Image-Based 3D-Documentation: Next level of Data Storage in Digital Archaeology

Report from Session #401 of the EAA Virtual Meeting 2020, 26 August 2020

Session Organisers: Marco Hostettler (marco.hostettler@iaw.unibe.ch), Clara Drummer, Lea Emmenegger, Johannes Reich, Corinne Stäheli

This session was organized in the scope of the EAA community for the application of 3D-technologies in Archaeology. It was designed as a follow-up to the session #201 “The 3 Dimensions of Archaeology” which took place at the annual meeting of 2019 in Bern.

This year’s session addresses the pressing questions of data-management and archiving posed by the vast quantities of data produced by using 3D-methods. It was originally planned as a round-table session to foster discussion; however, this could not be realized as planned due to the virtual format.

The session took place online and virtual on the platform hopin.to, and allowed live and pre-recorded presentations. Interaction was possible via chat as well as video- and audio-sharing for a limited number of participants. The session reached an audience of about 35-40 listeners.

The first presentation with the title “The Use of 3D Documentation in Broad-Context Studies of Architecture on the Example of Tetzcotzinco, Mexico” was presented by Daniel Prusaczyk and Karolina Juszczyk (both University of Warsaw). They informed about the methods of documentation, problems and possibilities of 3D modelling which they use in their project to document architecture in Tetzcotzinco, Mexico (15 cent.). Several methods were used to document the site in order to gain as much information as possible (drawing, photogrammetry and 3D laser scanning with a FARO Focus, GPS). The 3-dimensional documentation gave insights into different research questions such as the detection of differences in altitude, the flow of water and many more. Additionally, it helped to dramatically improve 2D-site maps and plans used in the field. Issues arose concerning data-management, because neither hard drive- nor cloud-storage facilitates solely advantages: While hard drives are easily destroyed, they are accessible no matter where they are used. It is thus recommended to find a viable solution for the purposes of research and its circumstances. For archiving and publishing a dual strategy was followed: High-resolution metric data of the studied site is archived by the Mexican monuments office while the presenters aim to publish lower-resolution models online and open access.

The second oral contribution was given by Maciej Sobczyk (University of Warsaw), Bartłomiej Ćmielewski (Wroclaw University of Science and Technology) and Sylwia Siemianowska (Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw) who talked about the use of 3D documentation in the studies of the Andean ceremonial landscape of the pre-Columbian oracle Apu Coropuna. The site Apu Coropuna was documented using a drone. The speaker informed about storage and processing strategies, the amount of data that was produced using Lidar and photogrammetry, and the software that was developed for data processing. The collected 3D data was used to generate both 2D and 3D visualisations. As a 2D output, digital elevation models were produced to be further processed in a GIS. For 3D data visualisation game engines such as Unreal or Unity were tested. To achieve easier data handling these visualisations were generated in different resolutions.

The last presentation before the first discussion slot was on a survey on the current use and application of 3D technology for archaeological and cultural heritage purposes by Anja Buhlke (freelancer), Clara Drummer (Kiel University), Lea Emmenegger (freelancer), Marco Hostettler, Johannes Reich and Corinne Stäheli (all three University of Bern). The survey included 87 interviews from 16 different mainly European countries. 3D technology is more and more spreading and often the only or at least a central documentation tool, mostly used for documentation of excavations. Agisoft Metashape is the most common software that is used. Archiving is mostly restricted to in-house, or to project members. Broadly missing are general guidelines and standards. The survey gave an insight into how image-based 3D technologies are currently applied in archaeology.

The first discussion focused on the problem that projects often have to rely on external hard drives for data storage since small financing leaves no option for server space. This leads to exchanging problems because in most cases only cloud servers are used for transferring data which is especially difficult for exchanging large data sets.

The following presentation “Balancing Data Storage and User Functionality: The 3D and Archaeological Data Strategy of the Tracing the Potter’s Wheel Project (TPW)” by Jill Hilditch, Loes Oppenhaffen and Caroline Jeffra, discussed a 5-year research project to identify and trace the innovation of the potter’s wheel. A major component was the creation of an open access digital archive for wheel traces. The speaker stated that 3D models should always be embedded within their context, rather than archived in isolation: in the TPW database each 3D model has an ID which is connected to the contextual data of the scanned object. They also discussed software differences between Sketchfab and 3DHOP for integrating 3D models within databases. A further question was how to create a sustainable, active repository, where other projects could contribute compatible datasets with 3D models to further the recognition of wheel use in ceramic assemblages.

The last presentation was given by Kate Fernie about “3D Content in Europeana: The Challenges of Providing Access”. Europeana has provided for 10 years and still provides access to some 3D content for 10 years delivered by CARARE and projects such as 3D ICONS and still provides access. But the bulk of the 50+ million items accessible in Europeana are images and text objects. Access to 3D online generally requires a player or publication in a format that can be written to the HTML5 canvas. This gives users an interactive experience with the ability to zoom into details and explore large structures inside and outside. One of the challenges in making 3D accessible online is the limited standardization in 3D production. There are a lot of formats and various players and services in use. Increasing standardization and the improving of the availability of metadata will help to make 3D-data accessible online.

The last discussion slot centred on the consumption of models, such as the potential to walk through an architectural 3D model. While applications such as Sketchfab and 3Dhop are more object oriented, another potential for interactivity may lie in game engines.

Another Question that arouse was: What is the first step to standardization and where should it come from? However, even though many would favour the establishment of guidelines, this remains an unsolved issue. What most agreed upon was that such guidelines would have to allow for individual adaptation.

The main aim of the session #401 was to focus on the discussion of different challenges of data storage and current approaches to solve the connected problems. The different speakers gave insights into a wide range of different contexts, from the management of massive datasets on the level of single sites or landscapes, to the organisation of specific research-oriented datasets as well as the problems of providing access to a public audience. Even though the talks focused on seemingly very different cases, some main challenges could be identified. These include the long-term storage and the handling of massive datasets. Further, how can these be best exchanged? Here, interoperability of data formats, soft- and hardware plays a crucial role. A second common topic was the visualisation and access to 3D data, both for public display as well as for professional access. Even though many options exist, there seems not to be a satisfactory solution yet. The third main challenge that arose was the lack of widely applied general guidelines, which could help to simplify interoperability.

Go back to top