de profesionales cualificados en esta materia.
8.2 Cuando las visualizaciones asistidas por ordenador tengan
como objetivo servir como instrumento de disfrute y
comprensión para el público en general el método de evaluación
mas apropiado será el de los estudios de público.
8.3 Cuando las visualizaciones asistidas por ordenador tengan
como objetivo servir como instrumento de investigación o
conservación del patrimonio arqueológico el método de
evaluación más apropiado será su prueba por parte de un
número lo suficientemente representativo de usuarios finales es
decir de los profesionales a los que este destinado el producto
final.
8.4 La calidad final de cualquier visualización asistida por
ordenador deberá medirse en función de la rigurosidad con la
que haya sido elaborada y no de la vistosidad de sus resultados.
El cumplimiento de todos los principios determinará que el
resultado final de una visualización asistida por ordenador pueda
ser considerado “de calidad”.
7.1 Es indudable que toda visualización asistida por ordenador
tiene un alto componente de investigación científica.
Consecuentemente para que los proyectos de arqueología virtual
caminen por la senda del rigor científico y académico se vuelve
indispensable la elaboración de bases documentales en las que
quede recogido y expresado con total transparencia todo el
proceso de trabajo desarrollado: objetivos, metodología, técnicas,
razonamientos, origen y características de las fuentes de la
investigación, resultados y conclusiones.
7.2 Sin menoscabo de la creación de las citadas bases
documentales es imprescindible promover la publicación de los
resultados de los proyectos de arqueología virtual en revistas,
libros, actas o cualesquiera medios editoriales, tanto científicos
como de divulgación científica, para conocimiento y consulta de
la comunidad científica internacional y de la sociedad en general.
7.3 La incorporación de metadatos y paradatos es crucial para
asegurar la transparencia científica de cualquier proyecto de
arqueología virtual. Los metadatos y paradatos deben ser claros,
concisos y fáciles de consultar pero al mismo tiempo deben
tratar de proporcionar la mayor cantidad de información posible.
La comunidad científica trabajará para lograr la normalización
internacional de dichos metadatos y paradatos.
7.4 En cualquier caso y en líneas generales el registro y
organización de toda la documentación concerniente a proyectos
de arqueología virtual estará basado en los “Principios para la
creación de archivos documentales de monumentos, conjuntos
arquitectónicos y sitios históricos y artísticos” aprobada por la
11ª asamblea General del ICOMOS en 1996.
7.5 En aras de la transparencia científica se hace necesario crear
una gran base de datos accesible a nivel mundial con aquellos
proyectos que posean unos niveles de calidad óptimos (art 8.4),
37
Bibliografía
BEACHAM, R., DENARD, H., NICCOLUCCI, F. (2006): “An Introduction to the London Charter”, en The E-volution of ICTechnology in
Cultural Heritage, Papers from the Joint Event CIPA/VAST/EG/EuroMed Event.
LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M. (2011): “Propuesta para profundizar en la carta de Londres y mejorar su aplicabilidad en el campo del patrimonio
arqueológico”, en Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), vol. 2 nº 4, pp. 65-69.
LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M., GRANDE, A. (2011): “Hacia una carta internacional de arqueología virtual. El borrador SEAV”, en Virtual
Archaeology Review (VAR), vol. 2 nº 4, pp. 71-75.
LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M., GRANDE, A. (2011): “The Principles of the Seville Charter”, en: Proceedings XXIIIrd International CIPA
Symposium, Prague, Czech Republic, September 12-16.
LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M., GRANDE, A. (2011): “The implementation of an international charter in the field of virtual archaeology”, en
Proceedings XXIIIrd International CIPA Symposium, Prague, Czech Republic, September 12-16.

III Congreso Internacional de Arqueología e Informática Gráfica

Transcription

Similar documents

Descarga - Inicio

programa - Cuba Arqueológica

Dibujos de Eduardo Arroyo Fotografía de Michal Novak

circulando

Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic Church Sanctuary of St. Toribio Romo

descargar programa 29 de enero

abstracts booklet - CFCUL

paisajes de la modernidad en la provincia de buenos aires

Crack Rodriguez © WORK SELECTION 2009-2015

Untitled - viii salón internacional de humor gráfico