MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA FAKULTA INFORMATIKY Û¡¢£¤¥¦§¨ª«¬­Æ°±²³´µ·¸¹º»¼½¾¿Ý Digital Reconstruction of Archaeological Finds DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE Jan Pospíšil Brno, jaro 2012 Declaration Hereby I declare, that this paper is my original authorial work, which I have worked out by my own. All sources, references and literature used or ex- cerpted during elaboration of this work are properly cited and listed in com- plete reference to the due source. Jan Pospíšil Advisor: MgA. Helena Lukášová, ArtD. i Acknowledgement I would like to thank my adviser MgA. Helena Lukášová, ArtD. for her pa- tience, overall support and accommodating approach. I also thank Berzovan Alexandru (Babes-Bolyai University) and Claudiu Toma (Universitatea de Vest din Timisoara) for supplying me with books and other resources on Da- cian archaeology, as well as their helpful insight and comments. I thank Mgr. JiˇríChmelík for technical consultation. ii Abstract This thesis defines archaeological reconstruction and describes its history and evolution. It explores the use of computers in reconstruction and lists currently used techniques and methods. Romanian archaeology and a brief historical summary of the ancient Dacian people are discussed with Roma- nian archaeologists. The practical part presents the results of attempted re- constructions of Dacian archaeological finds supplied by Romanian archaeol- ogists. Various freely available applications suitable for reconstruction were tested and their performance compared. The thesis also suggests possible course of further research and development of digital reconstruction. iii Keywords archaeological reconstruction, popular-educational illustration, 3D model- ing, automated reconstruction, virtual reality, Dacians iv Contents 1 Introduction ................................ 1 2 Archaeological reconstruction ..................... 2 2.1 Definition of reconstruction and its purpose . 2 2.2 History and evolution of reconstruction . 3 2.3 Accuracy, quality and evaluation of reconstruction . 6 2.4 Computer use in reconstruction . 7 2.4.1 Digital image acquisition . 8 2.4.2 Automated reconstruction . 11 2.4.3 Virtual reality and interactive presentation . 13 3 Dacians and archaeology in Romania . 17 4 Practical use of reconstructive methods . 20 4.1 Method overview . 20 4.2 Automated 3D modeling from images . 21 4.2.1 Testing data and software . 21 4.2.2 Testing results . 22 4.2.3 Conclusion . 26 4.3 Manual 3D modeling reconstruction . 29 4.3.1 Dacian knife find . 29 4.3.2 Dacian knife digital drawing . 31 4.3.3 Dacian knife 3D reconstruction . 33 4.3.4 Dacian arrowhead reconstruction . 35 4.3.5 Dacian mahaira find . 37 4.3.6 Dacian mahaira 3D reconstruction . 39 4.4 Spline-based 3D modeling reconstruction . 40 4.5 Popular-educational digital illustration . 43 5 Conclusion ................................. 47 A Reference material ............................ 52 B Digital archive .............................. 58 C Previously created reconstructions ................... 60 v Chapter 1 Introduction This thesis deals with the topic of digital reconstruction of objects and espe- cially its use in archaeology and related fields. Its purpose is to compile up to date information about the reconstruction process as well as its evolution, history and the various approaches which are currently being used. These approaches were tested and the test results are a part of the prac- tical portion of the thesis. As a practical example, it describes the ancient people of Dacia and demonstrates the possibilities of digital reconstruction using documentation of Dacian finds generously supplied and consulted by Berzovan Alexandru (a Romanian archaeologist from Babes-Bolyai Univer- sity, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology). The process of reconstruction is defined in chapter 2. Its relation to ex- perimental archaeology is discussed along with its development in the past two centuries. Types of reconstruction and their results and purposes are de- scribed along with the possibilities computers can offer. The chapter lists pro- posals of ways to evaluate reconstruction’s accuracy and scientific or educa- tional quality. Chapter 3 presents a brief summary of ancient Dacian history and their relation to other peoples living around them, their culture and overall char- acteristics. The state of Dacian archaeology, projects involving digital recon- struction and worldwide available research published in English are dis- cussed. Chapter 4 documents the practical part of the thesis, shows the results of various reconstruction methods and describes the process of achieving them. Chapter 5 summarizes the goals I set and the overall results I achieved. It also suggests possibilities for future research in the field of reconstruction. Appendix A presents some of the additional reference material I used for reconstruction, Appendix B is a short documentation for the digital archive of the thesis. Appendix C shows several reconstructions I created in the past for other projects. 1 Chapter 2 Archaeological reconstruction 2.1 Definition of reconstruction and its purpose Archaeological reconstruction is usually defined in relation to experimental archaeology. “Experimental archaeology is a living analytical process used to re-create aspects in part or in whole, of ancient societies in order to test hypotheses or proposed interpretations and assumptions about that society.” [B1] Reconstruction itself doesn’t necessarily offer the possibility to test hy- potheses, it is primarily done for presentation only. A reconstruction is performed when an object, a location or an idea, which no longer fully exist (mostly due to decay through a lengthy period of time) need to be presented to a viewer. Alternative definition: “Reconstructions recreate buildings and other features of archaeological sites from fragmentary remains or where they have been buried in subse- quent redevelopment. They cannot be exact reproductions of what was there, but are a picture of probability - a picture of what is in the archaeologist’s eye. Ideally the artist will use all available archaeological evidence to place recon- structed buildings in their historical context to create a peopled landscape that provides scale and actuality” [B2] Contemporary university education tends to focus mainly on archaeo- logical illustration, a subset of, or a process very closely related to recon- struction. Immediately useful to archaeologists, it provides the much needed simplified and stylized documentation of objects. While an illustrator may attempt to fill in an approximated vision of the damaged or missing parts of an object, illustration usually focuses on depicting the current state of the object and the site it has been found in (documentation of such sites is called “surveying”) . It’s up to the illustrator to depict it as truthfully and accurately as possible, while keeping the drawing stylized. It is in fact an interpretation of the object, the artist processes the observed shape, form and function. 2 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION Reconstruction builds on top of such descriptive representation. The goal is to recognize and acknowledge shape, form and function of the object in its current broken and decayed state. And with this in mind approximate its shape, form and function as they were when the object was new and undam- aged. Švácha[B7] lists these types of illustration used in archaeology: • technical documentation for scientific publications (Meant to be read and viewed by scientists, it does not necessarily strive for much aes- thetic beauty, rather for accuracy and the ability to communicate ex- actly what the artist saw and drew.) This includes documentation of finds, the site, typological tables, samplers, analytical graphs and ta- bles, material and functional reconstructions1, schematics and humor- ous pictures. • popular-educational illustrations (Meant for educating the non-scientists, the goal is to make archaeology and its results accessible.) Unlike in the first case, the artist here is most often not an archaeologist, rather merely given advice by one. A popular subject of such illustration and reconstruction is the evolution of man. • illustration for fiction (Similar to the popular-educational reconstruc- tion, but very rarely nearly as scientific.) Reconstruction as defined in this thesis falls in the first two categories. 2.2 History and evolution of reconstruction Reconstruction and archaeological illustration first appeared in the 18th cen- tury in the form reflecting the general view of ancient objects, a rather anti- quarian one. Up until the late 19th century, when archaeology as a real scien- tific discipline started to emerge, documentation and reconstruction of finds was created with little sense and order, mostly as lists and samplers of vari- ous ancient objects depicted from one side only. Drawings like that, lacking proper measurements, (using individual size ratios instead) were eventually replaced almost exclusively by photography in the first half of the 20th cen- tury. 1. part of experimental archaeology, the goal is to recreate the artifact as a real functional object 3 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION Site documentation suffered similar problems. In the early stages the artists focused mostly on the artistic side rather than technical drawing. Later, to- wards the end of the 19th century the artistic focus prevailed, but it went hand in hand with technical precision.2 With the use of photography new issues arose. A photograph captures everything about the scene, it does