Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …
Open Access

Open Archaeology

Editor-in-Chief: Harding, Anthony


Covered by:
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-6560
See all formats and pricing
Online
Open Access
*Prices in US$ apply to orders placed in the Americas only. Prices in GBP apply to orders placed in Great Britain only. Prices in € represent the retail prices valid in Germany (unless otherwise indicated). Prices are subject to change without notice. Prices do not include postage and handling if applicable. RRP: Recommended Retail Price.
More options …

Wonderful Things? A Consideration of 3D Modelling of Objects in Material Culture Research

Barry Molloy
  • Corresponding author
  • UCD School of Archaeology and UCD Centre for Experimental Archaeology and Material Culture, University College Dublin, Ireland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
 / Marina Milić
Published Online: 2018-04-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0006

Open Access

Download PDF

Abstract

The role of 3D modelling in archaeology is increasing exponentially, from fieldwork to architecture to material culture studies. For the study of archaeological objects the roles of digital and print models for public engagement has been much considered in recent literature. For model makers, focus has typically been placed on exceptional and visually striking objects with inherent appeal. In contrast, this paper explores some of the potential roles for 3D digital models for routine artefact research and publication. Particular emphasis is placed on the challenges this technology raises for archaeological theory and practice. Following a consideration of how 3D models relate to established illustration and photographic traditions, the paper evaluates some of the unique features of 3D models, focussing on both positive and negative aspects of these. This is followed by a discussion of the role of potential research connections between digital and craft models in experimental research. Our overall objective is to emphasise a need to engage with the ways in which this gradual development has begun to change aspects of longestablished workflows. In turn, the increasing use of this technology is argued to have wider ramifications for the development of archaeology, and material culture studies in particular, as a discipline that requires reflection.

Keywords: Material culture studies; 3D modelling; replicas; experimental archaeology

References

  • Bader, T. (1991). Die Schwerter in Rumänien. Prahistorische Bronzefunde. Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Stuttgart.Google Scholar

  • Barrett, J.C. (2016). The new antiquarianism? Antiquity 90, 1681-1686.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bevan, A., Xiuzhen, L., Martinon-Torres, M., Green, S., Xia, Y., Zhao, K., Zhao, Z., Shengtao, M., Cao, W., Rehren, T. (2014). Computer vision, archaeological classification and China’s terracotta warriors. J. Archaeol. Sci. 49, 249-254.Google Scholar

  • Buchanan, B. & Collard, M. (2010). A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of blade shape differences among Paleoindian projectile point types from western North America. J. Archaeol. Sci. 350-359.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Carlson, E. S. (2014). Representation and Structure Conflict in the Digital Age Reassessing Archaeological Illustration and the Use of Cubist Techniques in Depicting Images of the Past. Adv. Archaeol. Pract. 2, 269-284.Google Scholar

  • Costa, C. (2010). A Geometric Morphometric Assessment of Plan Shape in Bone and Stone Acheulean Bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene Site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy, in: Lycett, S. J., Chauhan, P. R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technology (pp. 23-41). Springer, New York.Google Scholar

  • Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Camporesi, C., Galeazzi, F., Kallmann, M. (2015). 3D Printing and Immersive Visualization for Improved Perception of Ancient Artifacts. Presence 24, 243-264.Google Scholar

  • Eve, S. (2018). Losing our Senses, an Exploration of 3D Object Scanning. Open Archaeology, 4(1), 114-122. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fahlander, F. (2007). Third space encounters: Hybridity, mimicry and interstitial practice. In P. Cornell and F. Fahlander (Eds.), Encounters | Materialities | Confrontations Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction (pp. 15-41). Cambridge Scholars Press, Newcastle.Google Scholar

  • Georganas, I. (2010). Weapons and warfare. In Cline, E. H. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (Ca. 3000-1000 BC) (pp. 305-314). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Golubiewski-Davis, K. (2018). From 3D Scans to Networks: Using Swords to Understand Communities of Central European Bronze Age Smiths. Open Archaeology, 4(1), 123-144. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harding, A. (1995). Die Schwerter Im Ehemaligen Jugoslawien. Prahistorische Bronzefunde. Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Stuttgart.Google Scholar

  • Hassett, B. & Lewis-Bale, T. (2017). Comparison of 3D Landmark and 3D Dense Cloud Approaches to Hominin MandibleMorphometrics Using Structure-From-Motion. Archaeometry 59, 191-203. Google Scholar

  • Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.Google Scholar

  • Jaklič, A., Erič, M., Mihajlović, I., Stopinšek, Ž., & Solina, F. (2015). Volumetric models from 3D point clouds: The case study of sarcophagi cargo from a 2nd/3rd century AD Roman shipwreck near Sutivan on island Brač, Croatia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 62, 143-152. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kemenczei, T. (1988). Die Schwerter in Ungarn. Griffplatten-, Griffangel-, Griffzungenschwerter. Prahistorische Bronzefunde. C.H. Beck, Munich.Google Scholar

  • Kienlin, T. & Ottaway, B. (1998). Flanged axes of the northalpine Region: an assessment of the possibilities of use wear analysis on metal artefacts. In: Mordant, C., Pernot, M., Rychner, V. (Eds.), L’Atelier Du Bronzier En Europe Du XXe Au VIIIe Siecle Avant Notre Ere (pp. 271-286). CTHS, Paris.Google Scholar

  • Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. (1993). Die Schwerter in Griechenland (ausserhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien. Prahistorische Bronzefunde. F. Steiner, Stuttgart.Google Scholar

  • Knappett, C. (2010). Communities of Things and Objects: a Spatial Perspective. In Malafouris, L. & Renfrew, C. (Eds.), The Cognitive Life of Things: Recasting the Boundaries of the Mind (pp. 81-90). MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Lycett, S. J. & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2013). A 3D morphometric analysis of surface geometry in Levallois cores: Patterns of stability and variability across regions and their implications. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40(3), 1508-1517.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marić, M. & Pendić, J. (2017). Analog vs. Digital documentation - cutting the costs, expanding the possibilities. Idjoš Gradište case study. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica 8/2, online first.Google Scholar

  • Mathieu, J. R. (2002). Introduction: replicating past objects, behaviours and processes. In Mathieu, J. R. (ed.), Experimental Archaeology (pp. 1-10). British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Moitinho de Almeida, V. & Anton Barcelo, J. (2013). Towards Reverse Engineering Archaeological Artefacts. In Earl, G., Sly, T., Chrysanthi, A., Murrieta-Flores, P., Papadopoulos, C., Romanowska, I., Wheatley, D. (Eds.), Archaeology in the Digital Era Volume II (pp. 432-433). Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • Molloy, B. P. C. (2016). Nought may endure but Mutability: Intercultural encounters and material transformations in the thirteenth to eleventh century BC Southeast Europe. In Molloy, B. P. C. (Ed.), Of Odysseys and Oddities: Scales and Modes of Interaction in the Prehistoric Aegean (pp. 343-384). Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Molloy, B. P. C. (2011). Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords. In Uckelmann, M., Modlinger, M. (Eds.), New Approaches to Studying Weapons of the Bronze Age (pp. 67-84). British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Molloy, B. P. C. (2006). The role of combat weaponry in Bronze Age societies: The cases of the Aegean and Ireland in the Middle and Late Bronze Age. University College Dublin, Dublin.Google Scholar

  • Molloy, B. P. C., Wisnieski, M., Lynam, F., O’Neill, B., O’Sullivan, A., & Peatfield, A. (2016). Tracing edges: A consideration of the applications of 3D modelling for metalwork wear analysis on Bronze Age bladed artefacts. J. Archaeol. Sci. 76, 79-87.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Morgan, C. (2012). Emancipatory Digital Archaeology. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

  • Morgan, C. & Wright, H. (2018). Pencils and Pixels: Drawing and Digital Media in Archaeological Field Recording. Journal of Field Archaeology 43(2), 136-151. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Moser, S. (1992). The visual language of archaeology: A case study of the Neandrathals. Antiquity 66, 831-844.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • O Faolain, S. & Northover, P. (1998). The Technology of Late Bronze Age Sword Production in Ireland. J. Ir. Archaeol. IX, 69-86.Google Scholar

  • O’Faolain, S. (2004). Bronze Artefact Production in Late Bronze Age Ireland: a survey. Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T., & Witmore, C. (2012). Archaeology: the discipline of things. University of California Press, Berkeley.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Opgenhaffen, L., Revello Lami, M., & Kisjes, I. (2018). Pottery Goes Public. Performing Archaeological Research Amid the Audience. Open Archaeology, 4(1), 62-80. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Peatfield, A. (1999). The Paradox of Violence: Weaponry and Martial Art in Minoan Crete. In Polemos, Aegaeum (pp. 67-74). Univerite de Liege, Liege.Google Scholar

  • Peroni, V. B. (1970). Die Schwerter in Italien. Prahistorische Bronzefunde. Beck, Munich.Google Scholar

  • Perry, S. (2015). Crafting knowledge with (digital) visual media in archaeology. In Chapman, R., Wylie, A. (Eds.), Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice (pp. 189-210). Routledge, London.Google Scholar

  • Perry, S. (2013). Archaeological visualisation and the manifestation of the discipline: model-making at the Institute of Archaeology, London. In Alberti, B., Jones, A.M., Pollard, J. (Eds.), Archaeology after Interpretation: Returning Materials to Archaeological Theory. Left Coast Press, Walnut.Google Scholar

  • Revello Lami, M., Opgehaffen, L. & Kisjes, I. (2016). Pottery Goes Digital. 3D Laser Scanning Technology and the Study of Archaeological Ceramics. In Campana, S., Scopigno, R., Carpentiero, G. (Eds.), Keep The Revolution Going. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 2015 (pp. 421-428). Archaeopress Archaeology.Google Scholar

  • Rico, T. (2017). Technologies, technocracy, and the promise of “alternative” heritage values. In Silverman, H., Waterton, E., Watson, S. (Eds.), Heritage in Action (pp. 217-230). Springer, New York.Google Scholar

  • Schauer, P. (1971). Die Schwerter in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Griffplatten-, Griffangel- und Griffzungenschwerter. Prahistorische Bronzefunde. C.H. Beck, Munich.Google Scholar

  • Selden Jr., R., Perttula, T., & O’Brien, M. (2014). Advances in Documentation, Digital Curation, Virtual Exhibition, and a Test of 3D Geometric Morphometrics: A Case Study of the Vanderpool Vessels from the Ancestral Caddo Territory. Adv. Archaeol. Pract. 2, 65-79.Google Scholar

  • Sørensen, M. L. S. (2015). “Paradigm lost” - on the State of Typology within Archaeological Theory. In Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L., Turek, J. (Eds.), Paradigm Found: Archaeological Theory Present, Past and Future Essays in Honour of Evžen Neustupný (pp. 84-94). Oxbow, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Stockhammer, P.W. (2012). Entangled pottery: Phenomena of appropriation in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. In J.Maran & P. W. Stockhammer (Eds.), Materiality and Social Practice: The Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters (pp. 89-103). Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, J. & Gibson, L. K. (2016). Digitisation, digital interaction and social media: embedded barriers to democratic heritage. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 23, 408-420.Google Scholar

  • Van Dommelen, P. & Rowlands, M. (2012). Material concerns and colonial encounters. In J.Maran & P. W. Stockhammer (Eds.), Materiality and Social Practice: The Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters (pp. 20-31). Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Witmore, C. (2014). Archaeology and the New Materialisms. J. Contemp. Archaeol. 1, 203-46.Google Scholar

  • Wilczek, J., Monna, F., Barral, P., Burlet, L., Chateau, C., & Navarro, N. (2014). Morphometrics of Second Iron Age ceramics - strengths, weaknesses, and comparison with traditional typology. J. Archaeol. Sci. 50, 39-50. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-10-12

Accepted: 2018-03-06

Published Online: 2018-04-03

Citation Information: Open Archaeology, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 97–113, ISSN (Online) 2300-6560, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0006.

Export Citation

© 2018. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Stuart Eve
Open Archaeology, 2018, Volume 4, Number 1, Page 114

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in