3D GIS for building archeology – Combining old and new data in a three-dimensional information system in the case study of Lund Cathedral

Abstract

Traditionally, building archaeology is conducted by creating and interpreting 2D documentation, even though the spatial properties of a building are not fully expressed in 2D. The third dimension has been mostly neglected, due to technical limitations that can be overcome through the rapid progress in 3D technology.This study shows how a 3D GIS can be applied from the outset of a building archaeological study to create a three-dimensional information system connected to a geometrically accurate 3D model of a structure. The building under investigation was Lund Cathedral (Sweden), whose long and complex history has been studied for two centuries. Gaining an understanding of all interventions, as well as managing the heterogonous datasets, is a challenge.In order to overcome these difficulties, various datasets and their relevant metadata were imported into the ArcGIS software and linked to a geometrically accurate 3D model of the church, placing all pieces of information in their correct spatial position. Thus, data that was previously impossible to view simultaneously and in the same space can be displayed together, creating a unique holistic oversight of the available material. Through the flexibility and versatility of the system, information can be displayed and queried at will, as well as updated continuously, greatly facilitating interpretation and making it an important resource throughout the entire building archaeological study.

Towards a Virtual Art/Archaeology

“…Among the different solutions available for assessing the potentials of 3D visualisation within the archaeological practice, 3D Geographic Information Systems were successfully adopted in several projects to review the excavation process (Opitz, Nowlin 2012;Berggren et al 2015;Roosevelt et al 2015;Dell'Unto et al 2015), to assess the volumetric relation between the strata (Lieberwirth 2008;Landeschi et al 2019), to include the work of specialists within a broader investigation (Wilhelmson, Dell'Unto 2015) and to support visibility and architectural studies (Landeschi et al 2015;Polig 2017).…”

Paradata in Documentation Standards and Recommendations for Digital Archaeological Visualisations

“…Moreover, there is a sundry recommendations and proposals of metadata schemes developed and implemented for specific archives or repositories (e.g. Polig, 2017;Ryan, 2001;von Schwerin et al, 2016).…”

Monstrous hybridity of social information technologies: Through the lens of photorealism and non-photorealism in archaeological visualization

“…In spite of claims of the capability of 3 D models to change archaeological thinking (e.g., Reilly 1991; Renfrew 1997) relatively little evidence has been published so far on how this happens in practice (Wilhelmson and Dell'Unto 2015). As Polig (2017) recently remarked, the full potential of 3 D technologies in archaeological information work is still to be investigatedmuch similarly to how others (e.g., Moser 2012;Smiles and Moser 2005) have underlined the need for a better understanding of the implications of archaeological illustration in general.…”

“…Manovich 2001) of 3 D models (Vatanen 2003), how to document the sources, inferences, and decisions in the development of a particular aspect of a model (Bentkowska-Kafel, Denard, and Baker 2012), and how to visualize and communicate degrees of uncertainty of interpretations in final models (e.g., Apollonio and Giovannini 2015;Champion 2015;Danielov a, Kumke, and Peters 2016;Kastanis 2019;Reilly and Rahtz 1992). Several proposals exist (e.g., Apollonio and Giovannini 2015;Coeur and Moccozet 2011;Hauck and Kuroczy nski 2015;Kolenda and Markiewicz 2017;Niccolucci 2010;Polig 2017;Ryan 2001) but there is no real consensus on the means. The difficulties of integrating highly heterogeneous data in a single framework become apparent in the implementation process (Polig 2017).…”

“…Several proposals exist (e.g., Apollonio and Giovannini 2015;Coeur and Moccozet 2011;Hauck and Kuroczy nski 2015;Kolenda and Markiewicz 2017;Niccolucci 2010;Polig 2017;Ryan 2001) but there is no real consensus on the means. The difficulties of integrating highly heterogeneous data in a single framework become apparent in the implementation process (Polig 2017). However, as Huggett (2016) has noted with regard to the documentation of archaeological data, the main problem is how to make it happen in practice, rather than the lack of technical means and standards to implement it.…”