There was no reason for an archaeologist to be uninterested in the creation of theoretical models of their objects of study, for other disciplines (astronomy, medicine, and physics) had been engaged in such studies for a long time. The goal of building this type of model that gathers all the accumulated knowledge of a specific site on a computer is to give a synthetic representation of the object of study that is useful for further research and to communicate it to the public. This double objective required careful consideration and the development of an appropriate methodology.2
1 Introduction
The archaeological site of Giza has been studied via organized excavation for well over a century and as a result has produced massive amounts of archaeological documentation. The Giza Project at Harvard, a collaborative international initiative based at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, assembles, curates, and provides free access to records of past archaeological work at Giza. The Project is not an on-the-ground field research program, but rather an archaeological data management, informatics, and visualization project. It currently manages the worldâs largest digital archive of Giza records and media, the Giza Consolidated Archaeological Reference Database (GizaCARD),3 and leverages this diverse content to produce powerful online and traditional academic research tools along with new teaching technologies.4 The Giza Projectâs public-facing point of contact is its Digital Giza website (
As part of its overarching mission for the collection, preservation, integration, study, and access for Giza data as comprehensively as possible, the Giza Project has for several years approached the creation of 3D model reconstructions of the Giza Plateau and its archaeological remains with two purposes: (1) as the effective visualization of archival holdings contained within the digital archive, and (2) as highly accessible, interactive interfaces that can serve as effective access points to that core data for many types of users. Thus, through the evolution of the Giza Project 3D modeling has become a pursuit not only for visualizing data holdings, but as a very important access point to the data itself, especially for non-traditional users of primary documentation. Digital media have become important vehicles for bringing primary documentation to a broad audience, not just through lowering access barriers but also through contextualization, interaction, and direct experience.6
2 Brief Problematization: Facts, Figures, and 3D Modeling in Archaeology
Illustration has been ubiquitous in the dissemination of information in archaeology and Egyptology for about as long as the fields have been professionalized. The fast pace of technological evolution in recent decades has expanded options for creation, presentation, distribution, and consumption of visual media dramatically. Three-dimensional modeling and reconstruction are by now established elements of the digital archaeology toolkit. Whether captured through photogrammetry or laser scan, or built up from 2D documentation in modeling software, 3D visualizations and reconstructions comprise the most recent stageâand extensionâof visual media for representing information about sites, site components, data, interpretive models, hypotheticals, and conclusions in both academic and popular forums. Increasingly, it has been recognized that the utility of modeling virtual reconstructions rests in more than just in their outputs as visualized ancient moments, monuments, and milieus; rather, the undertaking is itself valuable to the process of inquiry and data interpretation in archaeological research.7
Egyptology is not generally expected to be a driving force behind technological applications and advancements. In fact, often it has been slower than some other disciplines at adopting new technologies. Nonetheless, as a field that studies a highly visual material culture that enjoys relatively good preservation, it is an apt beneficiary of the advantages that 3D capturing and modeling technologies proffer. It is a very good candidate for contributing to the disciplinary landscape of âvirtual heritage.â8 Three-dimensional visualizations offer an efficiently plastic medium for experimentation, trial-and-error, and comparison of multiple possibilities.9 These capacities are of great utility for working with the (re)construction of complex subject matter, providing powerful means for testing and displaying ideas.10 In practical terms, 3D technologies enhance the capacities for graphic models to support intellectual models in ways that push beyond traditional illustration to new modalities of research, learning, and engagement with the past.11 Even more than the inherent perspectival differences between 2D and 3D media, âvirtualâ 3D objects and environments add further dimensions to their subject matter. Whereas a two-dimensional figure is perceived relative to the size of a page, to the bounding box of a figure, or to a scale indicator within it, 3D models can afford first-person viewpoints at lifelike scale and in all directions. The option of representing the fourth dimension of time is of immense value to archaeological subjects.12 This capability offers advantages for both creation and presentation of visualizations (Figure 16.1 & Supplemental Media A). Many 3D media formats also allow embedding of traditional media formats (e.g. images, illustrations, videos), further expanding their versatility by permitting juxtaposition of âthe virtual,â in the form of reconstruction, and âthe real,â in the form of archaeological records and other traditional data formats.13
Figure 16.1
The Giza 3D Menkaure Valley Temple, work in progress: (left) Superimposed architecture and extrusions of settlement phases and (right) extrapolations and comparisons of ground levels in the temple courtyard. (Original plans of Reisner, Mycerinus (1931), Plans VIIIâX & Hassan (1960), frontispiece.)
Visualized reconstructions are thus effective vehicles for productively using archival records from past excavations, as well as, in some cases, enabling research to overcome limitations inherent to past excavationsâ recording practices.14 It is with these latter applications of 3D modeling that the Giza Project at Harvard University has almost a decade of experience and experimentation, in particular.15 As both process and media output, 3D modeling is a vehicle for investigating real spatial relationships among people, objects, buildings, sites, and landscapes that are fundamental to archaeological interpretation. It is fitting that some recent Egyptological research explores first-hand sensory and spatial experiences inâand ofâancient settings, regarding them as integral to understanding the original uses of ancient spaces and landscapes.16
However, the technology that makes this kind of visualization potentially so useful also can make it a dicey affair. Just as new and improved technologies for digital creation and consumption have expanded the capabilities of illustration and visualization, they have brought significant new potential pitfalls to consider, and consider thoughtfully. As 3D visualizations increasingly become entry points for students and an interested public to engage with archaeology and Egyptology, 3D media easily can contribute to misunderstandings of the subject matter. Three-dimensional models can be photorealistic. They can be immersive, 360-degree Virtual Reality arenas that lend more textured âexperientialâ aspects to content, readily invoking a palpable sense of âreality.â With the current prevalence of electronic modes of transmission, display, and consumption, the significance of this difference from traditional 2D illustration can be underappreciated. Yet, just as with CGI in movies and video games, academic model content is not necessarily subject to physics and other constraining facets of reality. In effect, any idea can âbecome a reality,â especially in the absence of context or annotation to qualify the visual content. Indeed, the lines between high-end academic media and entertainment productions are perhaps blurrier than ever before, even as the gaming industry takes incremental steps into the educational sphere.17
The speeds at which 3D media are distributable via electronic transfer only further complicate the situation. Manipulation, repurposing, and re-/de-contextualization occur more rapidly than ever before. Lastly, once academically generated 3D media are released into the world of the internet, they exist in a world that operates outside the structures and value systems of academe. Videos, 3D model files, and other formats are not yet included as a matter of course by journals and other academic publications, those domains wherein academics know the rules because they both created and continue to police them.18 Supply chains for 3D media on the Internet are less stringently rule-aware, to vastly understate current conditions.
There always will be media produced outside the data-driven world. In fact, there will be more and more as technologies advance. At any point in time Google video or YouTube searches for relevant keywords will yield results that include erroneous, untenable, fantastical, curious, and altogether absurd content. Some highly questionable (at best) examples will be of similar, if not superior graphic quality and production value to their academic counterparts. Options for clearly marking academically vetted content (including educated hypothesis or speculation) are few, and possibly shrinking in number over time. Once released, 3D media can quickly take on alternate lives of their own, disassociated from the often substantial source materials (e.g. primary documents; empirical data; excavated artifacts) and intellectual processes (e.g., decisions made; theories applied; extrapolation from parallels; informed speculation; artistic necessity or license) that factored into their creation. Effectively, they are born-digital academic works that do not lend themselves easily to the full spectrum of appropriate citation by traditional conventions of academic publications. A priority and long-standing conundrum for academically supported media, then, has been to find straightforward means of conveying intellectual support and explanation.
Whether intended to highlight selected data or to envision more complete ancient settings, 3D models often include reconstruction, sometimes considerable. This fact alone may be lamented or embraced, but there is no denying its necessity for some modeled media to be effective in their desired function(s). It is necessary because the archaeological record is, by definition, incomplete. If, for any number of reasons, the end goal is a model reconstruction that is âcompleteâ in some sense of the termâan object, a building, a site, a geological formation, etc.âempirical data will at some point reach a limit that is well shy of that objective.19 One will always need to bridge that gap. What transpires between that threshold and an end product accounts for many debates about the value and standards of 3D modeling in archaeology. The major points of contention often boil down to issues of realism versus empirical realityâand ultimately how to separate the two for audiences of 3D mediaâand the merits of partial or full reconstruction.20 Both empirical and hypothetical reconstructions of archaeological remains always have been elements of academic research, as have reasonable attempts at approximating their original states.21 But, by the very nature of academic undertakings, it is imperative to try to capture as much as reasonably possible, while still manageable and desirable, to explain what has been done to fill the gaps between what is documented to a standard of ârealnessâ versus what is not.
3 3D Modeling and the Giza Project at Harvard
Project Director Peter Der Manuelian first explored 3D modeling for creating visualized reconstructions of Giza mastaba tombs published in volume 8 of the Giza Mastabas series.22 At that time he was Director of the Giza Archives Project at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.23 In this early instance, then, the end goal of the modeling was to leverage archival excavation records to generate reconstructions for figures in a paper publication. This traditional paper format permitted more or less straightforward citation of underlying archival sources and resources that informed the creation of the mastaba models. A major subsequent initiative called âGiza 3Dâ dramatically changed the trajectory of Giza modeling. A collaboration between the Giza Archives Project and French modeling software company Dassault Systèmes, Giza 3D would be a fully immersive 3D environment: a model of the Giza Plateau and its major Old Kingdom monuments, with as many as possible modeled in detail to allow for thorough exploration (Figure 16.2).24
At that time there was a distinctly experimental aspect to the ambitious aims of Giza 3D. Early in the endeavor a strategy was set in place for all detailed models to be built to âfinishedâ states of completion. Egyptologists working on the Giza 3D were interested in exploring the kinds of questions, decisions, conflicts, and concessions that couldâand didâarise along the way. There also was a keen awareness of the stakes involved in addressing these facets of media that was destined for public exposure. As a semi-commercial venture with a small battalion of digital artists logging modeling hours and a very small staff of Egyptologists trying to keep apace, neither schematics nor target outcomes could practically integrate front-facing referencing. The intellectual underpinnings had to be left as understood inherently backed by the level of academic involvement at, first, the Museum of Fine Arts, and, later, at Harvard University. The developmental period of Giza 3D also saw the completion of the Giza Archives Project at the Museum. By then Project Director Peter Der Manuelian had begun his tenure as Phillip J. King Professor of Egyptology at Harvard University.25 With Manuelian again directing, some veteran members of the Giza Archives Project were brought aboard the newly established Giza Project at Harvard, providing some continuity to ongoing Giza 3D work with Dassault Systèmes.26
The Giza 3D collaboration culminated in the launch of a Dassault-built Giza 3D website (see Figure 16.3;
Also during these years a major focus turned to devising a sound strategy for integrating the Projectâs modeled art assets (both old and new) with GizaCARD holdings, to allow its direct linking to all primary archival sources that contributed to their creation. This turn accompanied a new conceptual treatment of archaeologically informed 3D models. They are not media outputs that rely on data of many forms; they are data in and of themselvesânew data created from old/other data. This frame shift is not a long stretch. Even if understanding a model as the product of its resources, it nonetheless becomes a member of the data constellation that produced it (Figure 16.4). An obvious outcome of this viewpoint was new database record types to accommodate 3D models as nodes in the Giza data constellation.29 Interconnections within the database carry through to the Digital Giza website, such that all archived sources relevant to a modelâs construction are readily apparent in that modelâs online record view.
Figure 16.4
Schematic diagram of 3D modeling sources and influences (after Hermon 2009, Fig. 4, with adjustments and reformatting)
In a controlled, self-contained infrastructural system like that of the Giza Project (i.e. database, API, and website) this approach might be more or less sufficient alone. However, it falls short of accounting for much information in model-building that inevitably comes from beyond the scope of the archival records themselves. The range of other âbehind the scenesâ details can be voluminous.30 Each 3D model is unique from its inception, in that every model has:
-
its own limiting factors related to the primary data and imagery
-
its own bibliography of scholarly referencing and interpretation, sometimes internally conflicting
-
its own needs for extension, extrapolation, educated speculation, or fabrication for completion
Regardless of whether end users of models are likely to be non-specialists or scholars, digital media literacy is a major concern. How, then, does one package most, if not all of this underlying information into a format that sufficiently fulfills practical referencing needs of traditional academic publishing, but conducive to 3D mediaâs peculiarities?
4 Low-Tech Solutions for High-Tech Capabilities
The easiest solution to the abovementioned issues might seem clear, at first: annotation within the model itself. This possibility stands up better in theory than in implementation. If a model deserves more than just a handful of notes and citations to cover the necessary reference information, a visual field is likely to get muddled rather quickly, even if, for instance, notations can toggle on and off. Often there is so much detail to cover that, if a modelâs use is primarily casual or educational, reference annotations will likely drown out didactic material fairly readily. Further, although ideal in concept, in practice the completely thorough, step-by-step chronicling of every single step of model (re)construction is detrimentally cumbersome for both creators and consumers if they are expected to be visible during use of the media itself, or even at all. As a result, development of in-media documentation standards, particularly as they apply to dissemination, has been very slow to advance beyond bear minimum annotation or caption within the media, traditional bibliography, or a slate of âmovie creditâ attributions and bibliography at the end of a production.31 With the understanding that Giza 3D media will reach a very broad and diverse user base, it is essential to package referencing and citation information in a broadly accessible format.
The Giza Projectâs response is consciously low-tech in its approach. As part of larger program of funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities Division of Preservation and Access (2016â2017),32 the Project developed a referencing system for its models that fulfills the main functions of footnotes/endnotes, bibliography, and explanatory manual. The strategy is comprised of three referencing documents: a Visual Construction Summary, a Model Sourcing Document, and a Scene Composition Document. Composed as Word files but archived and distributed as PDFâ¯s, these three documents themselves also become data objects associated with models in the database, so that (upon future completion of infrastructural updates) they will be readily retrievable as data, along with derivative media applications for which modeled content has been deployed. This linkage ensures that references will be readily available alongside models themselves.33 When such time comes that 3D model assets themselves are available for immediate download (as opposed to only online viewing), reference documents can be downloaded along with them as accompanying explanatory literature. Templates for these referencing documents have been made available online and can be accessed at
5 Reference Type #1: The Visual Construction Summary
The first reference type is the Visual Construction Summary (VCS; see Appendix 1A & online Supplemental Media B). It is the least formal of the three documentary devices to be introduced here, the least technical, and most publicly accessible in content. Its purpose is to record a visual âquick referenceâ sheet for the gross progression that a 3D-graphic model underwent from start to finish in its buildâfor the Giza Project, usually from base architectural plans to completed model. The objective is not all-encompassing, or even necessarily systematic coverage of the modelâs development. Rather, it is the digital equivalent of time-lapsed photography of a real-world construction site. Whether arranged in a linear sequence or asynchronously, images and figures are assembled to generally illustrate the major steps of the process, i.e. key benchmarks from laying the first foundations to a finished 3D art asset (e.g. building, landscape, object, avatar, etc.).
The Giza Project has found that, by and large, the simple format of this document offers usefully broad latitude for how much or how little to show based on several factors, including: size and complexity of the modeled subject, special artistic techniques, areas of special difficulty/attention, and even, sometimes unfortunately, how (in)attentive digital artists were to photo-documenting their creative and technical processes along the way. Both intent and process are the same in producing these summaries regardless of how large or small the subject of the model isâwhether a whole landscape, a building, a person (avatar), an archaeological artifact, or a prop. For most, a basic range of stages that will appear in the document are:
-
indications of primary bases of sources documentation
-
early-stage extrusions from two-dimensional data (e.g. plans and sections, object illustrations)
-
wireframe models of a subjectâs geometry (complete or partial)
-
solid, or âgreyâ models that fill in the structural geometry as solids
-
finished or near-finished modeled subject, often displaying facets of material properties, lighting effects, etc.
Appendix 1B is an example VCS for the Giza 3D Menkaure Valley Temple, for which multiple phases of temple renovation and settlement activity in courtyard spaces were modeled as part of Giza 3D.34
6 Reference Type #2: The Model Sourcing Document
The second reference form includes information that collectively fulfills several important needs of archaeological visualization data. Labelled a Model Sourcing Document (MSD; see Appendix 2A & online Supplemental Media C), it functions analogously to the bibliography and footnotes/endnotes in a written academic work. Sixteen categories of information are identified as essential for this document. These categories are based primarily upon the combined recommendations of the Archaeology Data Service and Digital Antiquity, as published in their Guides to Good Practice for âVirtual Realityâ projects. More precisely, the Giza Project has adopted and/or adapted several of their recommended elements for general documentation, methods, and techniques.35 While some categories have been carried over to the Projectâs documentation scheme as presented, others are adjusted or conflated in the interest of designing a manageable template.
First and foremost, the MSD records the source materials used in the creation of a modelâprimary data and archival records and images, publications, theoretical interpretations, specialist communication, unusual or non-traditional sources, etc. A section for âInterpretive Specifications & Commentaryâ accommodates the explanation of decisions and special details that are particular to a given model, especially for instances from which extension from hard data, artistic license, or other non-empirical processes were requiredâwhich, as discussed above, can be frequent. This form also requests the listing of accessory files such as images of model surface textures (e.g., materials, ground types and coverings, human and animal âskins,â etc.) and sound files (e.g., environmental sounds, activity sound effects, ambient noise, etc.).36 It also includes some technical metadata for the model as a media object, including the 3D formats in which it exists, the file formats used as underlying or integrated components of the model, and listing of the software tools used to generate the model. It is important to distinguish the MSD as a citation document, as opposed to a technical spec sheet. It is not necessary to chronicle fundamental steps of the modeling and rendering processes, e.g. drawing lines; extruding, editing, and decimating polygons; fine-tuning material properties and lighting settings. Such technical specifications, which are discoverable when a model is opened with the appropriate software, are not primary concerns for documenting the intellectual underpinnings of modeled content.
Appendix 2B is an MSD for the Sphinx Temple, a component of the Khafre Pyramid Complex.37 This monument model (see Figure 16.5) is a good case example for the importance of developing the documentation introduced in this article. Originally built under the mandate to reconstruct models to completion, the Giza 3D Sphinx Temple presented the unusual circumstances of a monument that itself was unfinished in antiquity.38 As this example MSD necessarily records, the decision for this version of a Sphinx Temple model was to understand âfinishedâ as equivalent to âas may have been intended.â39
Figure 16.5
Render of a Giza 3D Sphinx Temple model, hypothetical âas likely intended originallyâ reconstruction
7 Reference Type #3: The Scene Composition Document
Often archaeological models are combined into vignettes, scenes, animated video productions, and applications. Visualized scenes serve a wide spectrum of exploratory, educational, research, and entertainment (and indeed, âedu-tainmentâ) purposes. Consequently, their target audiences are equally diverse. However, as with individual models, the importance of providing means to understand the material as combined and presented is nonetheless the same for all viewers/users. The inherent dangers in constructing composite scenes are more significant than with individual models, all the more so because of the nature of archaeology itself. As a field of study, archaeology is fundamentally about spatial and situational relationships among people and things: who did what; when and how they did it; where they did it; and with what? Archaeologists then ultimately address larger interpretive questions of why across multiple scales of human activity and culture. Visualizations are powerful tools for communicating and testing these aspects of the past, and 3D media are well equipped for conveying all of them at once. However, by situating people and objects within natural and built environments, realistic relationships among all three are implied. Scenes create archaeological realities, which are still interpretive. Even when not distributed by identifiably reputable creators, they can be misinterpreted as absolute, authoritative realities by many viewers.
To address this situation the Scene Composition Document (SCD; see Appendix 3A & online supplemental media D) adapts the methodology advanced in response to similar considerations in the biological and biomedical sciences.40 These fields have in recent years turned increasingly to 3D modeling and animated visualization as means of demonstrating biological structures, mechanics, and interactions at the molecular and cellular levels to visualize theoretical models based on laboratory experimentation.41 The Giza Projectâs SCD has simplified portions of the published approach to align it better with archaeological datasets. Briefly stated, the purpose of the Scene Composition Document is to thoroughly dissect the content of every scene in an animated media production/application. Doing so first requires identification of all elements that comprise a scene. Elements include everything from overall environment to tiny, individual props; from avatar characters to text or arrows on the screen; from generic (or fabricated) items to archival documents embedded in the animation (see Table 16.1).
In produced media of this sort, everything has been put there for a reason, however major or minor it may be. The subsequent sections of the SCD clarify these reasons, and they are dependent upon the scene elements themselves. Wherever applicable, the document records three categories of information for each element:
-
Element Properties: These attributes fully describe an element in the context of the scene, in terms of structure, appearance, activity/interaction, grouping.
-
Reference Categories: This category identifies the nature of the reference sources that have been brought to bear on an elementâs properties in the scene. A minimalist nomenclature of just four termsâvisual, quantitative, qualitative, speculation/artistic licenseâeconomically accommodates a broad range of reference types, ranging from strictly empirical to primarily conjectural.
-
Reference Uses: These categories specify the process(es) by which, and extent(s) to which, information in Reference Categories have translated into the elementâs appearance and use in the scene, whether by direct import, adaptation, interpolation, extrapolation, sampling, and/or reduction (see Table 16.2).
Table 16.1
Description and examples of element types in a Scene Composition Document (SCD)
|
ELEMENT TYPE |
DESCRIPTION |
EXAMPLES |
|---|---|---|
|
ENVIRONMENT |
Settings and surroundings of Scene subject or activity; provides containment, spatial parameters, and context |
tomb chapel; temple sanctuary; house courtyard; riverbank |
|
CHARACTERSâprimary |
Primary subject(s) of the scene; central to theme or narrative |
avatar; animal |
|
CHARACTERSâsecondary |
Secondary subject(s) of the scene; peripheral or supportive to the theme or narrative |
avatar; animal |
|
OBJECTS |
Non-fixed elements of the Scene, i.e., âpropsâ or scenic elements that are not fixed components of another element such as the environment |
statue; furniture; truck; boat |
|
DATA OBJECTS |
Primary data items, included wholly or partially in the scene; may appear statically/dynamically/interactively |
excavation photograph; object illustration; field diary page; newspaper clipping |
|
TEXT |
Written, on-screen text |
caption; speech bubble; label |
|
ACCESSORIES |
Assistive communication devices (may be textual) |
arrow; icon; bounding-box; highlighting; floating text instruction |
|
INFORMATION GRAPHICS |
Visual representations of data synthesis, generated for this Scene (i.e., not primary data objects) |
table of priestsâ duty rotation schedule; genealogy tree of a characterâs family |
|
AUDIO |
Auditory track(s) |
narration soundtrack; music; dialogue; animal calls; ambient wind |
Table 16.2
Description of reference use types in a Scene Composition Document (SCD)
|
USE |
DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
|
DIRECT IMPORT |
Information is imported directly or copied one-to-one with no modification |
|
ADAPTATION |
Information is translated into another format (usually visual) |
|
INTERPOLATION |
Missing information is approximated |
|
EXTRAPOLATION |
A specific mode of interpolation; known information is extended to encompass aspects of elements to which it likely also applies |
|
SAMPLING |
Selected pieces of information are used |
|
REDUCTION |
Some information is removed and/or partially excluded |
For additional definitions and uses of terms, see the SCD template in Appendix 3A.
Appendix 3B is an example SCD for just a single scene in the narrative video âThe Wonders of Queen Meresankhâs Tomb,â42 set in the Giza 3D mastaba of Meresankh III (G 7530â7540).43 This segment is about a minute in duration. The primary delimiting factor in defining it as a discrete scene is spatial coverage. It begins upon entry into a space within Meresankhâs tomb chapel and ends upon leaving those spatial confines. Scene elements include a built environment, primary and secondary human avatar characters, modeled objects or props, and pop-out content.
The purpose of the SCD is to document how sources have influenced the composition of the scene, as opposed to every facet of individual model assets that comprise the scene, a need that is satisfied rather by the Model Sourcing Documents described above. Once completed for all scenes in an animated production, a complete set of SCDâ¯s function collectively like an annotated storyboard, identifying how information sources have been selectively employed in service of both a narrative (if applicable) and the overall objective of the production. Depending upon the number of scenes in total, a comprehensive sequence of SCDâ¯s can result in a very long document.
8 Concluding Perspective
These three reference documents together do not comprise a perfect solution, and expectations are that they will require updates in the future as continually evolving technologies yield new tools and standards.44 However, in design and format the Visual Construction Summary, Model Sourcing Document, and Scene Composition Document offer a practical balance of thoroughness and transparency, on one hand, and simplicity and ease of distribution, on the other hand. As a solution, not only can this low-tech system be preserved and distributed in the Giza Projectâs own databaseâAPIâwebsite ecosystem (alongside, and integrated with, many primary resources for the models themselves), but it also can be disseminated via external, public venues. If a communication mode is able to transfer a file that contains 3D media, it is a virtual certainty that it is equipped to transfer one, two, or three PDF or Doc files as annotated support. With some obstacles to the transmission of supporting information removed, discussions about data, interpretive choices, artistic license, and notions of reality/realism can be addressed head-on via traditional avenues of scholarly discourse. As a result, far less is left to the realm of assumption, whichâwhether to the benefit or detriment of 3D model contentâoften inserts its own kinds of unsubstantiated information.
List of Online Supplemental Media
The following documents and media are available online at
-
Animation of successive phases of the Menkaure Valley Temple at Giza and associated settlement occupations (based on and adapted from Reisner, Mycerinus (1931) and Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Expedition photography). Animation by David Hopkins and the Giza Project at Harvard University.
-
Visual Construction Summary template (MS Word)
-
Model Sourcing Document template (MS Word)
-
Scene Composition Document template (MS Word)
Appendix 1
Appendix 1A: VCS Template
Appendix 1B: Example VCS
Appendix 2
Appendix 2A: MSD Template
Appendix 2B: Example MSD
Appendix 3
Appendix 3A: SCD Template
Appendix 3B: Example SCD
Some material contained in this contribution has been shared, in part or whole, in two conference papers: Nicholas Picardo, ââ¯âWhere Did THAT Come From?!â The Giza Projectâs Development of Citation and Referencing Standards for 3D Archaeological Visualizationsâ (2017 Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research Boston, MA, November 15â18, 2017). Nicholas Picardo, âWhat Happens Between the Maps and the Models: Developing Referencing Standards for 3D Archaeological Visualizationsâ (69th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Tucson, AZ, April 20â22, 2018). Peter Der Manuelian also summarized some material during the Ancient EgyptâNew Technology Conference keynote address, titled âWho Owns the (digital) Past?â See also Chapter 1.
Golvin 2012, 77.
The GizaCARD runs on The Museum System collections database software by Gallery Systems (
A custom application program interface (API) feeds information from the GizaCARD to the Digital Giza website. The Digital Giza API is built primarily on Python and JSON coding. This tripartite infrastructural system optimizes querying of the database and frequency of data refreshes for public availability.
Presentation of this articleâs focal content here is, in many ways, a concession to the length of time required for both updates and advancements to the Giza Projectâs infrastructure. As with any totally new data type, referencing standardsâmore specifically, the citation documents to be described belowâmust await updates to all three components of Digital Gizaâs three-part system for their comprehensive online release.
For a brief overview of the Giza Projectâs approach to, and goals for, 3D model reconstruction (specifically for Giza mastaba tomb GÂ 7530â7540), see Aronin 2018, 48â56.
Hermon 2009, 36â42.
Donald 2012, 95â103.
See, for example, the conclusions of Helena Rua and Pedro Alvito 2011.
Aronin 2018, 55; Manuelian 2017, 154â189; Sullivan 2012.
Frischer 2009, especially vâix.
This ability is especially significant for exploration and display of archaeological/architectural phasing. See, for example, the Digital Karnak project (
Augmented reality as an extension of 3D mediaâs dialogue between âthe realâ and âthe virtualâ is worth mention, but is outside the scope of this article. The Giza Projectâs explorations in Augmented Reality applications likely will be treated in future publications.
Even while acknowledging that not all data is equal, with reliability being variable. See Andreas Georgopoulos 2014, 155â162.
Manuelian 2013, 730â734; Manuelian 2017, 124â189.
For notable examples, see Sullivan 2012, 1â37; Sullivan 2017, 1227â1255; Sullivan 2016, 71â88.
Casey 2018. For an academic perspective on âgamification,â see Liarokapis, Petridis, Andrews, and Freitas 2017, 374â376.
This statement gradually will become outdated as more publications include provisions for online access to supplemental data and media, as has become a more common practice in fields such as the biological and biomedical sciences.
When the Giza Project started to pursue 3D visualizations based on and related to its archival holdings, much deliberation was given over to defining the desired final products for intended applications at that time. For the first generation of 3D Giza models, the decision was to generate finished versions of all modeled subjects.
Wittur 2013; Manuelian 2017, 164â167.
Golvin 2012, 77â82.
Manuelian 2009.
Manuelian 2002, 319â328; Manuelian 2006, 311â333; Manuelian 2009, 149â159; Manuelian 2005, 68â80.
Manuelian 2017, 124â153; Manuelian 2013, 730â734.
Peter Der Manuelian has since been named as the Barbara Bell Professor of Egyptology.
Egyptological Research Assistant Jeremy Kisala and Research Associates Rachel Aronin and Nicholas Picardo. This charter Giza Project team also included in-house Digital Artists David Hopkins and (later, more briefly) Le Pan, and Technical Artist Rus Gant.
The original Giza 3D site and its models used Dassault Systémeâs then proprietary VirTools platform. The companyâs eventual shift away from (and end of support for) VirTools was a major factor in prompting this change of course by the Giza Project.
At present writing, five monument models (the pyramid, pyramid temple, and valley temple of King Khafre, the Sphinx, and the Sphinx temple) appear on the prototype Digital Giza webpage as proof-of-concept for presentation of 3D models in the siteâs structure and design.
Note, however, that this does not mean the model files themselves must be stored within the database itself. The only need is for database records to include relevant file paths for deploying models online.
Münster et al. 2017, 313â330.
A notable exception for use specifically during academic development of models, as well as in educational settings, is VSIM, which offers âtwo critical functions for academic use of interactive computer models: the narrative features that allows users to create linear presentations within the virtual space ⦠and the embedded resources feature that allows users to embed annotations and links to primary and secondary resources within the virtual environment.â
National Endowment for the Humanities Division of Preservation and Access Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant # PW-234775â16.
Because of resource limitations and the timing of overlapping grant cycles, ongoing upgrades to expand the Digital Giza website (and corresponding Digital Giza API) from limited-function prototype to its first full version have not included integration of these reference documents beyond the GizaCARD. At this time of writing, availability of these reference documents via the public interface awaits the next phase of API and website updates.
Reisner 1931, 34â54, Plans VIIIâX; Lehner 1997, 137; Lehner and Hawass 2017, 271â283; Lehner 2015, 227â314. For recent renewed archaeological investigation, see Tavares 2008, 8â11; Lehner 2018, 14â17. Picardo 2012.
These guidelines at time of writing:
The inclusion of this item anticipates a future when 3D modeling is a substantially more prevalent skill, and sharing of model files as data resources directly from online archives such as Digital Giza is more commonplace. The integration of texture images will allow them to be treated as modeling resources in the same manner as traditional archival documents.
Hassan 1953, 25â29, 33, 37â39, Pls. XVâXVII, XXXIâXXXII, plan (p. 16). Lehner 1997, 128â130; Lehner and Hawass 2017, 220â226.
Lehner 1997, 128â129; Lehner and Hawass 2017, 220â221.
The Giza Project is not the first to visualize the Sphinx Temple with red cladding stone that likely was not included in its original construction. For example, see Lehner 1997, computer reconstruction spanning pages 110â¯+â¯115.
The citation methodology adapted by the Giza Project is specifically that of Jantzen, Jenkinson, and McGill 2015, 293â297.
For relevant summary background and discussion, see âBio-cinema verité?â 2012, 1127; Iwasa 2015, 84â88; Iwasa 2016, 247â250.
Dunham and Simpson 1974.
Giza Project activities currently also include modeling via photogrammetry as well as Augmented Reality applications; however, the three reference documents presented here have not been rolled out for these media. But, although the documents were developed to accommodate manual reconstruction of archaeological remains from archival records, they lend themselves readilyâwith or without modificationâfor use in 3D model building from photogrammetric data and other processes based on image capture.
Bibliography
Aronin, Rachel. 2018. âQueen for Eternity: Digital Archaeology and the (after)Life of Meresankh Iii at Giza.â Nile Magazine 13 (AprilâMay): 48â56.
âBio-Cinema Verité?â. 2012. Nature Methods 9 (12): 1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2284.
Casey, Christian. 2018. âTombs, Temples, and BloodâAssassinâs Creed Origins as a Digital and Pedagogical Tool.â 69th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Tucson, AZ, April 22 2018.
Dunham, Dows, and William Kelly Simpson. 1974. The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III, G7530â7540. Giza Mastabas I. Boston: Deptartment of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Frischer, Bernard. 2009. âIntroduction: From Digital Illustration to Digital Heuristics.â In Beyond Illustration: 2D and 3D Digital Technologies as Tools for Discovery in Archaeology, edited by Bernard Frischer and Anastasia Dakouri-Hild, vâxxiv. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Georgopoulos, Andreas. 2014. â3D Virtual Reconstruction of Archaeological Monuments.â Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 14 (4): 155â154.
Golvin, Jean-Claude. 2012. âDrawing Reconstruction Images of Ancient Sites.â In Picturing the Past: Imaging and Imagining the Ancient Middle East, edited by Jack Green, Emily Teeter and John A. Larson. Oriental Institute Museum Publications, 77â82. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Hassan, Selim. 1953. Giza 8: 1936â1937. The Great Sphinx and Its Secrets. Historical Studies in Light of the Recent Excavations. Cairo: Government Press.
Hermon, Sorin. 2009. âReasoning in 3D: A Critical Appraisal of the Role of 3D Modelling and Virtual Reconstructions in Archaeology.â In Beyond Illustration: 2D and 3D Digital Technologies as Tools for Discovery in Archaeology, edited by Bernard Frischer and Anastasia Dakouri-Hild, 36â45. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Iwasa, Janet H. 2015. âBringing Macromolecular Machinery to Life Using 3D Animation.â Current Opinion in Structural Biology 31: 84â88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2015.03.015.
Iwasa, Janet H. 2016. âThe Scientist as Illustrator.â Trends in Immunology 37 (4): 247â250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2016.02.002.
Jantzen, Stuart G., Jodie Jenkinson, and Gael McGill. 2015. âTransparency in Film: Increasing Credibility of Scientific Animation Using Citation.â Commentary. Nature Methods 12 (4): 293â297. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3334http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v12/n4/abs/nmeth.3334.html#supplementary-information.
Lehner, Mark. 1997. The Complete Pyramids. London: Thames & Hudson.
Lehner, Mark. 2015. âShareholders: The Menkaure Valley Temple Occupation in Context.â In Towards a New History for the Egyptian Old Kingdom: Perspectives on the Pyramid Age, edited by Peter Der Manuelian and Thomas Schneider, 227â314. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Lehner, Mark. 2018. âSpring 2019: A Return to the Menkaure Valleytemple.â AERAgram 19 (2): 14â17.
Lehner, Mark, and Zahi Hawass. 2017. Giza and the Pyramids: The Definitive History. Edited by Zahi A. Hawass. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Liarokapis, Fotis, Panagiotis Petridis, Daniel Andrews, and Sara de Freitas. 2017. âMultimodal Serious Games Technologies for Cultural Heritage.â In Mixed Reality and Gamification for Cultural Heritage, edited by Marinos Ioannides, Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann and George Papagiannakis, 371â392: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
Manuelian, Peter Der. 2002. âAn Approach to Archaeological Information Management: The Giza Archives Project.â In Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2001. Proceedings of the Symposium (Prague, September 25thâ27th, 2001), edited by Filip Coppens. Archiv OrientálnÃ, 319â328. Prague: Oriental Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Manuelian, Peter Der. 2017. Digital Giza: Visualizing the Pyramids. Metalabprojects. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.
Manuelian, Peter Der. 2009. âEight Years at the Giza Archives Project: Past Experiences and Future Plans for the Giza Digital Archive.â Egyptian and Egyptological Documents, Archives, and Libraries 1: 149â159.
Manuelian, Peter Der. 2013. âGiza 3D: Digital Archaeology and Scholarly Access to the Giza Pyramids. The Giza Project at Harvard University.â In 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (Digitalheritage), 727â734. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Manuelian, Peter Der. 2006. âThe Giza Archives Project.â Egyptian Archaeology 28: 31â33.
Manuelian, Peter Der. 2009. Mastabas of Nucleus Cemetery G 2100. Part I: Major Mastabas G 2100â2220. Giza Mastabas 8. Boston: Department of Art of the Ancient World, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Manuelian, Peter Der. 2005. âVirtual PyramidsâReal Research: The Giza Archive Project Goes Live Online.â KMT 16 (3): 68â1980.
Münster, Sander, Cindy Kröber, Heide Weller, and Nikolas Prechtel. 2017. âVirtual Reconstruction of Historical Architecture as Media for Knowledge Representation.â In Mixed Reality and Gamification for Cultural Heritage, edited by Marinos Ioannides, Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann and George Papagiannakis, 313â330: Springer International Publishing.
Picardo, Nicholas. 2012. âThree-Dimensional Graphic Modeling as Archaeological Research Tool: The Menkaure Valley Temple Settlements at Giza.â 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Providence, RI, April 29 2012.
Picardo, Nicholas. 2018. âWhat Happens between the Maps and the Models: Developing Referencing Standards for 3D Archaeological Visualizations.â 69th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt Tucson, AZ, April 20â22 2018.
Picardo, Nicholas. 2017. ââWhere Did That Come From?!â The Giza Projectâs Development of Citation and Referencing Standards for 3D Archaeological Visualizations.â 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research Boston, MA, November 15â18 2017.
Reisner, George A. 1931. Mycerinus: The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rua, Helena, and Pedro Alvito. 2011. âLiving the Past: 3D Models, Virtual Reality and Game Engines as Tools for Supporting Archaeology and the Reconstruction of Cultural Heritageâthe Case-Study of the Roman Villa of Casal De Freiria.â Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (12): 3296â308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.07.015.
Sanders, Donald H. 2012. âA Brief History of Virtual Heritage.â In Picturing the Past: Imaging and Imagining the Ancient Middle East, edited by Jack Green, Emily Teeter and John A. Larson. Oriental Institute Museum Publications, 95â103. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Sullivan, Elaine. 2016, âPotential Pasts: Taking a Humanistic Approach to Computer Visualization of Ancient Landscapes.â Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 59: 71â88.
Sullivan, Elaine A. 2017. âSeeking a Better View: Using 3D to Investigate Visibility in Historic Landscapes.â Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24: 1227â1255.
Sullivan, Elaine A. 2012. âVisualizing the Size and Movement of the Portable Festival Barks at Karnak Temple.â British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 19: 1â37. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_journals/bmsaes/issue_19/sullivan.aspx.
Sullivan, Elaine, and Willeke Wendrich. 2008. âAn Offering to Amun-Ra: Building a Virtual Reality Model of Karnak.â Information Technology and Egyptology in 2008, edited by Nigel Strudwick, 109â128. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Tavares, Ana. 2008. âTwo Royal Towns: Old Digs, New Finds.â AERAGRAM 9 (2): 8â11.
Wittur, Joyce. 2013. Computer-Generated 3D-Visualisations in Archaeology: Between Added Value and Deception. BAR International Series 2463. Oxford: Archaeopress.