Accelerat ing t he world's research.

VIRTUAL REALITY,
CYBERARCHAEOLOGY,
TELEIMMERSIVE ARCHAEOLOGY
Maurizio Forte

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Virt ual Realit y, Cyberaerchaeology, Teleimmersive Archaeology

Maurizio Fort e

3D Modeling in Archaeology and Cult ural Herit age: T heory and Best Pract ices
St efano R L Campana

3D Archaeology: New Perspect ives and Challenges—T he Example of Çat alhöyük

Maurizio Fort e
 3D Recording and Modelling in
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Theory and best practices

Edited by

Fabio Remondino
Stefano Campana

BAR International Series 2598

2014
Published by

Archaeopress
v Hﾉｷ ｴW "ﾗa"0 ｷ ｴ"# Iｴ;WﾗﾉﾗｪｷI;ﾉ"yW ﾗ
Gordon House
ヲΑヶ"0;ﾐH "yﾗ;S
Oxford OX2 7ED
;ﾐｪﾉ;ﾐS
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

0#y"}ヲヵΓΒ

ン7"yWIﾗ Sｷﾐｪ";ﾐS"cﾗSWﾉﾉｷﾐｪ"ｷﾐ"# Iｴ;Wﾗﾉﾗｪ ";ﾐS"1 ﾉ ;ﾉ"KW ｷ ;ｪWぎ" ｴWﾗ ";ﾐS"HW " ;I IW "

© # Iｴ;Wﾗ W ";ﾐS" ｴW"ｷﾐSｷ ｷS ;ﾉ"; ｴﾗ "ヲヰヱヴ

N}0d"ΓΑΒ"ヱ"ヴヰΑン"ヱヲンヰ"Γ

v ｷﾐ WS"ｷﾐ";ﾐｪﾉ;ﾐS"H "Nﾐaﾗ ﾏ; ﾗﾐ"v W が"j aﾗ S

#ﾉﾉ"0#y" ﾉW "; W"; ;ｷﾉ;HﾉW"a ﾗﾏぎ

K;S ｷ;ﾐ"0ﾗﾗﾆ "] S

ヱヲヲ"0;ﾐH "yﾗ;S
Oxford
OX2 7BP
;ﾐｪﾉ;ﾐS
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

ｴW"I Wﾐ "0#y"I; ;ﾉﾗｪ W" ｷ ｴ"SW ;ｷﾉ "ﾗa";ﾉﾉ" ﾉW "ｷﾐ" ｷﾐ が" ｷIW ";ﾐS"ﾏW;ﾐ "ﾗa" ; ﾏWﾐ "ｷ "; ;ｷﾉ;HﾉW"a WW"
from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

6.1 VIRTUAL REALITY, CYBERARCHAEOLOGY,
TELEIMMERSIVE ARCHAEOLOGY
Maurizio FORTE
6.1.1 VIRTUAL REALITIES
We live in a cyber era: social networks, virtual
communities, human avatars, 3D worlds, digital
applications, immersive and collaborative games are able
to change our perception of the world and, first of all, the
capacity to record, share and transmit information.
Terabyte, Petabyte, Exabyte, Zettabyte of digital data are
constructing the human knowledge of future societies and
changing the access to the past. If the human knowledge
is rapidly migrating in digital domains and virtual worlds,
what happens to the past? Can we imagine the
interpretation process of the past as a digital hermeneutic
circle (fig. 1)? The idea that a digital simulation process
one day could remake the past has stimulated dreams and
fantasies of many archaeologists. We know that this is
impossible, but new cybernetic ways to approach the
interpretation process in archaeology are particularly
challenging since they open multiple perspectives of
research otherwise not identifiable.
In digital archaeology the “cybernetic” factor is
measurable in terms of interaction and feedback, in a
word a “trigger” allowing creation and exploration of
virtual worlds. The “trigger” can be considered a
metaphor of our embodiment in the cyber world: clicking,
trigging, interacting is the way to involve our minds in
the digital universe. Any environment, digital or real,
could be studied in a similar perceptual way (of course
with some limitations): analyzing all the relations
between humans and ecosystems. A remarkable factor in
the evolution of cyber worlds is identifiable in the
informational capacities of digital worlds to generate new
knowledge (fig. 2), an autopoiesis1 (Maturana and Varela
1980) of models, data and metadata, which co-evolve in
the digital environment. Data and models generate new
data and meanings by interaction and, for example, by
collaborative activities. The core of this process is the
enaction (Maturana and Varela 1980), as information
achieved by perception-action interaction with the
1
Capacity to generate new meanings.
113
VIRTUAL REALITY AND CYBERARCHAEOLOGY
environment: the mind embodied in the environment. A
knowledge created by enaction is constructed on motor
skills (real or virtual), which in virtual worlds can derive
by gestures, haptic interfaces, 1st or 3rd person
navigation, multisensorial and multimodal immersion and
so on.
Digital interactive activities used in our daily life play an
essential role in managing and distributing information at
personal and social level. We could say that humans
typically interact with different “virtual realities” whether
by personal choice, or by necessity, given the fact that
there is a consistent amount of information digitally born
and available just in digital format. In the 90s many
writers, artists and scholars (including who is writing this
article, (Forte 2000)) discussed for a long time on the
definition of virtual reality (VR, immersive, semi-
immersive, off line, etc.) mostly in relation with
archaeology and cultural heritage. Nowadays the term is
quite blurred, hybrid and elusive: virtual realities
represent many social diversifications of the digital Real
and are an essential part of the human life. It is possible
to recognize and classify them by technology, brand,
purpose, functionality; but all of them are VR, open
domains for users, players and developers. The evolution
of software and digital information in cloud computing is
a good example of distributed virtual realities where all
the performance runs on line in a network and it doesn’t
require end-user knowledge of the physical location and
configuration of the system that delivers the services.
It is likely unnecessary to describe VR at this point
because there are too many VR and all of them follow
different principles of embodiment and digital
engagement: everything could be VR. In the past decades
for example VR was mainly recognizable for the degree
of immersion and the real time interaction (at least 30/60
frames per second) but nowadays the majority of
applications are in real time and full immersion is just an
option (and sometimes not really relevant). What really
changes our capacities of digital/virtual perception is the
experience, a cultural presence in a situated environment
3D RECORDING AND MODELLING IN ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
Figure 1. Digital Hermeneutic Circle
Figure 2. Domains of digital knowledge
(Champion 2011). According to Subhasish DasGupta
(Dasgupta 2006) cultural presence can be defined as “a
feeling in a virtual environment that people with a
different cultural perspective occupy or have occupied
that virtual environment as a place. Such a definition
suggests cultural presence is not just a feeling of “being
there” but of being in a “there and then” not the cultural
rules of the “here and now”. To have a sense of a cultural
presence when one visits a real site requires the
suggestion of social agency, the feeling that what one is
visiting is an artifact, created and modified by conscious
human intention” (Dasgupta 2006). Cultural presence is
the interpretation code, the cybernetic map necessary for
interpreting the past in relation with space and time (for
Gregory Bateson the “map is not the territory”, (Bateson
1972). In the second cybernetics the study of codes was
aimed at understanding the relation between mind and
information, between objects and environment. This
ecological approach is helpful also in the evaluation of a
virtual reconstruction, since a cyber world has to be
considered a digital environment with related rules,
affordances and features. Ultimately we have to study
these relations for a correct comprehension of a virtual
reconstruction or simulation. In fact a virtual
114
reconstruction with a wrong code can increase the
distance between present and past disorienting the
observer or the interactor and making the models less
“authentic”. The issue of authenticity of virtual worlds is
quite complex and it is strongly linked with our cultural
presence, knowledge and perception of the past. If for
instance we perceive the virtual model as fake or too
artificial it is because it doesn’t match our cultural
presence. In theory people with different cultural
backgrounds can have a different cultural presence with a
diverse perception of the past, so that also the vision of
the past becomes extremely relative.
This argument unfortunately risks pushing the
interpretation at a certain level of relativism because of
all the components involved in the interpretation,
simulation and reconstruction. For instance, the sense of
photorealism in a model could be more convincing than a
“scientific” non-realistic reconstruction because of the
aesthetic engagement or for the embodiment of the
observer (for example in the case of interaction with
avatars and other artificial organism). Cultural presences,
experience, perception, narrative of the digital space
create the hermeneutic circle of a cyber environment. The

level of embodiment of any application can determine the
amount of information acquired by a user or an observer
during the exploration of the digital space. For example a
third person walkthrough across an empty space and
without receiving an adequate feedback from the system
can’t produce a high level of embodiment since the
engagement is very low. Human presence in virtual
spaces determines also the scale of the application and
other spatial relations.
If we analyze for example the first virtual reconstructions
in archaeology in the 90’s they reproduced mainly empty
architectural spaces, without any further social
implication or visible life in the space: they were just
models. The past was represented as snapshot of 3D
artificial models deprived by a multivocal and dynamic
sense of time. Yet Dasupta: “So in this sense, cultural
presence is a perspective of a past culture to a user, a
perspective normally only deduced by trained
archaeologists and anthropologists from material remains
of fossils, pottery shards, ruins, and so forth (Dasgupta, p.
97). Actually cultural presence should not be a
perspective deduced only by archaeologists and
anthropologists, but it should be transparent and
multivocal.
If in the 80s and 90s the term Virtual Reality was very
common and identifying a very specific, advanced and
new digital technology (Forte 2000), now it is more
appropriate to classify this domain as “virtual realities”
where the interaction is the core, but the modalities of
engagement, embodiment, interfaces and devices are
diverse and multitasking. According to a retrospective
view, VR could be considered a missing revolution, in
the sense that it didn’t have a relevant social and
technological impact with very few outstanding results in
the last two decades. Internet for example was a big
revolution, not VR.
Nowadays an interesting example is represented by 3D
games: very sophisticated virtual environments, with a
superb graphic capacity to engage players in a continuous
participatory and co-evolving interaction, collaborative
communication and digital storytelling. They can expand
the digital territory they occupy according to participatory
interaction. The ultimate scope of a game in fact is the
creation of a digital land to explore and settle. In the
game context the role of simple users is transformed in
“active players”, that is the players themselves contribute
to the construction and evolution of the game. These new
trends of co-active embodiment and engagement have
radically changed the traditional definition of virtual
environment/virtual reality as a visualization space
peopled by predetermined models and actions. The game
is an open collaborative performance with specific goals,
roles, communication styles and progressive levels of
engagement. The narrative of the game can produce the
highest level of engagement, a “gamification” of the user
(Kapp 2012).
Serious games, cyber games, haptic systems, are
changing the rules of engagement: the use for example of
115
VIRTUAL REALITY AND CYBERARCHAEOLOGY
3D devices such as kinect © as interfaces, open new
perspectives in the domain of cyber/haptic worlds and
simulation environments. The interaction does not come
from mouse, trackballs, data gloves, head mounted
display, but simply by human gestures. In other words all
the interaction is based on natural gestures and not on a
device: the camera and the software recognize an action
and this is immediately operative within the digital world.
This kind of kinesthetic technology is able to cancel the
computational frame separating users and software,
interaction and feedback; in short the focus is not on the
display of the computer but on 3D software interactions.
One day the interpenetration of real and virtual will create
a sort of hybrid reality able to combine real and virtual
objects in the same environment.
Understanding the social and technological context of
these virtual realities is a necessary premise for
introducing cyberachaeology and the problem of the
digital reconstruction of the past.
6.1.2 CYBERARCHAEOLOGY
In a recent book “Cyberarchaeology” (Forte 2010) I have
discussed the term in the light of the last two decades of
theory and practice of digital archaeology. More
specifically, in the 90s “Virtual Archaeology” (Forte
1997) designed the reconstructive process for
communication and interpretation of the past. This digital
archaeology was mainly “reconstructive” because of a
deep involvement of computer graphics and high res
renderings in the generation of virtual worlds. The first
3D models of Rome, Tenochtitlan, Beijing, Catalhuyuk
were generally based on evocative reconstructions rather
than by a meticulous process of documentation,
validation and scientific analysis (Forte 1997). The main
outcome was a static, photorealistic model, displayed in a
screen or in a video but not interactive (Barceló, Forte et
al., 2000). The photorealism of the scene was the core of
the process with a special emphasis on computer graphics
and rendering rather than the scene interaction. It is
interesting to note that an extreme photorealism was a
way to validate the models as “authentic”, even if the
term can be disputable in the domain of virtuality
(Bentkowska-Kafel, Denard et al., 2011).
In addition, every model was static and without any inter-
relation with human activities or social behaviors. For
example, in the 90s the virtual models of Rome and
Pompei were just architectural empty spaces without any
trace of human activity (Cameron and Kenderdine 2010):
a sort of 3D temporal snapshot of the main buildings of
the city. At that time of digital reconstructions there was
scarce attention to reproduce dynamic models and to
include human life or activities in virtual worlds. Virtual
world were magnificent, realistic and empty digital
spaces.
It is interesting to point out that all these reconstructions
were made by collecting and translating archaeological
data from analogue format to digital: for example from
3D RECORDING AND MODELLING IN ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
paper maps, drawings, iconographic comparisons, books
and so on. Here the process of reconstruction mediates
from different data sources of different formats and
shapes. At the dawning of virtual archaeology all the
applications were model-centered and without a
consistent validation process able to prove the result of
the reconstruction. The effect of “reconstruct the past”
was dominant and very attractive: several corporations
and international companies invested in the 90s in the
creation of digital archaeological models, but for most of
them the work was focused much more on “advertising
the past” rather than reconstructing it. In addition, at the
beginning virtual archaeology was not easily accepted in
the academic world as scientific field but it was
considered mainly a tool for a didactic and spectacular
communication of the past. Not enough attention was
given to new research questions coming up from the
virtual reconstruction process or to the importance of new
software and devices in the archaeological research. In
this climax virtual archaeology was looking for great
effects, digital dreams able to open new perspectives in
the interpretation and communication process. Most part
of the first applications was more technologically
oriented than aimed at explaining the multidisciplinary
effort of interpretation behind the graphic scene. The
general outcome of the first digital revolution of virtual
archaeology was certain skepticism. A big issue was to
recognize in so effective and astonished models a precise,
transparent and validated reconstruction of the past but
which past? The scientific evaluation of many virtual
reconstructions is not possible because of lack of
transparency in the workflow of data used. Moreover the
majority of graphic reconstructions seemed too artificial,
with graphic renderings more oriented to show the
capabilities of the software rather than a correct
interpretation of data.
In a recent article (Forte, 2010) I have named this period
the “wow era” because the excitement on the production
of models was in many cases much bigger than an
adequate scientific and cultural discussion. This was and
still is a “side effect” in the use of digital technologies in
archaeology: a strong technological determinism where
the technology is the core and the basis of any
application.
Even if with several limitations and issues, however, the
first digital “big bang” in virtual archaeology represented
the beginning of a new era for the methodology of
research in archaeology (Forte 2009). With some
constrains, actually a virtual reconstruction is potentially
able to advance different research questions, hypotheses,
or can address the researcher to try unexplored ways of
interpretation and communication. However, this process
works just in the case the virtual reconstruction is the
product of a complex digital workflow where the
interpretation is the result of a multivocal scientific
analysis (data entry, documentation, simulation,
comparative studies, metadata). Questions like – how,
how much, which material, textures, structures, which
phase, etc. – stimulate new and more advanced
discussions about the interpretation because they push the
116
researchers to go beyond a textual description. Visual
interactions and graphic simulations stimulate to afford a
deeper perceptual approach to the analysis of data. For
example, a very detailed textual description of a site, a
monument or an artifact can suggest multiple hypotheses
but none of them translated in a visual code. In addition
the archaeological language is often cryptic, difficult and
not easily understandable. Virtual Archaeology started to
use complex visual codes able to create a specific digital
grammar and to communicate much more information
than a traditional input.
Unfortunately, this great potential was not systematically
used at the beginning for a low involvement of the
communities of archaeologists at interdisciplinary level
(however with very few digital skills), but also for the
difficulties to manage so diverse information sources
(most of them analogue) in a single digital environment.
Below a schematic distinction between the digital
workflow generated by virtual archaeology and by
cyberarchaeology:
Virtual Archaeology workflow:
Data capturing (analog)
Data processing (analog)
Digitalization from analog sources (analog-digital)
Digital outcome: 3D static or pre-registered rendering
CyberArchaeology workflow:
Data capturing (digital)
Data processing (digital)
Digital input (from digital to digital)
Digital outcome: virtual reality and interactive
environments (enactive process)
It is important to consider that cyberarchaeology
elaborates data already born-digital: for example from
laser scanners, remote sensing, digital photogrammetry,
computer vision, high-resolution or stereo cameras.
“Cyber Archaeology can represent today a research path
of simulation and communication, whose ecological-
cybernetic relations organism-environment and
informative-communicative feedback constitute the core.
The cyber process creates affordances and through them
we are able to generate virtual worlds by interactions and
inter-connections” (Forte 2010). The workflow of data
generated by cyber-archaeology is totally digital and can
make reversible the interpretation and reconstruction
process: from the fieldwork to virtual realities. More in
detail, cyberarchaeology elaborates spatial data during the
fieldwork or generally in any bottom-up phase and re-
processes them in simulation environments where it is
possible to compare bottom-up and top-down
interpretation phases. The integration of bottom-up data
(documentation) and top-down (reconstruction)
hermeneutic phases is the necessary approach for the
digital interpretation within the same spatial domain. In
short the cyber process involves a long digital workflow,
which crosses all the data in different formulations and
simulations in a continuous feedback between existing
information (data input), produced information (for

example reconstructed models) and potential information
(what is generated by simulation). Potentiality of the
information is the core of the cyber process: different
potential interpretations coexist in the same virtual
environment and the simulation itself is able to create
new and possibly more advanced interpretation. The key
is the capacity to generate comparable and interactive
models in sharable domains integrating bottom-up and
top-down data. In fact during a virtual simulation it is
possible to change and improve several factors and
different operators/users can obtain diverse
interpretations and ways to proceed. Cyberarchaeology
does not look for “the Interpretation” but for achieving
possible consistent interpretations and research questions:
“how” is more important that “what” according to a
digital hermeneutic approach.
For example in the case of the digital project of the
Roman Villa of Livia (Forte 2007) it was possible to
create a complex hermeneutic circle starting with the 3D
documentation of the site by laser scanning and then
proceeding with the potential reconstruction/simulation of
different phases of the monument integrated also with the
reconstruction of some social activities displayed by the
use of digital avatars (Livia, Augustus and other
characters). In this project NPC (non-player-characters)
and PC (player characters) have been used in order to
populate the virtual world of actions, event and
behaviors. NPC and PC interact each other stimulating a
dialogue between users and digital environments and
designing new digital affordances (a digital affordance
identifies the properties of a virtual object).
The Virtual Villa of Livia is a good example of the use of
digital affordances: any virtual model is accomplished by
multiple properties that describe and validate its creation.
For example frescos and paintings show which
iconographic comparisons and data sources were used for
the reconstruction; in the case of architectural elements
the affordances display maps and reliefs of other sites and
monuments studied and analyzed for validating the
process of reconstruction. The more there are potential
simulations, the more it is possible to have multiple
interpretations. The coexistence of different
interpretations is one of the key features of the digital
domain of virtual realities and in this way it is possible to
create new knowledge. How can this knowledge be
distributed through virtual realities and which virtual
realities? (fig. 2).
How is it possible to approach the problem of
authenticity in a process of virtual reconstruction? How is
it possible to manage the link between data in situ and
reconstruction of the original past? The validation of a
digital process can show the consistency of the
simulation/reconstruction: in other words the digital
workflow has to be transparent (Bentkowska-Kafel,
Denard et al., 2011).
The most important distinction between virtual and cyber
archaeology is in the relation data entry – feedback/
simulation: the interactive factor. From this point of view
117
VIRTUAL REALITY AND CYBERARCHAEOLOGY
the past cannot be reconstructed but simulated. Cyber-
archaeology is aimed at the simulation of the past and not
on its reconstruction: the simulation is the core of the
process. For this it is better to think about potential past,
“a co-evolving subject in the human evolution generated
by cyber-interaction between worlds” (Forte 2010). In
short cyberarchaeology studies the process of simulation
of the past and its relations with the present societies. Is
this a revolutionary change in theoretical archaeology?
Perhaps a new methodological phase after processualism
and post-processualism? Is cyber archaeology a change in
methodology, a change in paradigm, or a reflection of a
broader change? (Zubrow 2010). According to Ezra
Zubrow (Zubrow 2011) both processual and post
processual are now integrated into something new. Cyber
archaeology bridges the gap between “scientific” and
“interpretational” archaeology for it provides testable in
the sense of adequacy material representations of either
“interpretations” or “scientific hypotheses or
discoveries.” (Zubrow 2010). And further: “if post-
processual archaeology will continue to exist it will exist
through cyber archaeology. It is in cyberarchaeology
where the interesting issues of cognition, memory,
individual difference, education etc are actually being
researched and actually being used.” (Zubrow 2011).
6.1.3 TELEIMMERSIVE ARCHAEOLOGY
6.1.3.1 Introduction
One of the key problems in archaeology is that the
production of data from the fieldwork to the publication,
communication and transmission is unbalanced: no
matter if data are digital or not, a low percentage of them
is used and distributed. In the long pipeline involving
digging, data recording, documentation, archiving and
publication there is a relevant dispersion of information
and the interpretation process is too much influenced by
authorships and scholarships and not by a real multivocal
critical perspective. The archaeologist alone arguing in
front of his/her data is not just a stereotype: the
circulation of data before the publication is very limited
and it does not involve a deep and interactive analysis
with all the information available (from the fieldwork or
other sources). In short it is difficult to make available
and transparent the entire pipeline of archaeological data
and to share adequately them in the right context. For
example an artifact or a stratigraphic deposit could be
otherwise interpreted if it is possible to compare in 3D its
contextualization on site and the original functionality
and properties. Documentation and interpretation are
often separated and not overlapping in the same spatial
domain. In fact the usual result is that the interpretation is
segmented in different domains, often not mutually
interacting, and with enormous difficulties in making the
research work a collaborative research. In archaeology
collaborative activities start in the field and sometimes
continue in laboratory but with limited capacities of data
integration, data sharing and reversibility of the
interpretation process. More specifically in digital
archaeology it is difficult to integrate for example 2D and
3D RECORDING
G AND MODELLING IN ARCHAEO
OLOGY AND CULTURAL
U HERITA
AGE

Figure 3. 3D-D
Digging Projecct at Çatalhöyüük

3D data, shaape files and 3D

3 models, olld and new daata. It challlenge the woork in team iss essential and as well thee
is also very difficult
d to miitigate the desstructive impaact of quallity and amouunt of informaation to study and test. Thee
archaeologiccal digging annd to make revversible the viirtual creaation of very advanced
a digital labs is no
ot easy in thee
recompositioon of layers annd units, after the excavation. hummanities and, in addiction, very expenssive and timee
conssuming. The work
w in isolattion does not pay off: it iss
6.1.3.2 TeleA
Arch: a Collaaborative Approach impo ortant to worrk in a network, to share resources
r andd
first of all to multiply
m the faculty of interpretationn
Discussions and argum ments arounnd virtual and worlldwide.
cyberarchaeoology shouldd help to understand the
controversiall relationships between diigital technoloogies Teleeimmersive Archaeology
A can be co onsidered ann
and archaeollogy: risks, trends,
t potenttialities, probllems, advaanced evolutioon of 3D visuualization and simulation inn
but what’s the
t next? WhatW w have digitally
if after we archhaeology: not a simple visuualization tooll but a virtuall
recorded annd simulatedd archaeologgical excavattions, collaaborative spacce for researcch, teaching and
a educationn
reconstructedd hypotheticall models of thhe past integrrating (fig. 3); a netwoork of virtual labs and mo odels able too
documentatioon and interprretation processes? How caan we geneerate and to transmit
t virtuaal knowledgee. It is namedd
imagine the future
f after virtual-cyber arrchaeology? “Telleimmersive” because can involve the use of stereoo
cammeras or kinectt haptic systemms in order to represent thee
Collaborativee research reepresents nowwadays one of the userrs as human avatars and tto visualize 3D 3 models inn
most importaant challenges in any scienntific field. Minds
M immmersive remotee participatorry sessions. Teleimmersive
T e
at work sim multaneously with
w continuoous feedbackk and Arch haeology triess to integrate different dataa sources andd
interaction, able
a to share data in real time
t can co-ccreate provvide real-tim me interactiion tools for remotee
new knowleedge and come with different d reseearch collaaboration of geographically
g y distributed sccholars.
perspectives.. Networking and collaboraative activitiess can
change the methodologgical asset of o archaeoloogical I woould consider Teleimmersivve a simulatio on tool for thee
research andd communicaation. The inttensive interaactive interrpretation andd communicattion of archaeological data..
use of 3D models
m in arcchaeology at different level of The tools alloow for datta decimatio on, analysis,,
immersion hasn’t
h been monitored and analyzed: acttually visu
ualization, archhiving, and coontextualization of any 3D D
we don’t knoow how muchh this can havee an impact on the dbasse in a collaborative space. This kind of activity cann
generation ofo new digitaal and unexpllored hermenneutic startt in the field during the exxcavation and can continuee
circles. in laab in the phasse of post-proocessing and interpretation.
i .
Fielddwork archaeeologists for eexample could d discuss withh
Any significaant progress, any new discovery, can deepend expeerts of pottery,
p geooarchaeologistts, physicall
by the capaccity of scientiific communiities to share their anth
hropologists, conservation
c experts, geop physicists andd
knowledge and
a to analyzee the state of thhe art of a speecific so on: the interpreetation of an oobject, a site or
o a landscapee
research toppic in a very effective manner. In this is allways the ressult of a workk in team. At A the end thee

118
 VIRTUAL REALLITY AND CYBER
RARCHAEOLOGY
Y

Figuure 4. Teleimm
mersion System
m in Archaeollogy (UC Merrced, UC Berkkeley)

Figure 5. Viideo capturingg system for teeleimmersive archaeology

most importaant outcome inn Teleimmerssive archaeoloogy is
I other wordds the transmission
the kinesthettic learning. In
of knowledgge comes frrom the inteeractive emboodied
activity in virtual envirronments and though viirtual
models, while traditional learning com mes through linear
l to connect
systems, suchh as books, texts, reports.
6.1.3.3 The System
In 2010 UC C Merced (M. Forte) and UC Berkeleyy (G.
Kurillo, R. Baycsj)
B startedd a new reseaarch project (F
Forte
and Kurillo 20100) aimed at creating a 3D immersivee
collaaborative envvironment for research and d education inn
arch
haeology, nam med TeleArch (Teleimmerssive Archaeo--
logyy, figs. 4-6). TeleArch
T is a teleimmersivee system ablee
c remotte users in a 3D cyberspaace by stereoo
cammeras, kinect caameras and m motion tracking g sensors (fig..
4). The
T system iss able to provvide: immersiive visualiza--
tion,, data integraation, real-tim
me interactionn and remotee
presence. The sofftware is baseed on OpenGL L-based openn
sourrce Vrui VR R Toolkit devveloped at University
U off
California, Davis. Last tests saay that it allow
ws a real timee

119
3D RECORDING
G AND MODELLING IN ARCHAEO
OLOGY AND CULTURAL
U HERITA
AGE

interrface and conntent (fig. 3, 6). As stand dalone it cann

elaborate all the models in 33D including g GIS layers,,
metaadata and dbases (fig. 7). The digital workflow off
TeleeArch is able to integrate aall the data in
n 3D from thee
field
dwork to the collaborative
c system with the followingg
sequuence:
‚ Arrchaeological data can be recorded in 3D
3 format byy
lasser scannerss, digital phhotogrammetrry, computerr
vision, image modeling.
m
‚ Thhe 3D models have to be deecimated and optimized forr
real time simulaations.
‚ 3D
D models havee to be exported in obj form
mat.
‚ Th
hey are optiimized in M
Meshlab and uploaded too
Figuure 6. A Teleim
mmersive worrk session
TeeleArch.
‚ Ulltimately diffferent geograaphically distributed userss
rendering off 1 million triaangles with thhe frame rate ofo 60 multaneously though a 3D network
staart to work sim n
FPS (frames per second) on NVidia GeForce GTX 8800
(typically 200/30 object forr scene). In thhe virtual envviron- 6.1.3
3.4 3D Interaaction
ment, users can
c load, delette, scale, movve objects or attach
a
them to diffeerent parent noodes. 3D layerrs combine seeveral TeleeArch supporrts different kinds of 3D D interaction::
3D objects that share geeometrical annd contextual pro- humman avatars (11st person intteraction), 3rd d person andd
perties but arre used as a sinngle entity in the environm
ment. standalone. In 1stt person operaability the useer can interactt
like in the real world
w within thhe space mappped by stereoo
The framewoork supports Meshlab
M projeect format (A ALN), cammeras: he/she operates
o like a human avaatar since thee
which definnes object filenames annd their rellative systeem reconstruccts the body m motion in real time (figs. 5--
geometric reelationship. Using
U a sliderr in the propeerties 6). In
I this case users
u can seee each other using naturall
dialog, one can easily uncover
u diffeerent stratigraaphic interrfaces and boody languagee. In 3rd perrson the userr
layers associiated with thee correspondinng units. TeleeArch interracts collaboraatively with ddata and models but withoutt
works as nettwork or standdalone softwaare. In a netwoork it stereeo cameras. Ultimately TeleArch wo orks also ass
can develop all the properrties of the TeeleImmersion, with standalone softw ware, so thaat the user can interactt
t connect reemote users sharing the same
the ability to indivvidually with models and ddata in stereo vision.
v

Figure 7. Buuilding 77 at Çatalhöyük:

Ç thhe teleimmersiive session shhows the spatiaal integration
of shapee files (layers, units and artiffacts) in the 3D model recoorded by laser scanning

120
 VIRTUAL REALLITY AND CYBER
RARCHAEOLOGY
Y

The followinng tools are cuurrently implem

mented:
‚ navigation tools: for navvigation througgh 3D space;
‚ graphic user interface toools: for interaction with menus
m
and other on-screen
o objeects;
‚ measuremeent tools: for acquiring object geometry (e.g.
dimensionaal and angularr measuremennts);
‚ flashlight tool:
t for religghting parts of
o the 3D scenne or
pointing att salient featurres.
‚ annotation and pointiing tools: for f marking and
communicating importaant interestingg features to other
remote useers;
‚ draggers: for
f picking upp, moving and rotating objeccts;
‚ screen locaators: for renddering mode manipulation (e.g. gure 8. 3D Intteraction with Wii in the telleimmersive
Fig
mesh, textuure, point clouud) systeem: building 777, Çatalhöyük k
‚ object sellectors: for selecting obj bjects to perrform
different actions relatedd to the local functionality,
f such
as changinng object renndering style (e.g. texturee, no
texture, mesh
m only), retrieving object metaadata,
focusing current
c view to object priincipal planess etc.
(Forte and Kurillo 2010)).

6.1.4 CASE STUDY: 3D

D ARCHAEO
OLOGY AT
ALHUYUK
CATA

6.1.4.1 Introoduction

The project “3D Archaeeology at Cattalhuyuk” (figg. 3)

started in 20010 thanks to the collaborattion with Stannford
University (A Archaeology Center) and UC Merced with
the scope too record, document (withh different digital
technologies) and visualize in virtual reality all the phhases
of archaeoloogical excavaation. Phase I (2010) off the
project was mainly
m orienteed to test diffferent technoloogies
during the excavation
e (tiime of flight and optical laser
scanners). Inn phase II (20111) the UC Merced
M team sttarted
from scratch the excavvation of a Neolithic house h perccentage of thee entire area has been ex
(building 89) recording all a the layers by time of phase p
scanners (figg. 9), optical scanners
s (fig. 12) and compputer
vision techniiques (image modeling,
m figss. 10-11). In phase
p tech
III (2012) thhe plan is to document the entire site (East
Mound) withh the integraation of diffeerent technoloogies
(scanners, computer
c vision, stereo cameras) annd to
continue thee digital recoording of thee Neolithic house h reproducing in laab all the phases of diggiing, layer-by--
focusing on the micro-depposits which backfill the floor. f
Final aim is to virttually museaalize the entire e tech
archaeologiccal site for thhe local visittor center andd for
TeleArch, thhe Teleimmerrsive system for f archaeologgy at
UC Merced and a UC Berkeeley (fig. 6).
Çatalhöyük is consideredd for many reasons ideaal for
addressing complex
c reseaarch methodoological questtions.
More than thirty yearrs of studiees, archaeoloogical
fieldwork and a research have beeen devotedd to
investigatingg the ideoloogy, religionn, social sttatus,
architectural structures, art,
a environmeent and landsscape
of the site, producing seeveral publicaations, bookss and
other media http://www.ca
h atalhoyuk.com
m/), but just a small
s metaa-data and arrchives; the iinterpretation comes from
Figure
F 9. Clouuds of points bby time of phaase scanner
(Trimble FX) at Çatalhhöyük: buildin ng 77
xcavated. Thee
digittal archeologiical project aaims to virtuaally reproducee
the entire
e archaeoological proceess of excavattion using 3DD
hnologies (laseer scanners, 3D D photogramm metry) on sitee
and 3D Virtual Reality
R of the deposits of Catalhoyuk
C ass
they
y are excavateed (fig. 8). Inn this way it isi possible too
makke the excaavation proccess virtually y reversible,,
layer, unit-by-unnit (fig. 7).. Unlike traaditional 2D D
hnology, 3D reconstructionn of depositts allows thee
arch
heologist to deevelop a morre complex un nderstandingss
and analyses of the depositss and artifactts excavated..
Diggging is a deestructive technique: how can we re--
anallyze and interpret whhat we exccavate? Thee
interrpretation phaase uses two approaches. OneO approachh
invo
olves the interrpretation andd documentation during thee
excaavation; the other approach is related to thee
reco
onstruction proocess after thhe excavation.. Both phasess
are typically
t separate and not ccontextualizedd in one singlee
research workfloow. The doocumentation process off
excaavation is seggmented in ddifferent repo orts, pictures,,
m

121
3D RECORDING
G AND MODELLING IN ARCHAEO
OLOGY AND CULTURAL
U HERITA
AGE

The site rapidly became

b famouus internationaally due to thee
largee size and dennse occupationn of the settleement, as welll
as thhe spectaculaar wall paintinngs and otherr art that wass
unco overed insidee the housess. Another distinguishing
d g
featuure of Çatalhööyük was the nature of thee houses: theyy
are complex
c units involving riitual and the interpretationn
of activities in the same sspace. In paarticular, thee
diachronic architeectural develoopment of th he site is stilll
veryy controversial and it needss more studiess and analysess
in reelation with thhe landscape aand the symbo olic, ritual andd
social use of the buildings.
b

Sincce February 2009, the site is inscrribed in thee

tentaative list of UNESCO W World Heritag ge Sites. Thee
speccific critical conditions oof the housess (mud-brickk
dweellings, earth floors,
f artifactts, etc.) and th
he difficultiess
Figure 10. Image moodeling of thee building 89 to preserve
p all thhe structures in situ urge to documentt
at Çatalhöyük digittally all thee structures before they collapse orr
disapppear.

6.1.4
4.3 Research
h Questions

The project can open new peerspectives att the level off
methhodology of research in archaeology, generating a
more advanced digital
d pipelinne from the fiieldwork to a
more holistic innterpretation process in the use off
grated spatiall datasets inn three dimen
integ nsions. Moree
speccifically, it shhould be ablee to define a new digitall
herm
meneutics of the archaeollogical researrch and new w
research questions. One of the key points off the project inn
fact is the miggration of 3D D data fromm the digitall
docuumentation inn the field to a simulation environmentt
and one day wiith an installlation in a publicp visitorr
centter.

Figure 11. Image moodeling of thee building 77
at Çatalhöyük
comparative studies and a analysees of all the
documentatioon recorded ini different files
f and archhives.
TeleArch aiims at the integration
i off both phasees of
documentatioon (bottom-uup) and recconstruction (top-
down) in the same sessionn of work and interpretationn.
6.1.4.2 The site
Çatalhöyük lies
l on the Koonya plain on the southern edge
a an elevationn of just over 1000
of the Anatolian Plateau at
m above seaa level. The site is made upu of two mouunds:
Çatalhöyük East and Çattalhöyük Wesst (Hodder 20006).
Çatalhöyük East consistss of Neolithiic deposits dating
d the decoration off buildings w
from 7400-66000 B.C. whhile Çatalhöyüük West is allmost
exclusively Chalcolithic (6000-5500 B.C.).
B Çatalhhöyük
was discoverred in the 19550s by the Brritish archaeollogist
James Mellaaart (Hodder 2000) and it i was the laargest
known Neoliithic site in thhe Near East at that time. From
F since the paintinngs are veryy fragile and
1993 up todaay the site was excavated by Ian Hodder with
the collabooration of several inteernational teams
experimentinng multivocallity and reflexxivity methodds in
archaeology (Hodder 20000).
In fact,
f in this case
c the 3D ddocumentation n of the new w
excaavation areas could be linkked and georefferenced withh
layers and datasetts recorded inn the past, recoonstructing att
the end
e a compleete 3D map of the site and d of the entiree
strattigraphic conttext (figs. 12-13). In that way,
w it will bee
posssible to redessign the relatiive chronolog gy of the sitee
and the severall phases of settlement. In fact thee
recoonstruction of the Neolithicc site in thoussands years off
conttinuous occuppation and usee is still very y difficult andd
conttroversial. In addition, the 3D recontextualization off
artiffacts in the viirtual excavattion is otherw
wise importantt
for the interpretaation of diffeerent areas off any singless
housse or for studying ppossible sociial activitiess
perppetuated withinn the site.
Otheer important research
r quesstions regard the sequencee
and re-compositioon of wall artt paintings an nd, in generall
with scenes of
o social life,,
mbols or geom
sym metrical shappes. For exaample in thee
builddings 77, it was possiblee to recompo ose the entiree
sequuence of painntings after ffour years of excavation,,
but this entire seequence is noot visible on site anymoree
d cannot bee
preserved in situu (figs. 13-166). In short, thet only wayy
to sttudy them is inn a virtual envvironment witth all the linkss
to thheir metadata and stratigraaphic contextss (figs. 7, 12,,
13).

122
 VIRTUAL REALLITY AND CYBER
RARCHAEOLOGY
Y

Figure 12. 3D
3 layers and microstratigraaphy in the telleimmersive system
s (accuraacy < 1 mm):
midden laayers at Çatalhhöyük. This area
a was recorrded by optical scanner (Minnolta 910)

Fig
gure 15. Buildding 77 after thhe removal off the painted
T 3D recordiing by image modeling
calf’s head. The
allows too reconstruct thhe entire sequ
uence
of deccoration (by ddifferent layerss)
Figure 13. Virtual straatigraphy of thhe building 899,
Çatalhöyük: all thee layers recordded by time
off phase laser scanner
s (Trimbble FX)

Figure 166. Building 777: all the 3D laayers

with painntings visualizzed in transparrency
Figure 14. Building
B 77 recconstructed byy image modeeling (
(processed in Meshlab)
(Photoscaan). In detailhaand wall paintting and painteed
calf's heaad above niche

123
3D RECORDING AND MODELLING IN ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
6.1.4.4 Collaborative Research at Catalhuyuk
Since the system is still a prototype it is too early for a
significant analysis of the performance and for discussing
deeply the first results. Most of the time was invested in
the implementation, testing, optimization of data and the
creation of a new beta version of the software running
also as standalone version. A bottle-neck is the number of
users/operators the system can involve simultaneously:
current experiments were tested with the connection of
two campuses. The expandability of the system is crucial
for a long-term collaborative research and also for getting
adequate results in terms of interpretation and validation
of models and digital processes. In fact in Teleimmersive
archaeology the interpretation is the result of an
embodied participatory activity engaging multiple
users/actors in real time interaction in the same space.
The participation of human avatars in teleimmersion has
the scope to augment the embodiment of the operators, to
use natural interfaces during the interaction and to
perceive all the models on scale. This cyberspace
augments then the possibilities to interpret, measure,
analyze, compare, illuminate, and simulate digital models
according to different research perspectives while sharing
models and data in the same space.
In the case of Catalhuyuk, the Teleimmersive system is
aimed to recreate virtually all the archaeological process
of excavation. Therefore all the data are recorded
originally by time-of-flight and optical scanners and then
spatially linked with 3D dbases, alphanumeric and GIS
data. Two fieldwork seasons, 2010 and 2011 were
scaled and implemented for TeleArch with all the 3D
layers and stratigraphies integrated with dbases and GIS
data (figs. 7, 8, 13). All the 3D models have to be aligned
and scaled first in Meshlab and then exported in
TeleArch.
6.1.4.5 Fieldwork 2010
The fieldwork activity had the twofold scope of
excavating a multistratified deposit such as a “midden
area” (East mound, Building 86, Space 344, 329, 445)
and to document all the excavation by 3D laser scanners,
computer vision and 3D stereoscopy. For this scope we
have used a triangulation scanner for the
microstratigraphy (Minolta 910), an optical scanner for
the artifacts (Nextengine) and a time of flight/phase
scanner for the buildings and the largest areas of
excavation (Trimble CX). The use of different
technologies was necessary for applying a multiscale
approach to the documentation process. In fact, scanners
at different accuracy are able to produce different kinds
of 3D datasets with various levels of accuracy. More
specifically a special procedure was adopted for the data
recording of the stratigraphic units: every single phase
and surface of excavation was recorded by the
triangulation scanner after cleaning and the traditional
manual archaeological drawing. The contemporaneous
use of both methodologies was fundamental in order to
overlap the logic units of the stratigraphic sequence (and
related perimeter) on their 3D models.
124
The combined use of the 3D stereo camera and the stereo
video projector have allowed the visualization of 3D
archaeological data and models day by day, stimulating a
debate on site about the possible interpretations of
buildings, objects and stratigraphy.
With the time of flight scanner Buildings 80, 77, 96 and
all the general areas of excavation in the North and South
shelter were recorded and documented. With the optical
scanner Nextengine, 35 objects were recorded in 3D
involving different categories: figurines, ceramics and
stone. Finally all these models were exported for 3D
sessions in TeleArch.
6.1.4.6 Fieldwork 2011
The experience acquired in 2010 was able to address
differently the strategy of data recording in 2011. In fact
in 2010 timing was a very critical factor in laser scanning
during the archaeological excavation and the use of
optical scanners (Minolta 910) was not appropriate for
capturing stratigraphy and layers (optical scanner have
troubleshooting working outdoor).
In addition the accuracy produced by the use of Minolta
scanner, even if very valuable, was even too much (a
range of few microns) for the representation of
stratigraphic layers (fig. 12). The Minolta 910 in fact, as
many other optical scanners, does not work properly in
the sunlight, and because of that the use in 2010 was
limited under a small surface of 1 sq mt under a dark tent.
However the final models produced in 2010 were very
interesting because of the very detailed features
represented in the sequence of stratigraphic units and in
relation with the sequence of midden layers.
Therefore in 2011 we have opted for an integrated system
able to shorten dramatically the phases of post-processing
and to allow a daily reconstruction in 3D of all the trench
of excavation. It is important in fact to highlight that
timing is a crucial factor in relation with the daily need to
discuss the results of 3D elaboration and the strategy of
excavation.
Differently from 2010, we have adopted two new systems
working simultaneously: a new time of phase scanner
(Trimble FX) and a combination of camera based
software of computer vision and image modeling
(Photoscan, stereoscan, Meshlab). The Trimble FX is a
time of phase shift able to generate 216000 pt/sec and
with a 360 x 270* field of view; it is a very fast and
effective scanner with the capacity to generate meshes
during the data recording, so that to save time in the
phase of post processing. The strategy in the
documentation process was to record simultaneously all
the layers/units in the sequence of excavation using laser
scanning and computer vision. At the end of the season
we have generated 8 different models of the phases of
excavation by computer vision (3D camera image
modeling) and as well by laser scanning. The scheme
below shows the principal features and differences
between the two systems; laser scanning requires a longer

Table 1. A comparison, based on our experience, between TOF scanner and Computer Vision methods
post-processing but it produces higher quality of data.
Computer vision allows to have immediate results and to
follow the excavation process in 3D day by day (but not
with the same geometrical evidence of the laser scanner).
The digital workflow used during the excavation was the
following:
‚ Identification of archaeological layers and recognition
of shapes and edges.
‚ Cleaning of the surface (in the case of computer vision
applications).
‚ Registration of targets by total station (so that all the
models can be georeferenced with the excavation’s
grid).
‚ Digital photo-recording for computer vision
‚ Digital photo recording for laser scanning
‚ Laser scanning
The digital workflow for the computer vision processing
is based on 1) photos alignment; 2) construction of the
geometry (meshes) 3) texturing and ortophoto generation.
The accuracy by computer vision measured in 2011
models was around 5 mm.
The use of georeferenced targets on site was implemented
for the automatic georeferencing of the 3D models with
the excavation grid. In that way all the 3D information
recorded during the excavation is perfectly oriented and
125
VIRTUAL REALITY AND CYBERARCHAEOLOGY
integrated with all the 2D maps, GIS layers and
archeological data.
Ultimately and differently from 2010, the post processing
phase was very quick and effective for laser scanning and
computer vision. In fact the models recorded with the
above mentioned technologies were ready and available
for a 3D visualization a few hours after data capturing.
The speed of this process has allowed a daily discussion
on the interpretation of the archaeological stratigraphy
and on 3D spatial relations between layers, structures and
phases of excavation. The excavation of an entire
building (B89) has allowed testing the system in one
single context so that to produce a 3D multilayered model
of stratigraphy related to an entire building. In addition a
3D model of the painted wall of Building 80 was created
in 3D computer vision in order to study the relations
between micro-layers of frescos and the surface of the
wall.
The last part of the work was the 3D stereo
implementation of the models for the OgreMax viewer
and for Unity 3D in order to display them in stereo
projection. For this purpose we have used the DLP
Projector Acer H5360 in association with the NVIDIA
3D vision kit and a set of active stereo glasses. The
buildings B77 and B89 (during the excavation) were
implemented for a stereo visualization in real time
(walkthrough, flythrough, rotation, zooming and
panning). Thanks to the portability of this system, the
3D RECORDING AND MODELLING IN ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
stereo projection was available in the seminar room for
all the time of excavation.
6.1.5 CONCLUSIONS
The future of digital archaeology is in the interactive
kinesthetic process: enactive embodiments of data,
models, users, human avatars: a continue work in
progress. If in the past the attention was focused on the
validation of models and environments, the future of
archaeological information is in the digital performance
between operators in shared environments and cyber
worlds. We could say: “performing the past” rather
than “reconstructing”. The virtual performance
represents a new digital frame within which the
archaeological interpretation can be generated and
transmitted.
If at the beginning of virtual archaeology the goals were
to reconstruct the past (mainly in computer graphics), at
the present the past can be simulated in virtual
environments, re-elaborated in Internet, transmitted by
different social media. This last digital phase, born-
digital, is completely different: the bottom-up phase
during the fieldwork, the documentation process, the 3D
modeling produce an enormous quantity of data, whose
just a low percentage is really used and shared.
Instruments, tools and software of data capturing have
substantially increase the capacity of digital recording
and real time renderings, but unfortunately there are not
yet adequate instruments for interpretation and
communication. The interpretation is hidden somewhere
in or through models but we don’t have the key for
discovering or extrapolating this information from the
digital universe. The research work in the last two
decades was concentrated more on recording tools and
data entry rather than accurate analyses and interpre-
tations. The result is that too much information or too
little have a similar effect: there is no way to interpret
correctly.
One more thing to consider in this new dimension of
virtual interaction in archaeology is the digital
materiality. The cyber world is now populated of digital
artifacts and affordances: they create networks of a new
material culture, totally digital. The multiplication of
affordances in a virtual environment depends on
interaction design and on the digital usability of the
models. Therefore there are new material contexts to
analyze: shall we create specific taxonomic approaches
for this domain? New classes and categories of digital
materiality? When we analyze for example a 3D model of
a statue or a potsherd and we compare it with the original,
we assume that the 3D model is a detailed copy of a real
artifact. Is that true? Actually it is not: a digital artifact is
a representation of objects simulated by different lights,
shadows, contexts and measurable on scale: in other
words it is a simulated model not a copy or a replica. Of
course there are several similarities between the digital
and the real one, but we cannot use the same analytical
tool. Hands-on experiences on real artifacts reproduce a
126
different feedback if compared with the digital ones. In
some circumstances the virtual object has a more “dense”
information, it is comprehensible from different
perspectives, but not necessarily reproducible in the real
world.
Humans, as visual animals, have constructed their
hermeneutic skills throughout several generations of
genetic and cultural evolution. Digital materiality is a
new domain of hermeneutic, with different rules, spaces
and contexts. The informative content of a complex
digital representation could be more than authentic: it is
hyper-real. This hyper-real archaeology elaborates at the
end much more data and information than in the past: this
new digital materiality has therefore to be studied with a
diverse hermeneutic approach.
This new digital phase of research and communication
permits to review the entire digital workflow from data
capturing to the final documentation and reconstruction
process. The integrated use of different technologies of
data capturing and post-processing then generates a more
sophisticated pipeline of digital interpretation, thanks to
the comparison among models, meshes, geometry and
clouds of points. In addition, the relevant speed of all the
digital process is able to increase the capacities of
interpretation during the excavation and, more
specifically, to simulate the entire excavation in 3D.
Ultimately Teleimmersive archaeology is still in
embryonic stage of development, but collaborative minds
at work simultaneously in the same immersive
cyberspace can potentially generate new interpretations
and simulation scenarios never explored before.
Acknowledgements
Teleimmersive archeology project was supported by
Center for Information Technology Research in the
Interest of Society (CITRIS) at University of California,
Berkeley. We also acknowledge financial support from
NSF grants 0703787 and 0724681, HP Labs, The
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company
(EADS) for the implementation of the teleimmersion
software. We thank Ram Vasudevan and Edgar Lobaton
for the stereo reconstruction work at University of
California, Berkeley. We also thank Tony Bernardin and
Oliver Kreylos from University of California, Davis for
the implementation of the 3D video rendering.
For the project 3D Archaeology at Catalhuyuk, special
thanks to all the students and participants involved in the
fieldwork and lab post-processing and in particular
Fabrizio Galeazzi (2010 season), Justine Issavi (2010-
11), Nicola Lercari (2011), Llonel Onsurez (2010-11).
Bibliography
BARCELÓ, J.A.; FORTE, M. et al. 2000. “Virtual reality in
archaeology.” BAR international series 843.

BATESON, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. New
York, Ballantine Books.
BENTKOWSKA-KAFEL, A.; DENARD, H. et al. 2011.
Paradata and transparency in virtual heritage.
Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT, Ashgate.
CAMERON, F. and KENDERDINE, S. 2010. Theorizing
digital cultural heritage: a critical discourse.
Cambridge, Mass.; London, MIT Press.
CHAMPION, E. 2011. Playing with the past. Human-
computer interaction series. London; New York,
Springer: 1 online resource (xxi, 214 p.).
DASGUPTA, S. 2006. Encyclopedia of virtual
communities and technologies. Hershey, PA, Idea
Group Reference: 1 online resource (1 v.).
DASGUPTA, S. 2006. Encyclopedia of virtual communities
and technologies. Hershey, PA, Idea Group
Reference.
FORTE, M. 1997. Virtual archaeology: re-creating
ancient worlds. New York, NY, Abrams.
FORTE, M. 2000. About virtual archaeology: disorders,
cognitive interactions and virtuality. Virtual reality in
archaeology. F.M. Barcelo J., Sanders D. Oxford. in
Barcelo J., Forte M., Sanders D., 2000 (eds.), Virtual
reality in archaeology, Oxford, ArcheoPress (BAR
International Series S 843), 247-263: 247-263.
FORTE, M. 2007. La villa di Livia: un percorso di
ricerca di archeologia virtuale. Roma, “L’Erma” di
Bretschneider.
FORTE, M. 2009. “Virtual Archaeology. Communication
in 3D and ecological thinking.” Beyond Illustration:
2D and 3D Digital Technologies as Tools for
Discovery in Archaeology, edited by Bernard Frischer
and Anastasia Dakouri-Hild, Archaeopress, Oxford:
31-45.
127
VIRTUAL REALITY AND CYBERARCHAEOLOGY
FORTE, M. 2010. Cyber-archaeology. Oxford, England,
Archaeopress.
FORTE, M. 2010. Cyber-archaeology. Oxford u.a.,
Archaeopress.
FORTE, M. and KURILLO, G. 2010. “Cyberarchaeology
Experimenting Teleimmersive Archaeology” 16th
International Conference on Virtual Systems and
Multimedia (VSMM 2010), Oct 20-23, 2010: 155-162.
HODDER, I. 2000. Towards reflexive method in
archaeology the example at Çatalhöyük. BIAA
monograph no. 28. Cambridge.
HODDER, I. 2000. Towards reflexive method in
archaeology the example at Çatalhöyük. BIAA
monograph no. 28. Cambridge, Oxford, McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research University of
Cambridge.
HODDER, I. 2006. Çatalhöyük: the leopard’s tale:
revealing the mysteries of Turkey’s ancient town.
London, Thames & Hudson.
KAPP, K.M. 2012. The gamification of learning and
instruction : game-based methods and strategies for
training and education. San Francisco, Calif.
Chichester, Jossey-Bass; John Wiley distributor.
MATURANA, H.R. and VARELA, F.J. 1980. Autopoiesis
and cognition: the realization of the living. Dordrecht,
Holland; Boston, D. Reidel Pub. Co.
ZUBROW, E. 2010. From Archaeology to I-archaeology:
Cyberarchaeology, paradigms, and the end of the
twentieth century. Oxford, Archaeopress. Cyber-
archaeology (ed. by Maurizio Forte): 1-7.
ZUBROW, E.B.W. 2011. The Magdalenian household:
unraveling domesticity. Albany, N.Y., State Univ. of
New York Press.