Advertisement

Applied Geomatics

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 415–426 | Cite as

4-dimensional recording and visualization of urban archeological excavations

  • Gabriele Bitelli
  • Valentina Alena Girelli
  • Giorgia Sammarini
Original Paper
  • 75 Downloads

Abstract

The new geomatic techniques and technologies for surveying an archeological excavation are not limited to obtaining more accurate data or more precisely geo-referenced positions on a map, as they can lead to new approaches and, indeed, raise the concept of different dimensions relating to the handled information. The techniques on offer are now fully 3D and, even more interestingly, can also permit to handle temporal information, that is, the evolution of operations over time. This allows scholars and technicians to build and maintain a wealth of vital knowledge documenting what happens during an excavation. This is further true when these are in urban areas, often known as “emergency excavations” from their distinctive logistics and timing constraints. The aim of this paper is to present, in a practical context, some of the many capabilities of 3D surveying performed through digital photogrammetry based on multi-view structure-from-motion approach in the field of urban emergency archeology. The information that can be derived from exploring three-dimensional models allows us to interact with realities that no longer exist, with the possibility not merely of recording their memory, but also of further studies and insights, even after a long period of time. In addition, the excavation itself is documented as it evolves, thus allowing the main phases of the process to be reconstructed retrospectively. The study case examined covers a small necropolis discovered in Rimini (Italy) in 2015. The results and the 3D final products can be managed through Geographic Information System (GIS) tools and, therefore, can easily be interfaced and integrated with other types of information on a different scale.

Keywords

Rapid mapping 4D 3D modeling Emergency archeology SfM 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the company adArte snc, Rimini (Italy), who conducted the excavation, and Dr. Anna Bondini of the Archeology Superintendent of Emilia-Romagna region, who has realized its scientific direction.

References

  1. Bitelli G, Girelli VA, Remondino F, Vittuari L (2007) The potential of 3D techniques for cultural heritage object documentation. Proceedings of Videometrics IX - SPIE-IS&T Electronic Imaging, 6491, pp. 64910S1 - 64910S10.Google Scholar
  2. Bitelli G, Balletti C, Brumana R, Barazzetti L, D’Urso MG, Rinaudo F, Tucci G (2017) Metric Documentation of Cultural Heritage: Research Directions from the Italian GAMHer Project. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-2/W5:83–90.  https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XLII-2-W5-83-2017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiabrando F, Donadio E, Rinaudo F (2015) SfM for Orthophoto generation: a winning approach for cultural heritage knowledge. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XL-5/W7:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Reu J, Plets G, Verhoeven G, De Smedt P, Bats M, Cherrette B, De Maeyer W, Deconynck J, Herremans D, Laloo P, Van Meirvenne M, De Clercq W (2013) Towards a three-dimensional cost-effective registration of the archaeological heritage. J Archaeol Sci 40:1108–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dellepiane M, Dell'Unto N, Callieri M, Lindgren S, Scopigno R (2013) Archeological excavation monitoring using dense stereo matching techniques. J Cult Herit 14:201–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demetrescu E (2015) Archaeological stratigraphy as a formal language for virtual reconstruction. Theory and practice. J Archaeol Sci 57:42–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doneus M, Briese C, Fera M, Janner M (2008) Archaeological prospection of forested areas using full-waveform airborne laser scanning. J Archaeol Sci 35(4):882–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faugeras O, Luong Q-T (2004) The geometry of multiple images: the laws that govern the formation of multiple images of a scene and some of their applications. MIT press.Google Scholar
  9. Fernández-Hernandez J, González-Aguilera D, Rodríguez-Gonzálvez P, Mancera-Taboada J (2015) Image-based modelling from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry: an effective, low-cost tool for archaeological applications. Archaeometry 57(1):128–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galeazzi F, Moyes H, Aldenderfer M (2014) Defining best 3D practices in archaeology: comparing laser scanning and dense stereo matching techniques for 3D intra-site data recording. Adv Archaeol Pract 2(4):353–365.  https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.2.4.353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonizzi Barsanti S, Remondino F, Visintini D (2013) 3D surveying and modelling of archaeological sites – some critical issues -. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume II-5/W1, pp. 145–150.Google Scholar
  12. Guidi G, Russo M, Angheleddu D (2014) 3D survey and virtual reconstruction of archeological sites. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 1(2):55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartley R, Zisserman A (2003) Multiple view geometry in computer vision. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Howland MD, Jones IWN, Najjar M, Levy TE (2018) Quantifying the effects of erosion on archaeological sites with low-altitude aerial photography, structure from motion, and GIS: a case study from southern Jordan. J Archaeol Sci 90:62–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knusel CJ, Haddow SD, Sadvari JW, Dell'Unto N (2013) Bioarchaeology in 3D: employing three-dimensional Technology in the Field and in the lab. Am J Phys Anthropol 150:170–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koutsoudis A, Vidmar B, Ioannakis G, Arnaoutoglou F, Pavlidis G, Chamzas C (2015) Multi-image 3D reconstruction data evaluation. J Cult Herit 15(1):73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landeschi G (2018) Rethinking GIS, three-dimensionality and space perception in archaeology. World Archaeol.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.1463171
  18. Lerma JL, Navarro S, Cabrelles M, Villaverde V (2010) Terrestrial laser scanning and close range photogrammetry for 3D archaeological documentation: the upper Palaeolithic cave of Parpallo as a case study. J Archaeol Sci 37(3):499–507.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lo Brutto M, Sciortino R, Garraffa A (2017) RPAS and TLS techniques for archaeological survey: the case study or the archaeological site of Eraclea Minoa (Italy). Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-2/W3:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marchetti N, Angelini I, Artioli G, Benati G, Bitelli G, Curci A, Marfia G, Roccetti M (2017) NEARCHOS. Networked archaeological Open Science: advances in archaeology through field analytics and scientific community sharing. J Archaeol Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-017-9112-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patias P (2007) Cultural heritage documentation. In: Fryer J, Mitchell H, Chandler J (eds) Application of 3D Measurement from Images, vol 59. Whittles, Dunbeath, pp 225–257Google Scholar
  22. Patias P, Grussenmeyer P, Hanke K (2008) Applications in cultural heritage documentation. In: Li Z, Chen J, Baltsavias E (eds) Advances in Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. Taylor & Francis Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Remondino F, Del Pizzo S, Kersten TP, Troisi S (2012) Low-cost and open-source solutions for automated image orientation – a critical overview. Progress in cultural heritage preservation, proceedings of the 4th international conference, EuroMed 2012, Limassol, Cyprus, October 29–November 3, pp. 40–54, Springer ed.Google Scholar
  24. Remondino F, Spera MG, Nocerino E, Menna F, Nex F (2014) State of the art in high density image matching. Photogramm Rec 29(146):144–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Szeliski R (2010) Computer vision: algorithms and applications. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  26. Tucci G, Bonora V (2015) Geomatics and management of at-risk cultural heritage. Rend Fis Acc Lincei 26(Suppl 1):105.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-015-0427-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Verhoeven G (2011) Taking computer vision aloft - archaeological three-dimensional reconstructions from aerial photographs with PhotoScan. Archaeol Prospect 18:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Verhoeven G, Doneus M, Briese C, Vermeulen F (2012) Mapping by matching: a computer vision-based approach to fast and accurate Georeferencing of archaeological aerial photographs. J Archaeol Sci 39:2060–2070.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wenzel W, Rothermel M, Fritsch D, Haala N (2013) Image acquisition and model selection for multi-view stereo. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XL-5/W1:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fotogrammetria e Topografia (SIFET) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DICAM–Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials EngineeringUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.RiminiItaly

Personalised recommendations