3D ARCHAEOLOGY

Transcription

3D ARCHAEOLOGY

3D ARCHAEOLOGY
New Perspectives and Challenges—The Example
of Çatalhöyük
A B ST R A C T
The project “3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük” started in 2009 as
an on-site digital experiment to record every phase of an
archaeological excavation in 3D, using different technologies such as laser scanning, computer vision, and photogrammetry. The end goal was to make the excavation
process virtually reversible in a simulated environment
from laptop computers to virtual immersive systems. In
addition, the project has introduced 3D stereo visualization systems on-site for real-time analysis and with the
advent of tablet PCs, all documentation switched to a
completely digital format. The use of 3D technologies for
teaching and research as well as the post-processing and
implementation of data generate a new digital workflow
for archaeological interpretation.
Digital documentation in archaeology includes applications for data capture, virtual reconstruction,
and visual communication (Forte 2010; 2012; Forte
and Kurillo 2010; Forte and Siliotti 1997). In the last
decade, the use of digital technologies, such as GIS
JOURNAL OF EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY
AND HERITAGE STUDIES, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 2014
Copyright © 2014 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
JEMAHS 2.1_01_Forte.indd 1
Maurizio Forte
mapping, 3D modeling, remote sensing applications,
and digital photogrammetry at archaeological sites has
grown exponentially for different purposes. A revolutionary approach in archaeological documentation
(on- and off-site) has been the generation of 3D models
by overlapping a sequence of high-resolution digital
photos taken by uncalibrated cameras (Forte 2012).
The relevant increase of digital resolution in singlelens reflex (SLR) cameras (15–20 megapixels) has also
allowed for better results in terms of 3D accuracy,
performance, and speed of data processing. In fact,
the application of entry-level intra-site 3D technologies has encouraged archaeologists to consider 3D not
just an “expensive”option, but a very affordable one
for the production of maps, sections, profiles, and
volumetric analyses with a high level of accuracy. For
example, our tests at Çatalhöyük have demonstrated
that a 3D model of a Neolithic house (25 m2) generated
in Agisoft’s PhotoScan has the accuracy of about 4–5
mm (Forte 2012).
In general, the use of 3D laser scanning and 3D technologies on archaeological excavations is not unusual
as demonstrated by several international projects and
case studies generally categorized in the domain of 3D
archaeology, 3D excavations (Barceló et al. 2003; Barceló
and Vicente 2004; De Felice, Silbano and Volpe 2008;
Doneus, Neubauer and Studnicka 2003; Doneus and
Neubauer 2006; Sanders 2011), 3D reconstructions and
04/02/14 1:59 AM
2 | 3D ARCHAEOLOGY
simulations (Benko, Ishak and Feiner 2004; Earl 2007;
Levy et al. 2010; Petrovic et al. 2011; Sangregio, Stanco
and Tanasi 2008), 3D web, and 2.5D GIS (Katsianis et al.
2008; Tsioukas and Patias 2003). This relatively intense
use of 3D technologies, however, has had different goals
and objectives, mostly focused on visual and static representation of sites and artifacts rather than scientific
and perceptual analyses of models. Sometimes, the side
effect of 3D modeling in archaeology is the achievement of cosmetic or purely visual results that are not
adequately supported by advanced research questions
or a strong interaction with the models. Therefore, the
models are not really used for a high-resolution spatial
reconstruction of archaeological stratigraphy, but for a
more general presentation and contextualization of sites
and monuments.
Actually, the interpretation of this kind of digital
asset should come from user feedback, data observation,
and the interaction of “bottom-up”(acquisition) and
“top-down”(interpretation) activities. In the “bottomup”phase, several kinds of data collection and mapping
are included. In the “top-down”phase, archaeologists
use data classification and scientific analyses to start to
interpret and contextualize information (Forte forthcoming). Interaction between the two processes is necessary for generating new knowledge, that is, a new
digital hermeneutic cycle. In fact it is very important to
overlap and integrate both processes in the same simulation context (e.g., an excavation plan [either in 2D or
3D] of a building with its hypothetical reconstruction).
In short, “bottom-up”and “top-down”processes should
have a bidirectional (reciprocal) relation (Forte 2010).
These digital hermeneutics, which incorporate “topdown”and “bottom-up”processes in a completely digital workflow, are able to create new knowledge in the
domain of cyberarchaeology (Forte 2010; forthcoming).
Cyberarchaeology embodies multiple interpretations
through virtual simulations, embedding real-empirical
and digital-virtual data. The interpretation, therefore,
should be the product of digital mediated tools (virtual models) and empirical data (observation) (Forte
forthcoming).
The main difference between new archaeology and
past archaeology is that the process is completely
digital, open, and interactive with increasing amounts of
information produced in a very short time. For example,
at Çatalhöyük during the 2012 fieldwork season, singleantenna ground-penetrating radar (at 500 MHz) was
able to collect 54 GB of data in three working days.
A laser scanner (Faro Focus3D 120) was able to collect up
to 976,000 points per second, totaling hundreds of millions of points. All of these data are immediately available for 3D interaction, collaborative work, and/or 3D
immersion. This allows the archaeologist to have on-site
an empirical and mediated experience simultaneously
(e.g., observing a stratigraphic sequence [empirical data]
and also its digital simulation [mediated experience]).
Thus, cyberarchaeology is able to study unexplored synchronic and diachronic relations in depositional and
post-depositional contexts.
Visualizing Çatalhöyük
Çatalhöyük is a Neolithic site located in Central Anatolia
and is considered to be one of the first “cities”in the
world (Fig. 1). Excavated by J. Mellart in the 1950s–1960s
and then by I. Hodder in the 1980s, it has been a special
place for the introduction and experimentation of new
methodologies and theoretical approaches such as
multivocality, post-processualism, and, more recently,
cyberarchaeology and new media (Hodder 1989; 1990;
2005a–b; 2006; 2007).
The site, dating from 7400–6000 BCE, is made up of two
mounds: Çatalhöyük East and Çatalhöyük West (Fig. 2).
Çatalhöyük East consists of 21 m of Neolithic deposits. Çatalhöyük West is almost exclusively Chalcolithic
(6000–5500 BCE), is located in a different position, and
shows evident social-cultural changes in the settlement
and the territory’s organization. The mounds span 2,000
years and show an impressive urban continuity though
time where the house is the social-cultural-urban pattern
of the system: ritual, domestic, and symbolic space at the
same time.
When Mellaart discovered Çatalhöyük in the late
1950s, it was considered the largest known Neolithic
site in the Near East at that time (Mellaart 1967).
Important events such as the domestication of plants,
04/02/14 1:59 AM
JOURNAL OF EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE STUDIES | 3
FIG. 1
Excavations at
Çatalhöyük on the
East Mound at the
South Shelter during
the 2012 field
season. (Image from
the 3D-Digging at
Çatalhöyük Project.)
FIG. 2
Map of Çatalhöyük,
showing the West
and East Mounds.
(Map from the
3D-Digging
at Çatalhöyük
Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
4 | 3D ARCHAEOLOGY
the invention of pottery in connection with the large
size and dense occupation of the settlement, as well
as the spectacular wall paintings and other art forms
uncovered inside the houses, make Çatalhöyük critical
to the study of human sedentarization. Despite several
decades of study and excavation, the diachronic urban
development of the site remains controversial, requiring more studies and analyses of the landscape and the
symbolic, ritual, and social uses of the buildings. Due
to its importance, Çatalhöyük became a UNESCO World
Heritage site in 2012.
From the beginning of the use of computer graphics and 3D modeling in archaeology, Çatalhöyük
attracted the attention of archaeologists interested
in the application of digital technologies. In 1994
the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie
in Karlsruhe, Germany, made the first 3D graphic
reconstruction of a typical Neolithic house on the site
(Forte and Siliotti 1997). More recently, R. Tringham
and a University of California, Berkeley team made
a virtual reconstruction of the entire site in Second
Life, with the intent of using the purely virtual Okapi
Island as a social network for teaching and telling the
story of Çatalhöyük (Morgan 2009; Tringham and
Stevanovic 2012).1 The same team has also recently
published in digital format the Berkeley Archaeology
at Çatalhöyük (BACH) project final report.2 Finally, at
the 2013 Society for American Archaeology conference
in Honolulu in 2013, a new computer graphics video
was presented at the poster session “Archaeology and
CGI: The Shrine of the Hunters at Çatalhöyük”made by
Artasmedia.3
These examples are evidence of the visual power
of Çatalhöyük and its importance as a case study for
new media, computer graphic reconstructions, and
virtual archaeology. The combination of different factors such as early urbanism, architectural modeling,
rituals, wall paintings, and the overall uniqueness of
the site have captivated several media makers, visual
artists, and digital archaeologists. The need to visually re-imagine the past of Çatalhöyük is a way to make
several pieces of a complicated puzzle evocative and to
re-analyze the site in terms of dynamic activities and
social contexts.
The 3D-Digging Project
The 3D-Digging Project started at Çatalhöyük in
2009 with the intent of digitally recording in 3D all
the stratigraphy in specific areas using an integrated
approach (different devices and technologies) in order
to virtually reconstruct the data on 3D desktop and
virtual reality systems. 3D documentation is not yet
standard in archaeology, but it can change the hermeneutic outcome of an excavation since it is able to
create new interpretations and thus yield new research
questions.
The first experiment of 3D recording of ritual figurines
by optical scanner (the NextEngine) started in 2009. The
models were originally recorded in a semi-automatic way
by the scanner, then optimized in MeshLab, and finally
printed in 3D (Figs. 3–4). In this preliminary phase, the
project aimed at the comparison and study of different
kinds of laser scanners (based on different technologies
and settings) in order to understand their performance
in relation to the project goals (Table 1).
The first questions/issues arising from this analysis
were mainly focused on the level of accuracy and scale of
representation for the models. Optical and time-of-flight
scanners in fact have different performance and technical features. The optical ones work in a range of microns
(e.g., the Minolta at about 300,000 points per second),
time-of-flights in a range of mm/cm. What kind of accuracy is required for stratigraphy, an artifact, a building,
or a site? The question is not trivial since there is a fine
line between representation and what something actually is. How much information are we looking for in a
model and at what scale? How can 3D models improve
interpretation?
The strategy of the 3D-Digging Project was to comparatively test the optical, time-of-flight, and phaseshift scanners in order to understand their performance
and accuracy in relation to the archaeological data
(Table 1). For example, details of the stratigraphic surface or micro-morphologies are not visible with the
naked eye or by other means. For stratigraphy, we tested
the Minolta 910 (optical), Trimble GX (time of flight),
Trimble FX (phase shift), and Faro Focus3D 120 (phase
shift).
04/02/14 1:59 AM
FIG. 3
3D-printed artifacts
from Çatalhöyük that
were reproduced from
optical scans. (Image
from the 3D-Digging at
FIG. 4
A ritual figurine from
its virtual recreation to
its 3D printing. (Image
04/02/14 1:59 AM
6 | 3D ARCHAEOLOGY
TA B L E 1 C O M PA R AT I V E D ATA F O R T H E D I F F E R E N T L A S E R S C A N N E R S U S E D AT Ç ATA L H Ö Y Ü K
Laser Scanner
Scan Range (Depth of Field)
Accuracy
Field of View
Scanning Speed
Faro Focus3D 120
(Phase Shift)
0.6 m–120 m to 90%
reflective surface
0.6 mm at 10 m
0.95 mm at 25 m
360° by 305°
up to 976,000 points
per second
NextEngine
(Optical)
0.50 m
Macro ModeA: ±0.127 mm
Wide ModeB: ±0.381 mm
Macro ModeA: 129.54 by 96.52 mm
Wide ModeB: 342.9 by 256.54 mm
50,000 points per second
Minolta 910
(Optical)
0.6–2.5 m
X-Axis: ±0.22 mm
Y-Axis: ±0.16 mm
Z-AxisC: ±0.10 mm
Tele Lens: 111 by 84 mm at 0.6 m;
460 mm by 350 mm at 2.5 m
Middle Lens: 196 by 153 mm at
0.6 m; 830 by 622 mm at 2.5 m
Wide Lens: 355 by 266 mm at 0.6 m;
1200 by 903 mm at 2 m
Trimble FX (Phase
Shift)
1-pass: up to 60 m to 50%
reflective surface
1-pass: 35 m to 30%
reflective surface
2-pass: up to 80 m to 50%
reflective surface
2-pass: 45 m to 30%
reflective surface
0.4 mm at 11 m
0.8 mm at 21 m
2 mm at 50 m
360° by 270°
Trimble GX (Time
of Flight)
350 m to 90% reflective
surface
surface
surface
Position = 12 mm @100 m
Distance = 7 mm @ 100 m
360° by 60°
up to 5,000 points
per second
A
Macro Mode is the size of a soda can.
B
Wide Mode is the size of a shoebox.
B
Z is the distance from the sensor.
In 2010 the first experiment was undertaken with the
Minolta 910 for recording all the excavation layers in a
midden area (Fig. 5). Middens are accumulations of rubbish outside living areas and can indicate social/collective
activities of varying purposes (construction, dedicated
place for rubbish, etc.). The initial idea was to use an
optical-triangulation scanner, such as the Minolta 910,
for stratigraphy in order to better visualize and study the
micro-layers (Shillito et al. 2011).
During the 2010 field season, 37 layers (Units 19100–
19137) in a midden area identifiable as an open space containing the East Mound, Building 86, and Spaces 329, 344,
and 445, were excavated, digitally recorded by optical
scanner, and georeferenced with 2D plans. In addition,
the main artifacts were georecorded using XYZ coordinates in order to insert them into 3D images exactly
where they were found.
The 3D visualization of this area by optical laser scanning has allowed for a very detailed characterization of the
layers’ surfaces (Figs. 6–8). In Fig. 7 several micro-traces
and micro-morphologies are visible on top of each stratum. The side effect of this augmented visual information
on the stratigraphy is that the scratches of archaeological trowels are visible, which partially compromises the
identification of micro-morphologies belonging to the
Neolithic context. Nevertheless, there is a substantial
increase in the visual information for stratigraphic interpretation because of the accuracy of the data recording.
In terms of general usability, the Minolta 910 had a
lot of issues working outdoors due to sunlight and the
limited field of view. This resulted in very slow sessions
of data capturing and lengthy post-processing due to the
segmentation of the models and data occlusion. Thus, in
2011 we opted for an integrated system able to dramatically shorten post-processing and allow for a daily 3D
reconstruction of all the excavation phases (Forte 2012).
Indeed, timing is crucial factor when discussing the daily
strategy for excavation.
04/02/14 1:59 AM
FIG. 5
The University of California, Merced team excavating a midden area during the 2010 field season. (Image
from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
FIG. 6
A 3D visualization of stratigraphic layers in a midden area as recorded by an optical scanner during the 2010 field season.
(Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
8 | 3D ARCHAEOLOGY
FIG. 7
Another 3D visualization of stratigraphic layers in a midden area as recorded by optical scanner during the 2010
field season. (Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
FIG. 8
Another 3D visualization of stratigraphic layers in a midden area as recorded by optical scanner during the 2010
field season. (Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
In 2011, we adopted two systems that worked
simultaneously for data recording: a new phase-shift
scanner (the Trimble FX) and a combination of camerabased software for computer vision and image modeling (PhotoScan, Agisoft’s StereoScan, and MeshLab, an
open-source software designed by the Istituto di Scienza
e Tecnologie dell’Informazione, Consiglio Nazionale
delle Ricerche). The Trimble FX is able to generate
216,000 points per second with a 360° by 270° field of view.
It is a very fast and effective scanner with the capacity to
generate meshes during data recording to save time in
post-processing (Fig. 9). The strategy in the documentation process was to simultaneously record all the layers/
units in sequence of excavation using laser scanning and
computer vision. Every session of data capturing was
very quick and effective— about 15–20 minutes for computer vision, laser scanning, and drawing by PC tablet.
At the end of the season, we generated eight different models for the phases of excavation by computer
vision (3D camera image modeling, Figs. 9–10) and by
laser scanning (Figs. 11–15). All 3D models were available
on a daily basis for interactive visualization and spatial
analysis. Table 2 shows the principal features and differences between the two systems. Laser scanning requires
longer post-processing, but produces higher quality data.
Computer vision allows for immediate results and the ability to follow the day-by-day excavation process in 3D, but
not with the same geometric precision of the laser scanner.
FIG. 9
The stratigraphy of B89 stratigraphy as recorded by the Trimble FX phase-shift scanner. (Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
10 | 3 D A R C H A E O L O G Y
F I G . 10
A team member takes digital photos of B89 for reconstructing the area in PhotoScan. (Image from the 3D-Digging at
F I G . 11
Different phases of excavation of B89 as generated by PhotoScan. (Image rendered by N. Lecari. Courtesy of the 3D-Digging at
04/02/14 1:59 AM
FIG. 12
Team members record
B89 with a laser scanner
and digital camera. (Image
F I G . 13
A point-cloud visualization
of B77, created from laser
scans. (Image from the
3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük
Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
FIG. 14
A 3D model of B77
after meshing and
post-processing.
(Image from
the 3D-Digging
at Çatalhöyük
Project.)
F I G . 15
Another view of
the 3D model
of B77 after
meshing and
post-processing.
(Image from
the 3D-Digging
at Çatalhöyük
Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
TA B L E 2 C O M PA R I S O N B E T W E E N L A S E R S C A N N I N G A N D C O M P U T E R V I S I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S
3-5
Time-of-Flight Scanner
Computer Vision
T
in a range of millions of points
Accuracy of 5 mm (Depending on Photos and Alignments)
Accuracy of 1 T
mm (Controlled by Hardware)
Slow Post-Processing (Manual)
Fast Processing (Mainly Based on Computing Power; Limited Human
Involvement)
Separate Texture Mapping
Semi-Automatic Texture Processing
Complex 3D Presentation
Simple 3D Presentation
Large-Scale Data Capture
Micro-Scale Data Capture
Manual Registration or by Targets
Automatic Registration
Radical Decimation
Moderate Decimation
Operates in Any Environment
Limited by Environment, especially Light (Camera Processing)
Ideal Applications: Monuments & Structures
Ideal Applications: Excavation & Stratigraphy
The digital workflow for computer vision processing
is: (1) aligning the photos; (2) constructing the geometry (i.e., meshes); and (3) texturing and generating the
orthophoto. The accuracy of computer vision measured
in the 2011 models was around 5 mm. The use of georeferenced targets on-site was implemented for the automatic georeferencing of 3D models with the excavation
grid. As a result, the 3D information recorded during the
excavation was perfectly oriented and integrated with all
of the 2D maps, GIS layers, and archaeological data. The
post-processing work was very quick when generating
point clouds (laser scanning, using targets) and 3D models (computer vision). Thus, the models recorded with
the above-mentioned technologies were ready for 3D
visualization a few hours after data capture. The speed
of this process allowed for daily discussions about the
interpretation of stratigraphy and the 3D spatial relations between layers, structures, and phases of excavation. Digital data recording and processing by computer
vision was entirely managed by students, while laser
scanning required more advanced skills (in our case,
the field laser scanning assistant is a post-doctoral
researcher).
In addition, the excavation of an entire building (B89)
permitted testing of the system in a single context to
produce a 3D multilayered model of the stratigraphy of
the entire building. A drawback to this approach is the
interpolation of point clouds in geometric models: this
can only be done after the fieldwork, and requires intensive and longer lab sessions.
Excavation of the Neolithic house is an ideal case
study for testing 3D data recording and puzzling for
a multi-stratigraphic context since it is possible to
visualize and investigate post-depositional and depositional phases related to the life and abandonment of
a building. Moreover, B89 is quite a big house that is
well preserved with a very interesting stratigraphy (see
Fig. 9).
The current workflow allows every team to independently manage almost all phases of digital data recording on-site and to interpret the data directly in the
lab at the end of each day, using computer vision, 3D
sketching, and 3D visualization. The software used for
3D modeling is MeshLab, PhotoScan, and Autodesk’s
3D Studio Max; and for 2D mapping, Esri’s ArcGIS,
QGIS, OpenJump, and Autodesk’s AutoCAD and
MeshMixer. For 3D modeling, PhotoScan was used for
data recording, and MeshLab and 3D Studio Max for
3D post-processing, editing, and computer graphic rendering at different level of visualization. Moreover, the
use and distribution of open source software, such as
MeshLab and QGIS, was also aimed at the involvement
and training of a large number of students with excellent results.
After three years of fieldwork, the digital workflow
has become robust and consistent. Computer vision
04/02/14 1:59 AM
is undoubtedly the most effective, user friendly, and
robust technique in intra-site contexts. The use of standard digital cameras (from 8 to 24 megapixels) and the
very low cost or use of open source software (PhotoScan,
MeshLab, and QGIS) makes the setup very portable and
usable for sharing the same technologies. At Çatalhöyük
computer vision has been typically used at intra-site level
for data recording of buildings, layers, units, features,
and burials, while laser scanning has also been employed
on an inter-site scale (North Shelter, South Shelter, and
East Mound).
The 2012 field season involved different scales of
data recording: artifacts by optical scanner (accuracy:
microns); stratigraphic units by computer vision (accuracy: 0.5–1 cm); buildings and features by phase-shift
scanning (accuracy: 3–5 mm); and large-scale models of
the North and South Shelters by phase-shift scanners
(0.5 cm).
The systematic use of computer vision and 2D photogrammetry for data recording of burials was extremely
successful for the osteology team (Fig. 16). It was possible to reconstruct complicated sequences of multiple
burials under a house floor and in skull retrieval pits
(Knusel et al. 2013). 3D data recording and visualization revealed hidden connections among the skeletons,
which were not visible in 2D maps. In 2012 21 burials
were recorded and reconstructed in 3D with the related
2D drawing of skeletons and other features. The digital
workflow for burials involves computer vision for the
generation of 3D models, 2D and 3D georectification, 2D
drawing of burials in CAD (LibreCAD), and finally their
implementation in ArcGIS as digital maps (raster-vector)
and 3D models (3ds).
For B89, 3D data recording followed the procedure for
a single-context excavation: every 3D model was generated in relation to the identification and classification
of stratigraphic units. Finally, all 3D models of B89 were
aligned and georeferenced (for a total of 25 phases in
2011–2012) in MeshLab and ArcGIS.
Tablet PC and Digital Drawing
The first experimental phase of digital drawing started in
B89 with the integration of a tablet PC, a digital camera
equipped with a wireless sim card, and related software
of raster rectification, GIS and CAD drawing (Fig. 17). The
F I G . 16
A 3D reconstruction of a burial by PhotoScan. (Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalöyük Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
goal was to implement a digital georeferenced drawing
on site. The digital workflow consisted of:
t The target area (usually a unit or feature) is
photographed with a camera installed on a
monopod so that it is almost perpendicular to the
ground. Most often, the tablet PC camera is used
for this, which allows for quick digital recording.
t While the operator starts to photograph, the tablet
PC downloads the pictures wirelessly in real time
(unless the tablet PC itself is used for the photo).
t The pictures are imported into RectifierSoft’s
Perspective Rectifier or QGIS and georeferenced with
four control points according to the excavation grid.
t The software generates a TIFF or PNG picture
linked with a DXF file.
t The DXF file is then exported into LibreCAD or
QGIS for drawing and tracing.
t The final output is a raster and vector overlay
georeferenced in ArcGIS or other GIS software.
In the case of large-size structures, such as a house
or a wide unit, an effective alternative could be the
generation of orthophotos by PhotoScan, PhotoScan
Pro, or Perspective Rectifier. Next, the orthophotos are
imported into LibreCAD to be drawn by units and layers.
The orthophotos produced by PhotoScan Pro can be georeferenced with markers and control points using local or
geographic coordinates.
The use of a tablet PC for motion computing at
Çatalhöyük in 2012 was very successful. The tablet was
able to download pictures in real time from the camera
F I G . 17
A tablet PC with 3D visualization of B89. (Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
and export them into Perspective Rectifier and LibreCAD
for rectification, georeferencing, and drawing. In addition, the tablet had its own internal camera for taking
snapshots during the excavation so that it was possible
to make comments on overlays, drawings in LibreCAD,
and sketches in 3D with Adobe Acrobat Pro.
During the 2012 season, the areas of excavation for
the North and South Shelters were digitally recorded by
35–40 scans each, totaling over 350 million points for
point clouds. The density of the clouds was so high that
in a large-scale visualization, it was almost impossible to
distinguish the points, facilitating the interpretation of
the models (Fig. 18).
The experiment of daily sketching was also introduced for some excavation trenches (B89 and B97).
The point was to have a daily 3D visual diary of the
excavation based not just on the identified units and
layers, but also on potential interpretations, comments, ideas, and discussions. 3D sketching started
on-site and continued in the lab after the generation
of 3D models made with computer vision. The digital
workflow consisted of: data capturing by image modeling and creation of 3D models of B89 at the end of
the day; exporting the models into PDF using Acrobat
Pro; and 3D sketching in the PDFs using overlays with
annotations, comments, audio comments, and outlines. Once created, the 3D PDF models are completely
interactive, editable, and visible in any computer with
a PDF reader. This portable format opens new avenues
for 3D data sharing and collaboration, and offers an
intermediate solution between data capture and final
interpretation.
F I G . 18
A 3D PDF of B89 as generated by PhotoScan. (Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
Stereo Visualization
The project involved the use of stereo pictures created
by 3D cameras and stereo projected by 3D models. The
combined use of stereo pictures and stereo models has
allowed for the visualization of 3D archaeological data
daily, stimulating debate on-site about possible interpretations of buildings, objects, and stratigraphy (Fig.
19). A stereo camera (the Fujitsu FinePix) was used
mostly for capturing general scenes of buildings, main
strata, and/or architectural details. The visualization of
stereo pictures offers an additional interesting perspective for fieldwork interpretation; for example, a visual
summary of the excavation at the end of a week or for
showing crucial phases of data recording. Moreover, 3D
stereo visualization of models was aimed at the spatial
integration of measurable data.
The last part of the work was the 3D stereo implementation of the models for the OgreMax viewer and Unity
3D player in order to display them in stereo projection.
For this purpose, we used a DLP projector (Acer H5360)
with the NVIDIA 3D Vision kit and a set of active stereo
glasses. During the excavation, B77 and B89 were selected
for stereo visualization in real time (walkthrough, flythrough, rotation, zooming, and panning).
Infrared Digital Cameras
Infrared cameras are typically used for identifying the
presence of water changes (moisture and humidity),
FIG. 19
Team members viewing stereo pictures and models on-site at Çatalhöyük during the 2012 field season. (Image from the
3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
thermal conductivity, and the thermal mass of building
material. The presence of water changes the thermal
conductivity and the thermal mass of building material.
The use of digital infrared cameras at Çatalhöyük was
attention-grabbing in relation to the analysis of wall
paintings, plaster, and mud bricks. In fact, materials
with different composition reflect the light in a different
way and absorb humidity differently. The experiment
focused on the east wall of B80 and a sampling of
stratigraphic units in B89 (19830, 19829). The infrared visualization of the wall painting of B80 is shown
in Fig. 20. The paintings and micro-layers of plaster
are better preserved in the coldest areas or where the
humidity is more concentrated.
Digital Evaluation Models (DEMs)
In the northern area of the East Mound, a high-resolution
DEM was created by laser scanning (Faro Focus3D 120)
in order to compare the micro-relief of the mound with
the geophysical survey. In this case, the laser scanner
recorded the ground surface in the same area of the
mound where geophysical prospections were processed
during the 2012 season.
F I G . 20
An infrared image from the east wall of B80. The red indicates areas of heat and blue indicates cold. (Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük
Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
The micro-topographic model generated by the scanner was able to identify and visualize some features/
segmentations of the terrain and ground contour levels
not visible to the naked eye. The DEM had originally
about 1 million of points (before interpolation) with a
resolution of 1 cm. Although the work is still in progress, hillshade and kriging interpolation shows several
orthogonal and square outlines that could be identifiable
as Neolithic houses.
The second step of the experiment was the superimposition of the DEM on georadar data. Several anomalies
of georadar prospection overlapped with several DEM
linear features (Fig. 21).
3D recording by large-scale laser scanners (both time
of flight and phase shift) also involved excavation areas
on the East Mound. The North and South Shelters are
shown in Figs. 22–25.
The Duke Immersive Visualization
Environment (DiVE)
The digital workflow established during the excavation was
able to generate a substantial amount of data in the form
of point clouds, 3D models, textures, and metadata, all
georeferenced in the same space. Interaction and use of 3D
models are crucial for data interpretation on-site, but also
during a simulation process in the lab. A quite complicated
issue is how to make the digital process completely reversible; that is, how can we browse layers, stratigraphy, and
Cut off the frame of this picture
F I G . 21
Image processing by S.Campana
Georadar processing of the East Mound with identification of possible Neolithic houses. (Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
FIG. 22
A laser scan-produced model of the
East Mound, showing the North
Shelter. (Image from the 3D-Digging
at Çatalhöyük Project.) Image processing
N. Lercari
FIG. 23
Another laser-scan produced
model of the East Mound, showing
the North Shelter. (Image from
the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük
Project.) Image processing
N.Lercari
04/02/14 1:59 AM
F I G . 24
A laser scan-model of the East Mound, showing the South Shelter.
Image
(Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
processing
N.Lercari
FIG. 25
3D registration of the point clouds for the East Mound, showing
the South Shelter. (Image from the 3D-Digging at Çatalhöyük Project.)
Image processing
N.Lercari
artifacts in a virtual reality system? How can an immersive embodiment be used for a virtual digging? During
the excavation, all data were processed and visualized in
MeshLab, which includes many tools for data processing,
meshing, merging, and visualization by layers. However, a
higher level of 3D processing was needed in order to better
study the 3D connections of models and layers.
With this in mind, all the models made by laser scanners and computer vision were optimized and implemented for the DiVE at Duke University. The DiVE is
a research and education facility dedicated to exploring techniques of immersion and interaction: it is the
fourth six-sided CAVE-like system in the United States
(Figs. 26–27). The DiVE is a 3 by 3 by 3-m stereoscopic
rear-projected room with head-and-hand tracking and
real-time computer graphics. All six surfaces—the four
walls, the ceiling, and the floor—are used as screens
onto which computer graphics are displayed. The DiVE
offers a fully immersive experience to the user, who literally walks into a virtual world. The user is surrounded by
the display and can interact with virtual objects: stereo
glasses provide depth perception and a handheld wand
controls navigation and virtual object manipulation. This
digital immersion increases the sense of presence for the
user in the virtual domain, fostering the identification
of points of interest and 3D connections otherwise nonvisible in the real world.
All of B89 was virtually reconstructed in the immersive
system, including the stratigraphic layers excavated from
2011 to 2012 (Fig. 28). The handheld wand controls navigation and allows for interaction with and browsing of
layers, models, and artifacts in 3D, using a 3D menu. The
tracking system is connected with the stereo glasses and
drives the visualization according to the head position of
the user. In this way, the virtual exploration augments
the sense of presence in the virtual environment. The
first tests inside the DiVE concerning the visualization
and interaction of the Neolithic house, B89, have been
quite successful: the six-sided CAVE rescales the virtual
building in a very realistic way, giving users an immersive sense of space and the feeling of being in the middle
of an excavation “pod.” The interaction with different
layers and stratigraphy “from inside” creates a specific
“archaeological” embodiment, where users can discuss
and see data/models transparently. In addition, B89
was also virtually reconstructed as it was assumed to be
originally— with plaster, a floor, decorations, a roof, and
interior architecture. The virtual reconstruction overlays
the structures of the building as they appear today, documented by laser scanning. Thus, it is possible to compare
04/02/14 1:59 AM
FIG. 26
A drawing of the
DiVE at Duke
University. (Image
Duke
courtesy of the
DiVE.)
University
FIG. 27
How the
teleimmersive
system at the DiVE
creates a virtual
3D environment.
(Image courtesy ofDuke
the DiVE.)
University
04/02/14 1:59 AM
the potential original physiognomy of the building with
the structures explored during the excavation.
Since the DiVE can host six to seven people simultaneously, it is possible to organize presentations for small
classes or research working groups. Indeed, we started
to schedule small groups and class discussions about
principles of archaeological stratigraphy, architectural
features of Neolithic houses, and depositional and postdepositional events in preparation of summer fieldwork.
Teleimmersive Archaeology
The DiVE represents possibly the highest level of simulation and full immersion for archaeological data and
models. Nevertheless, the simulation is possible in only
a small and very specific virtual environment without
any chance to work in a collaborative way or to involve
research teams working in other locations. Collaborative
virtual activities would open new perspectives on the
interpretation of archeological data, but also for a different kind of perception and evaluation of 3D models. In
other words, embodiment, enacting, and feedback generate a more complex interaction during the simulation
process because of the simultaneous involvement of
multiple users in cyberspace.
In 2011–2012 UC, Berkeley and UC, Merced developed a prototypal 3D virtual collaborative system:
Teleimmersive Archaeology (TeleArch). The visualization
and integration with TeleArch represents the final step
of the digital workflow, starting from the archaeological
fieldwork (data capturing), post-processing of models
F I G . 28
An immersive session at the DiVE, recreating B89. (Image courtesy of the DiVE.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
(meshing of point clouds), and digitalization of drawings
and outlines to a GIS format. The primary goal of this collaborative framework is to facilitate immersive real-time
interaction among distributed users.
The proposed system for teleimmersive archaeology has
been developed on the OpenGL-based open-source Vrui
VR Toolkit, developed by Kreylos at UC, Davis (Kreylos
2008). The Vrui Tookit can host diverse kinds of applications from laptop computers to large-scale immersive 3D
display systems, such as life-size display walls and CAVE
systems (Forte and Kurillo 2010; Kurillo and Forte 2012).
The collaborative extension of Vrui allows for the linking
of two or more spatially distributed virtual environments:
the collaboration data stream transmits the location of
input devices and virtual cameras to all other clients. The
conversation data stream provides communication via
audio, video, or 3D video conferencing and allows geographically distributed users to navigate in the environment and
interact with objects and other users (Figs. 29–31).
This immersive collaborative experience can be pursued in first-person (the human avatar) or third-person
perspective and is able to observe the location of other
users throughout their virtual participation. If a 3D
capturing system is available, the real-time 3D avatar
appears at their current virtual location. As the remote
user moves through the space, his/her 3D avatar travels
accordingly through the scene as part of the model space.
If the user has only a webcam, 2D video will appear at
their location as a billboard (flat) object to allow some
level of visual interaction with other users. The users
who have no video acquisition system can still connect
and interact in the shared environment while their virtual location is represented by a generic 3D object/avatar.
At any time, individual users can also switch to the
other user’s point of view or select face-to-face mode
for direct conversation. The framework features various
tools for navigation and interaction which can be linked
to a wide range of input devices. Inside the environment,
a user can dynamically assign the tools to different buttons of the mouse or other input device.
The regeneration and simulation of 3D models in a
cross-data platform can stimulate new interpretations
and assist researchers in validating previous studies
(Fig. 32). In archaeology this stage of work is crucial since
during excavation a relevant amount of information is
removed or destroyed.
Currently, the system is able to work with Kinect cameras, very portable devices typically used for 3D games
T
FIG. 29
A visualization of B77
created by TeleArch. The
user can interact with
the various layers and
artifacts in the Neolithic
house. (Image courtesy of
TeleArch.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
FIG. 30
created by TeleArch,
reconstructed from
laser scan data and
GIS in transparency.
(Image courtesy of
TeleArch.)
FIG. 31
created by TeleArch,
showing the 3D tools
and various layers.
(Image courtesy of
TeleArch.)
04/02/14 1:59 AM
FIG. 32
A preliminary virtual reconstruction of B89, created by a Duke University
student. (Image by R. Lai. Courtesy of Duke
the DiVE.)University
and compatible with 3D TVs. The long-term plan is to
offer TeleArch software under an open-source license
to be freely available on the web to users or developers,
either for standalone or collaborative use.
In the case of Çatalhöyük the collaborative experiment was focused on the B77 (North Shelter), a Neolithic
house excavated in the last four years (Kurillo and Forte
2012). The virtual collaboration has involved a 3D model
of the building produced by laser scanning with the
integration of all GIS layers, objects, finds, and databases
associated with its excavation. Different users/operators
browsing and interacting with such a complex simulation
of archaeological data in a collaborative system are able
to find 3D connections and affordances between layers,
artifacts, and ecofacts, otherwise not identifiable in situ.
An additional experiment on B77 was made with a
holographic screen, the Z-space system. The Z-space is a
portable device able to visualize 3D models in stereo with
full motion parallax and sensors tracking the viewing
angle, enabling the user to look around objects according
to multiple perspectives with simple head movements.
Interaction is possible with stereo glasses or a designed
stylus for managing direct and natural interactions with
virtually holographic images. In our case, we have implemented the model of this Neolithic house in Unity 3D in
order to make the model open to different kind of simulations and interactions (Fig. 33). The quality of stereo
visualization is very high and permits a deeper understanding of the excavation and its stratigraphic relations
(e.g., disassembling, puzzling, and re-assembling the
model). The system has great potential for research and
teaching since it can involve a small team of users during
the interaction process.
FIG. 33
The Z-space system with a
reconstruction of Neolithic house
B77. (Image courtesy Z-space
of the DiVE.)
Inc.
04/02/14 1:59 AM
Conclusions
The 3D-Digging Project has demonstrated that it is
possible to integrate different tools and methods during
excavation, achieving important results in terms of standardization, information quality, virtual interaction, and
reliability of the digital workflow. The involvement of
different technologies working simultaneously on site
does not slow archaeological excavation or any other
related activity. The use of laser scanners, total station
(for control points), and computer vision sessions usually
takes 15–20 minutes for data capture or digitally drawing on the tablet PC. All of these activities are managed
mostly by students with the supervision of digital field
assistants or the director of the excavation. The excavation is almost completely paperless and all data are
georeferenced in 2D and 3D, including spatial data from
computer vision, laser scanning, and mapping (orthorectified pictures).
The “mediated experience” of digital documentation
devices (scanners, digital cameras, geophysical devices,
and tablets) is always assisted by an empirical observation of data on-site. Since the 3D models can be visualized and made ready in a very short time, the interaction
between empirical observation and mediated experiences
creates new forms of knowledge and interpretation. The
virtual replica of an archaeological excavation is not of
course a 1:1 copy of the physical domain, but it is a way
to increase the information available; edge detection,
shapes, features, lighting, shaders, image enhancement,
and related processing are able to give archaeologists a
different perspective and vision for empirical data and
potential interpretations. The core of this simulation/
reconstruction process is a new kind of interaction
between archaeologists and data ontologies. Empirical
observation, mediated experience, 3D models, 3D visualization, collaborative systems, and immersive realities
generate unexplored digital archaeological hermeneutics.
The entire workflow involves the following steps:
on-site data-capturing, post-processing, stereo visualization, 3D spatial georeferencing, GIS implementation,
immersive simulation, and teleimmersion. The on-site 3D
documentation system is very effective and the combination of laser scanning, image modeling, and computer
vision is able to produce on a daily basis high-resolution
models perfectly georeferenced with the excavation grid
and compatible with GIS. In addition, the use of tablet
PCs during the excavation of B89 actually completed
the transformation of all documentation into a digital
format.
The final destination of all these 3D models and data
is still a disputable issue. What to do with so much information? How can we save it for future use and development? In the near future new 3D repositories and
archives, and different forms of digital publications have
to be rethought for archaeology. In this domain, information will be much more condensed in models and databases rather than in written reports or linear systems
(books, e-books, etc.). Immersive reality might have an
important role in the development of more advanced
systems of interaction and study of archaeological data.
3D libraries might constitute the core data of future
archaeological research, replacing written reports and
traditional publications. The starting work of visualization and embodiment in CAVES (like the DiVE), where
users are completely surrounded by six-sided virtual projection, will show that when the user is surrounded and
immersed in a cybersystem, a different kind of knowledge can be achieved. In the specific case of the Neolithic
house of Çatalhöyük, floors, ceiling, walls, stratigraphy,
and all architectural elements surround the users, stimulating the human experience in a very articulated feedback and embodiment.
Notes
I would like to thank Trimble Navigation, Scott Haddow, Stefano
Campana, Gianfranco Morelli, and all of the students for their
dedication and efforts during the excavation and the 3D-Digging
MAURIZIO FORTE is the William and Sue Gross Professor of Classical Studies and professor of art, art history, and visual
studies at Duke University. He has coordinated archaeological fieldwork and research projects in Italy, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria,
Kazakhstan, Peru, China, Oman, India, Honduras, Turkey, the US, and Mexico. Since 2010, he has been the director of the
3D-Digging Project at Çatalhöyük.
04/02/14 1:59 AM
Project. Special thanks to Elisa Biancifiori, Francesca Paino,
and Matteo Pilati for their contributions to the success of the
project. Thanks to Fabrizio Galeazzi (UC, Merced) for the first
experiment of optical scanners (Minolta 910) on 3D stratigraphy;
Nicola Lercari (Duke University), who coordinated time-of-flight
laser scanning data recording; Rebecca Lai (Duke University) for
the virtual preliminary reconstruction of B89; Nicoló Dell’ Unto
(Lund University), who coordinated the computer vision and
shape from modeling. The teleimmersive archeology project was
supported by Center for Information Technology Research in
the Interest of Society (CITRIS) at the University of California,
Berkeley. I also acknowledge financial support from the the
National Science Foundation (Grant nos. 0703787 and 0724681).
I thank HP Labs and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space
Company for the implementation of the teleimmersion software,
and Ram Vasudevan and Edgar Lobaton (UC, Berkeley) for their
stereo reconstruction work. Finally, I thank Tony Bernardin and
Oliver Kreylos (UC, Davis) for the implementation of the 3D video
rendering.
1. For more information, go to: http://okapi.wordpress.com/
projects/okapi-island-in-second-life/
2. To explore the report, go to: http://www.codifi.info/
last-house-on-the-hill/
3. To view the video, go to: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=pAV8z6NesOA
References
Barceló, J. A., O. De Castro, D. Travet, and O. Vicente. 2003.
A 3D Model of an Archaeological Excavation. In The
Digital Heritage of Archaeology: Computer Applications and
Quantitative Methods in Archaeology; Proceedings of the
30th Conference, Heraklion, Crete, April 2002, ed. M. Doerr
and A. Sarris, 85–90. Athens: Archive of Monuments and
Publications, Hellenic Ministry of Culture.
Barceló, J. A., and O. Vicente. 2004. Some Problems in
Archaeological Excavation 3D Modelling. In Enter the Past:
The E-Way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage; CAA
2003—Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in
Archaeology; Proceedings of the 31st Conference, Vienna, Austria,
April 2003, ed. K. F. Ausserer, W. Borner, M. Goriany, and
L. Karlhuber-Vöckl, 400–404. BAR International Series 1227.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
Benko, H., E. W. Ishak, and S. Feiner. 2004. Collaborative Mixed
Reality Visualization of an Archaeological Excavation.
In ISMAR 2004: Procedings of the Third IEEE and ACM
International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality,
November 2–5, Arlington, VA, 132–40. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE
Computer Society.
De Felice, G., M. G. Sibilano, and G. Volpe, eds. 2008. L’ informatica
e il metodo della stratigrafia: atti del workshop, Foggia, 6–7
giugno 2008. Insulae Diomedeae 11. Bari: Edipuglia.
Doneus, M., W. Neubauer, and N. Studnicka. 2003. Digital
Recording of Stratigraphic Excavations. In Proceedings of the
XIXth International Symposium, CIPA 2003: New Perspectives
to Save Cultural Heritage, Antayla, Turkey, 30 September–04
October 2003, M. O. Altan, 451–56. Istanbul: CIPA.
Doneus, M., and W. Neubauer. 2006. Laser Scanners for
3D Documentation of Stratigraphic Excavations. In
Recording, Modeling and Visualization of Cultural Heritage,
ed. E. Baltsavias, A. Gruen, L. Van Gool, and M. Pateraki,
193–203. Balkema. London: Taylor & Francis.
Earl, G. P. 2007. De/Construction Sites: Romans and the Digital
Playground. In EVA London 2007: Proceedings of the Electronic
Visualisation and the Arts London 2007 Conference, Held
at the London College of Communication, University of the
Arts, London, 11–13 July 2007, ed. J. Bowen, S. Keene, and
L. MacDonald, 1–11. London: EVA Conferences International.
Forte, M., ed. 2010. Cyber-Archaeology. BAR International Series
2177. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Forte, M. Forthcoming. Cyberarchaeology: A Post-Virtual
Perspective. In Humanities and the Digital: A Visioning
Statement, ed. D. T. Goldberg and P. Svensson. Boston: MIT
Press.
Forte, M., and G. Kurillo. 2010. Cyber-Archaeology and Metaverse
Collaborative Systems. Metaverse Creativity 1 (1):7–19.
Forte, M., and A. Siliotti. 1997. Virtual Archaeology: Re-Creating
Ancient Worlds. Translated from Italian. New York: Abrams.
Forte, M., N. Dell’ Unto, J. Issavi, L. Onsurez, and N. Lercari.
2012. 3D Archaeology at Çatalhöyük. International Journal of
Heritage in the Digital Era 1:351–78.
Hodder, I. 1989. The Meanings of Things: Material Culture and
Symbolic Expression. One World Archaeology 6. London:
Unwin Hyman.
Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe: Structure and
Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Social Archaeology. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hodder, I. 2006. The Leopard’ s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of
Çatalhöyük. New York: Thames & Hudson.
Hodder, I., ed. 2005a. Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the
1995–99 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research Project 4; McDonald
Institute Monographs; British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara Monograph 38. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Hodder, I., ed. 2005b. Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük:
Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. Çatalhöyük Research
Project 5; McDonald Institute Monographs; British Institute
of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 39. London: British
Institute at Ankara.
Hodder, I., ed. 2007. Excavating Çatalhöyük: South, North and
KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. Çatalhöyük
Research Project 3; McDonald Institute Monographs;
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 37.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/
London: British Institute at Ankara.
Katsianis, M., S. Tsipidis, K. Kotsakis, and A. Kousoulakou. 2008.
A 3D Digital Workflow for Archaeological Intra-Site Research
Using GIS. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:655–67.
Kreylos, O. 2008. Environment-Independent VR Development. In
Advances in Visual Computing: 4th International Symposium,
04/02/14 1:59 AM
ISVC 2008, Las Vegas NV, December 1–3, 2008, ed. G. Bebis,
R. Boyle, B. Parvin, D. Koracin, P. Remagnino, F. Porikli,
J. Peters, J. Klosowski, L. Arns, Y. K. Chun, T.-M. Rhyne, and
L. Monroe, 901–12. Lectures Notes in Computer Science 5358.
Berlin: Springer.
Knusel, C. J., S. D. Haddow, J. W. Sadvari, N. Dell’ Unto, and
M. Forte. 2013. Bioarchaeology in 3D: Three-Dimensional
Modeling of Human Burials at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Poster
presented at the Society for American Archaeology 78th
Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Kurillo, G., and M. Forte. 2012. Telearch—Integrated Visual
Simulation Environment for Collaborative Virtual
Archaeology. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry
12:11–20.
Levy, T. E., V. Petrovic, T. Wypych, A. Gidding, K. Knabb,
D. Hernandez, N. G. Smith, J. P. Schulz, S. H. Savage,
F. Kuester, E. Ben-Yosef, C. Buitenhuys, C. J. Barrett,
M. Najjar, and T. DeFanti. 2010. On-Site Digital
Archaeology 3.0 and Cyber-Archaeology: Into the Future
of the Past—New Developments, Delivery and the
Creation of a Data Avalanche. In Cyber-Archaeology, ed.
M. Forte, 135–53. BAR International Series 2177. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Mellaart, J. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia.
London: Thames & Hudson.
Morgan, C. L. 2009. (Re)Building Çatalhöyük: Changing Virtual
Reality in Archaeology. Archaeologies 5:468–87.
Petrovic, V., A. Gidding, T. Wypych, F. Kuester, T. A. DeFanti, and
T. E. Levy. 2011. Dealing with Archaeology’ s Data Avalanche.
Computer 44 (7):56–60.
Sanders, D. H. 2011. Enabling Archaeological Hypothesis Testing
in Real Time Using the REVEAL Documentation and Display
System. Virtual Archaeology Review 2 (4):89–94.
Sangregorio, E., F. Stanco, and D. Tanasi. 2008. The Archeomatica
Project: Towards a New Application of the Computer
Graphics in Archaeology. In Proceedings of the 6th
Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference, Salerno, Italy, July
2nd–4th, 2008, ed. V. Scarano, R. De Chiara, and U. Erra. Airela-Ville: Eurographics Association.
Shillito L.-M., W. Matthews, M. J. Almond, and I. D. Bull. 2011.
The Microstratigraphy of Middens: Capturing Daily Routine
in Rubbish at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Antiquity
85:1024–38.
Tringham, R., and M. Stevanovic, eds. 2012. Last House on the Hill:
BACH Area Reports from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Monumenta
Archaeologica 27; Çatalhöyük Project 11. Los Angeles: Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology Press.
Tsioukas, V., and P. Patias. 2003. Low Cost 3D Visualization
and Measuring “Tool” in the Service of Archaeological
Excavations. In The Digital Heritage of Archaeology: Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology;
Proceedings of the 30th Conference, Heraklion, Crete, April
2002, ed. M. Doerr and A. Sarris, 119–24. Athens: Archive of
Monuments and Publications, Hellenic Ministry of Culture.
04/02/14 1:59 AM

3D ARCHAEOLOGY

Transcription

Similar documents

RESEA R C H UNC O VERED

jouranl 8 - Blue Valley Schools

mesoamerica - Stanford Continuing Studies

Artefact - University of Southampton

PRINCIPE FORTE DEI MARMI: A HYMN TO THE FIVE SENSES

Power, Steering Proxes R888 sticks to the track whilst you stick to

this PDF file

Everyday Value

Newsletter - Antiquity