iii congreso internacional de arqueología e informática...

III Congreso Internacional de Arqueología e Informática Gráfica, Patrimonio e Innovación Sevilla 21-24 de Junio de 2011

1

ISBN: 978-84-695-6946-7 Alfredo Grande León Víctor Manuel López-Menchero Bendicho Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma (eds.)


2

ORGANIZADORES:

PATROCINADORES:

COLABORADORES CIENTÍFICOS:

COLABORADORES COMERCIALES:


3

ACTAS ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2011:

ALFREDO GRANDE LEÓN (dir.) VÍCTOR MANUEL LÓPEZ-MENCHERO BENDICHO (coord.) ÁNGELES HERNÁNDEZ-BARAHONA PALMA (coord.)

EDITORES:

ALFREDO GRANDE LEÓN VÍCTOR MANUEL LÓPEZ-MENCHERO BENDICHO ÁNGELES HERNÁNDEZ-BARAHONA PALMA

PROPIEDAD:

Copyright © 2011 SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. SEAV C/ CANTUESO, 5 DOS HERMANAS 41089 – SEVILLA

Copyright © 2011 de los textos e ilustraciones

SUS AUTORES

TODOS LOS DERECHOS RESERVADOS EDICIÓN:

DISEÑO: Alfredo Grande

ISBN: 978-84-695-6946-7

DEPÓSITO LEGAL: SE 545-2013


4

III CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGÍA E INFORMÁTICA GRÁFICA, PATRIMONIO E INNOVACIÓN, ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0

III INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON GRAPHIC ARCHAEOLOGY AND INFORMATICS, CULTURAL HERITAGE AND INNOVATION, ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0

SEVILLA, ESPAÑA 21-24 JUNIO 2011

Centro Cultural de La Villa, San José de La Rinconada. La Rinconada. Sevilla

Edificio Da Vinci, Parque Tecnológico Cartuja 93. Sevilla

Alfredo Grande León, Víctor Manuel López-Menchero Bendicho y Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma (Eds.)


5

III CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGÍA E INFORMÁTICA GRÁFICA, PATRIMONIO E INNOVACIÓN, ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 III INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON GRAPHIC ARCHAEOLOGY AND INFORMATICS, CULTURAL HERITAGE AND INNOVATION, ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0

COMITÉ DE HONOR

PRESIDENTE DE HONOR

Excmo. Sr. D. José Antonio Griñán Presidente de la Junta de Andalucía.

MIEMBROS DE HONOR

Excmo. Sr. D. Paulino Plata Cánovas. Consejero de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía.

Excmo. Sr. D. Antonio Ávila Cano. Consejero de Economía, Innovación y Ciencia. Junta de Andalucía.

Excmo. Sr. D. Fernando Rodríguez Villalobos. Presidente de la Diputación de Sevilla.

Excmo. Sr. D. Joaquín Luque Rodríguez Rector Magnífico de la Universidad de Sevilla

Excmo. Sr. D. Francisco J. Fernández de los Ríos. Alcalde de La Rinconada. Sevilla.

COMITÉ ORGANIZADOR

PRESIDENTE

D. Alfredo Grande León Presidente de SEAV

SECRETARÍA CIENTÍFICA

D. Víctor López-Menchero Bendicho Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. España.

SECRETARÍA TÉCNICA

Dª. Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma Secretario de SEAV

VOCALES

Dª. Raquel Vega Coca. Ayuntamiento de La Rinconada. Sevilla. España

D. Antonio Castro Ayuntamiento de La Rinconada. Sevilla. España.

D. José Manuel Rodríguez Hidalgo Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. España.

D. José Beltrán Fortés Universidad de Sevilla. España.

Dª. Sandra Rodríguez de Guzmán Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. España


6

COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO

DIRECTOR CIENTÍFICO

D. Alfredo Grande Universidad de Sevilla. España.

SECRETARIO CIENTÍFICO

D. Víctor Manuel López-Menchero Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. España.

EQUIPO CIENTÍFICO

Mr. Bernard Frischer. University of Virginia. USA

Mr. Maurizio Forte University of California, Merced. USA.

Ms. Eva Pietroni CNR VH-LAB, Roma. Italia

Ms. Lucrezia Ungaro Musei dei Fori Imperiali. Roma. Italia.

D. Francisco Serón Universidad de Zaragoza. España.

D. Juan Carlos Torres Cantero Universidad de Granada. España.

D. Luis Hernández Ibáñez Universidade a Coruña. A Coruña. España.

D. Julián Flores González Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. España.

D. Francisco R. Feito Higueruela Universidad de Jaén. España.

D. Francisco Perales Universidad Islas Baleares. Mallorca. España.

D. Mariano Flores Gutiérrez Universidad de Murcia. Murcia. España.

D. Sebastián Rascón Marqués Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares. España.

D. Pedro Cano Olivares Universidad de Granada. España.

D. José Beltrán Fortes Universidad de Sevilla. España.

D. José Manuel Rodríguez Hidalgo Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. España.

D. Francisco Javier Melero Rus Universidad de Granada. España.

Dª. Sandra Rodríguez de Guzmán Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. España.

D. José Luis Gómez Merino Director de Arte de BALAWAT. Toledo. España.


7

CONFERENCIAS / CONFERENCES

CONFERENCIAS / CONFERENCES CONFERENCIAS PREMIOS TARTESSOS 2011/ TARTESSOS AWAR D 2011 CONFERENCES CONFERENCIAS / CONFERENCES 17 Juan Antonio Barceló. ESPAÑA, Consuelo León Lozano. ESPAÑA, Víctor López Menchero Bendicho. ESPAÑA y Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA. SAMPLED 3D MODELS FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE: WHICH USES BEYOND VISUALIZATION Roberto Scopigno 18 CROWDS, CLOUDS, AND CULTURE: THE PAST'S DIGITAL FUTURE Alonzo C. Addison AUGMENTED REALITY IN THE FIELD Nick Ryan LOS PASOS PERDIDOS. INVESTIGACIÓN E INNOVACIÓN PARA LA CARACTERIZACIÓN DE UN PATRIMONIO INVISIBLE Arturo Ruiz Rodríguez

SESIÓN PLENARIA / PLENARY SESSION FORUM INTERNACIONAL DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL / INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY RED INTERNACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. INNOVA / VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY INTERNATIONAL NETWORK. INNOVA Alfredo Grande. ESPAÑA VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY INTERNATIONAL NETWORK. INNOVA Mohamed Farouk Willen Derde Bernard Frischer Alfredo Grande León FORUM INTERNACIONAL DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL / INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY BORRADOR INTERNACIONAL DE LA CARTA DE SEVILLA/ CARTA DE SEVILLA INTERNATIONAL DRAFT 25 Víctor López-Menchero Bendicho ICOMOS Y LAS GRANDES CARTAS INTERNACIONALES Jean-Louis Luxen 26 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL CHARTER IN THE FIELD OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY Alfredo Grande León 29 LA CARTA DE SEVILLA. AVANCES HACIA EL PRIMER BORRADOR DE LA CARTA INTERNACIONAL DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL Víctor López-Menchero Bendicho 33 UNESCO Y LAS RECOMENDACIONES INTERNACIONALES Alonzo C. Addison


8

MESAS PONENCIAS / TABLES OF LECTURES MESA PONENCIAS_1 / TABLE OF LECTURES_1 REINVENTANDO LA DIFUSIÓN. PROYECTOS DE INNOVACIÓN/ RETHINKING HERITAGE PRESENTATION. INNOVATION PROJEC TS 38 Antonio Serrato Combe. USA THE PERSEPOLIS3D PROJECT, THE METHODOLOGY OF THE VIRTUAL RECONSTRUCTION OF PERSEPOLIS Kourosh Afhami 39 RECREANDO ALEJANDRIA, DOS VISIONES DISTINTAS DE LA MISMA CIUDAD. LOS DECORADOS DIGITALES DE LA PELÍCULA “ÁGORA” Y LA PIEZA ESTEREOSCÓPICA “ALEJANDRIA, EL SUEÑO DE ALEJANDRO MAGNO” Magoga Piñas Azpitarte 42 THE WAY IT MAY HAVE LOOKED - THE FUTURE OF VISUALIZATION OF THE PAST Antonio Serrato Combe MESA PONENCIAS_2 / TABLE OF LECTURES_2 NUEVOS RETOS Y PERSPECTIVAS DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTU AL EN EL SIGLO XXI. ¿UN CAMBIO DE PARADIGMA?/ NEW CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR THE VIRTUAL ARCHAE OLOGY IN THE XXI CENTURY A PARADIGM CHANGE? 50 Juan Antonio Barceló Álvarez. ESPAÑA COMPUTER SIMULATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY. ART, SCIENCE OR NIGHTMARE? Juan Antonio Barceló Álvarez 51 INTERPRETING HERITAGE CROSS-CULTURALLY: DIFFERENT VIEWS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THE PAST IN EUROPE AND CHINA AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE ENAME CHARTER Willen Derde ENCUENTROS EN LA TERCERA FASE: CONTACTO. LA REALIDAD VIRTUAL Y SUS AUDIENCIAS INVISIBLES Mikel Asensio Brouard MESA PONENCIAS_3 / TABLE OF LECTURES_3 EL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO Y EL SIGLO XXI. UNA APUE STA DE FUTURO EN ESPAÑA/ ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE AND XXI CENTURY. A FUTURE P ERSPECTIVE IN SPAIN 56 Julián Flores González. ESPAÑA SIALH (SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN DE LA ALHAMBRA). NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS EN LA TUTELA DEL CONJUNTO MONUMENTAL DE LA ALHAMBRA Y GENERALIFE. Francisco A. Lamolda y Antonio M. Montufo 57 INFOGRAFIA Y ARQUEOLOGIA Diego Bravo 62 PÓRTICO DE LA GLORIA VIRTUAL: APLICACIÓN 3D INTERACTIVA EN TIEMPO REAL PARA LA EXPLORACIÓN VIRTUAL DEL PÓRTICO DE LA GLORIA. Julián Flores González 65 MESA PONENCIAS_4 / TABLE OF LECTURES_4 PATRIMONIO PALEOBIOLÓGICO SIGLO XXI: UN RECURSO NAT URAL PARA LA CULTURA / PALEOBIOLOGICAL HERITAGE IN XXI CENTURY. NATURAL RE SOURCE FOR THE CULTURE 70 Eloisa Bernáldez. ESPAÑA LA INVESTIGACIÓN EN PALEONTOLOGÍA COMO MOTOR DE TURISMO CULTURAL Ignacio Canudo 71 PATRIMONIO PALEOBIOLÓGICO SIGLO XXI: NUEVAS TÉCNICAS, NUEVAS IDEAS PARA UNA NUEVA SOCIEDAD. Eloisa Bernáldez 76


9

VENTA MICENA (ORCE): PALEONTOLOGÍA DEL FUTURO Bienvenido Martínez Navarro 80 MESA PONENCIAS_5 / TABLE OF LECTURES_5 PROCESOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN; CONSERVACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN. EXPERIENCIAS SINGULARES / RESEARCH, CONSERVATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS. U NIQUE EXPERIENCES 85 George Giannoulis. GRECIA SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN EN PATRIMONIO HISTÓRICO Juan Carlos Torres 86 DEPLOYING 3D TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE DOCUMENTATION OF TANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE Karina Rodriguez-Echevarria 91 ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS OF ICT APPLICATIONS IN CULTURAL HERITAGE “VIRTUAL MUSEUM” CONTEXT: THE PERMANENT CHALLENGE OF RECONCILIATION OF DIVERGING SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES George Giannoulis 96 MESA PONENCIAS_6 / TABLE OF LECTURES_6 LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. UNA VISIÓN DESDE LOS MUSEOS Y LOS YACIMIENTOS ARQUEOLÓGICOS MUSEALIZADOS / VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY. MUSEUMS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIT ES POINT OF VIEW Sebastián Rascón. ESPAÑA LA APLICACIÓN DE TÉCNICAS 3-D EN ARQUEOLOGÍA: INVESTIGACIÓN Y PÚBLICO Julia Beltrán de Heredia Bercero VIDEOJUEGOS Y ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. UNA VENTANA AL PASADO Gonzalo Suárez Girard LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL. UNA VISIÓN DESDE LOS MUSEOS Y LOS YACIMIENTOS ARQUEOLÓGICOS MUSEALIZADOS Sebastián Rascón PRESENTACIÓN / PRESENTATION PROYECTO ARTSENSE / ARTSENSE PROJECT 102 Ana Cabrera Lafuente. ESPAÑA PROYECTO ARTSENSE Ana Cabrera Lafuente 103 SESIÓN CAA ESPAÑA 2011 / CAA SPAIN SESSION 2011 COMPUTER APLICATIONS AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN AR CHAEOLOGY. CAA ESPAÑA / COMPUTER APLICATIONS AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN AR CHAEOLOGY. CAA ESPAÑA Juan Antonio Barceló Álvarez. ESPAÑA. NÚMEROS, GEOMETRÍAS Y DATOS. LA ARQUEOLOGÍA COMPUTACIONAL EN ESPAÑA Y EN EUROPA, 1974-2011 Juan Antonio Barceló Álvarez DOCUMENTACIÓN ESPACIAL DEL PATRIMONIO: DEL TEODOLITO A LOS VUELOS NO TRIPULADOS José Julio Zancajo Jimeno.

DOCUMENTIA 2.0 / DOCUMENTIA 2.0 SESIÓN DOCUMENTIA 2.0_1 / DOCUMENTIA 2.0 SESSION_1 SISTEMAS DE INFORMACIÓN. ARQUEOLOGÍA, PAISAJE Y TER RITORIO / INFORMATION SYSTEMS. ARCHAEOLOGY, LANDSCAPE AND TER RITORY 108 Jorge Angás Pajas. ESPAÑA


10

MÉTODOS, TÉCNICAS Y ESTÁNDARES PARA LA DOCUMENTACIÓN GEOMÉTRICA DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL. Jorge Angás y Alfredo Serreta 109 REQUISITOS DE UN SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN PARA GESTIÓN DE PATRIMONIO Mª Victoria Luzón, Domingo Martín, Germán Arroyo, José Ramón López, Julia Herce, Rocío Izquierdo, Álvaro Jiménez, Juan Bosco Martínez, Marta Pérez, Francisco Lamolda, Elena Correa y Ramón Rubio 114 CityGML COMO MODELO DE DATOS PARA LA REPRESENTACIÓN, INTERCAMBIO Y VISUALIZACIÓN DE INFORMACIÓN SOBRE EL PATRIMONIO ARQUITECTÓNICO. Iñaki Prieto, Aitziber Egusquiza, Francisco Javier Delgado y Rubén Martínez 119 INTEGRACIÓN DE SIG CON VISUALIZACIÓN 3D INTERACTIVA PARA LA GESTIÓN Y SEGUIMIENTO DE EXCAVACIONES ARQUEOLÓGICAS. Antonio José Seoane Nolasco, Luis Antonio Hernández Ibáñez 124 SESIÓN DOCUMENTIA 2.0_2 / DOCUMENTIA 2.0 SESSION_2 DOCUMENTACIÓN DIGITAL Y PROCESADO DE INFORMACIÓN DE L PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO / DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION PROCCESING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE 129 Coordinador / Coordinator: Jorge Angás Pajas. ESPAÑA GENERACIÓN DE MODELOS DE INFORMACIÓN PARA LA GESTIÓN DE UNA INTERVENCIÓN DE REHABILITACIÓN: LA CÁRCEL DE LA REAL FÁBRICA DE TABACOS DE SEVILLA. Juan Enrique Nieto Julián 130 SISTEMAS DE BAJO COSTE EN LEVANTAMIENTO Y RESTITUCIÓN VIRTUAL: EL CASO DEL PALAUET NOLLA DE MELIANA Xavier Laumain, Ángela López Sabater, Jorge Ríos Alós y Carlos Huerta Gabarda 136 LA CARÉNCIA (VALENCIA, ESPAÑA) Y SU TERRITORIO. COMBINACIÓN DE METODOLOGÍAS DIGITALES PARA EL ANÁLISIS ARQUEOLÓGICO Y LA DIFUSIÓN PATRIMONIAL Rosa Albiach, Héctor A. Orengo, Josep Blasco, Anna Ejarque. 141 SESIÓN DOCUMENTIA 2.0_3 / DOCUMENTIA 2.0 SESSION_3 DIGITALIZACIÓN 3D DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO I / 3D DIGITALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE I 145 Daniel y Víctor Baceiredo Rodríguez. ESPAÑA LIENZOS DEL SALÓN DE ABD AL-RAHMAN III DE MADINAT AL-ZAHRA (CÓRDOBA) Y DOLMEN DE MENGA EN ANTEQUERA (MÁLAGA), EXPERIENCIAS SOBRE DIGITALIZACIÓN 3D Y DIVULGACIÓN DE LA DOCUMENTACIÓN GRÁFICA OBTENIDA Daniel Baceiredo Rodríguez y Víctor Baceiredo Rodríguez 146 LA CAPACIDAD PROSPECTIVA Y DE VISUALIZACIÓN DEL ESCÁNER LÁSER 3D APLICADO AL PLAN DE CONSERVACIÓN PREVENTIVA DEL CONJUNTO CERÁMICO, PIEDRA Y HIERRO DE ANTONI GAUDÍ JOSEP MARÍA JUJOL EN LA CATEDRAL GÓTICA DE MALLORCA. Juan Antonio Ruiz, Simón Garcés, Mercé Gambús, Catalina Mas, Francisco J. Perales y Xisco Ponseti 152 REGISTRO TRIDIMENSIONAL ACUMULATIVO DE LA SECUENCIA ESTRATIGRÁFICA. FOTOGRAMETRÍA Y SIG EN LA INTERVENCIÓN ARQUEOLÓGICA DE LO BOLIGNI (ALACANT). Ana María Charquero Ballester y Jordi A. López Lillo 156 AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF STIPPLING ILLUSTRATIONS FROM TWO PHOTOGRAPHS Germán Arroyo, Domingo Martín y M. Victoria Luzón 164 LA CABEZA MAORÍ DE ROUEN Y SU DIGITALIZACIÓN Sébastien Varea, Sébastien Minchin, Jean-Baptiste Lemerle y Josep Blasco I Senabre 169 SESIÓN DOCUMENTIA 2.0_4 / DOCUMENTIA 2.0 SESSION_4 DIGITALIZACIÓN 3D DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO II / 3D DIGITALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE II 173 Daniel y Víctor Baceiredo Rodríguez. ESPAÑA LA UTILIZACIÓN DEL LÁSER SCANNER EN EL REGISTRO ARQUEOLÓGICO: LA EXPERIENCIA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE ALCALÁ. Lauro Olmo Enciso, Manuel Castro Priego y Miguel López Macía 174 DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE LOWER PECOS CANYON LANDS Carolyn E. Boyd, Francisco Marcos Marin, Christopher Goodmaster, Angel Johnson, Amanda Castaneda y Benjamin Dwyer 179 RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTUAL: A DOMUS DO MITREO DE LVCVS AVGVSTI (LA DOMUS DEL MITREO DE LUCUS AUGUSTI)


11

Alicia Colmenero Fernández y Celso Rodriguez Cao 185 INTEGRACIÓN DE SENSORES AÉREOS Y TERRESTRES PARA LA PRODUCCIÓN DE CARTOGRAFÍA MULTIESCALA 3D DE PRECISIÓN EN LA ALHAMBRA Y SU TERRITORIO Antonio Manuel Montufo Galán y José Manuel López Sánchez 190 MADINAT AL-ZAHRA. LA CIUDAD BRILLANTE Antonio Vallejo Triano e Irene Montilla Torres 195

MESAS COMUNICACIONES / TABLES OF COMMUNICATIONS MESA COMUNICACIONES_1 / TABLE OF COMMUNICATIONS_1 REALIDAD VIRTUAL: HERRAMIENTAS DE INVESTIGACIÓN, CO NSERVACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO / VIRTUAL REALITY: TOOLS OF RESEARCH, CONSERVATION AND DISSEMINATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE 200 Luis Hernández. ESPAÑA TRIMÁLAGA Jesús Guerrero-Strachan Carillo y Miguel Ángel Contreras López 201 VIRTUAL ACROPOLIS. DIGITAL RECREATION OF A SICILIAN ARCHAIC SANCTUARY F. Stanco y D. Tanasi 206 UNDERSTANDING VIRTUAL OBJECTS THROUGH REVERSE ENGINEERING Vera Moitinho y Juan Antonio Barceló 211 ESCANEADO 3D E INTERPRETACIÓN VIRTUAL DEL TEATRO ROMANO DE CÓRDOBA José Luis Gómez Merino 215 DESARROLLO DE PROYECTOS ORIENTADOS AL ARTE Y LA RESTAURACIÓN DE PATRIMONIO: EJEMPLO DEL PROYECTO HIPERSCAN 3D Luis Granero, Francisco Díaz, Rubén Domínguez, Yolanda San Juan y Josué Jiménez 219 MESA COMUNICACIONES_2 / TABLE OF COMMUNICATIONS_2 DIFUSIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO EN EL SIGLO XXI: NUEVOS MÉT ODOS DE COMUNICACIÓN / HERITAGE DIFFUSION IN THE XXI CENTURY. NEW COMMUNICATION METHODS 224 Mariano Flores Gutiérrez. ESPAÑA. DISPOSITIVOS MÓVILES COMO GUÍAS 3D PARA EL CONOCIMIENTO DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO José María Noguera, Rafael J. Segura y Carlos J. Ogáyar 225 GUÍAS MÓVILES EN REALIDAD VIRTUAL PARA LA INTERPRETACIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO. UN CASO PRÁCTICO: RUTA DEL MEGALITISMO DE GORAFE Jon Arambarri Basañez, Unai Baeza Santamaría y Antonio López Marcos 231 MUSEO VIRTUAL HIPERREALISTA Pedro Ortiz Códer 234 PUESTA EN VALOR DE YACIMIENTOS ARQUEOLÓGICOS AMORTIZADOS. LA HIPÓTESIS VIRTUAL AL SERVICIO DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA DE GESTIÓN Y LA DIFUSIÓN CULTURAL. José Ramón Almeida Olmedo y Pedro Javier Cruz Sánchez 238 MESA COMUNICACIONES_3 / TABLE OF COMMUNICATIONS_3 RECONSTRUCCIÓN O ANASTILOSIS VIRTUAL DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO / VIRTUAL RECONSTRUCTION OR ANASTILOSIS OF ARCHAEOLOG ICAL HERITAGE 242 Francisco Perales. ESPAÑA LA RESTAURACIÓN VIRTUAL DE PIEZAS ARQUEOLÓGICAS A PARTIR DE DATOS PROCEDENTES DE ESCÁNER 3D: RECONSTRUCCIÓN DE UNA JARRITA ISLÁMICA DEL MUSEO ARQUEOLÓGICO MUNICIPAL DE BURRIANA Daniel Tejerina Anton, Trinidad Pasíes Oviedo, José Manuel Melchor y Javier Esclapés Jover 243


12

LA BASÍLICA DE SANTA MARÍA DE OVIEDO: DEL PANTEÓN REAL A LA CATEDRAL DOBLE. HIPÓTESIS DE RESTITUCIÓN EN FUNCIÓN DEL ANÁLISIS COMPOSITIVO Y METROLÓGICO Francisco José Borge Cordovilla 247 LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL: CONSTRUYENDO UN PUENTE ENTRE LA SOCIEDAD MODERNA Y LA ESCUELA INNOVADORA Mª. Luz Husillos García 252 ENSAYO DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTUAL DE UN TÚMULO FUNERARIO: EL TÚMULO DEL MORTÓRUM (CABANES, CASTELLÓN) José Luján Valderrama y Gustau Aguilella Arzo 257 ANASTILOSIS VIRTUAL CON BLENDER: LAS TERMAS DEL YACIMIENTO VILLA ROMANA DE L’ALBIR (L’ALFÀS DEL PI, ALICANTE) Daniel Tejerina Antón, Laia Fabregat Bolufer, Jaime Molina Vidal y Carolina Frías Castillejo 262 MESA COMUNICACIONES_4 / TABLE OF COMMUNICATIONS_4 METODOLOGÍAS Y HERRAMIENTAS DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTU AL. INNOVACIÓN / METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS FOR VIRTUAL RECONSTRUCTION. INNOVATION 266 Francisco Feito Igueruela. ESPAÑA. EXPLORACIÓN EN TIEMPO REAL DE LA RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTUAL DE LOS INSTRUMENTOS DEL PÓRTICO DE LA GLORIA Roi Méndez, Antonio Otero, Samuel Jarque y Julián Flores 267 ANALISI SPAZIALE IN ARCHEOLOGIA DEI PAESAGGY: IL PROJECTTO N.D.S.S. (NORTHERN DAUNIAN SUBAPPENNINO SURVEY) Felice Stoico y Luca d´Altilia 272 ANASTILOSIS DE LA SCAENAE FRONS DEL TEATRO ROMANO DE ITÁLICA Francisco Pinto Puerto, José María Guerrero Vega y Roque Angulo Fornos 277 DOCUMENTACIÓN 3D DE PINTURAS RUPESTRES CON PHOTOMODELER SCANNER: LOS MOTIVOS ESQUEMÁTICOS DE LA COVA DEL BARRANC DEL MIGDIA (JÁVEA, ALICANTE) Daniel Tejerina Antón, Marco Aurelio Esquembre Bebia y José Ramón Ortega Pérez 282 RECONSTRUCCIÓN DE FRAGMENTOS ARQUEOLÓGICOS MEDIANTE CORRESPONDENCIA DE PATRONES Eduardo Vendrell Vidal y Carlos Sánchez Belenguer 286 COMPUTER TOOL FOR AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED 3D ILLUSTRATION IN REAL TIME FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCANNED PIECES Luis López, Germán Arroyo y Domingo Martín 291 MESA COMUNICACIONES_5 / TABLE OF COMMUNICATIONS_5 MUSEOGRAFÍA VIRTUAL ONLINE: NUEVAS TENDENCIAS / ONLINE VIRTUAL MUSEOGRAPHY: NEW TRENES 296 Juan Carlos Torres Cantero. ESPAÑA. INTEGRACIÓN DE CONTENIDOS 3D DE LA CULTURA IBÉRICA EN EUROPEANA A. L. Martínez Carrillo, Francisco Gómez y Alberto Sánchez Vizcaíno 297 MUSEOS VIRTUALES. UN CASO PRÁCTICO: MUSEO NACIONAL DE ARQUEOLOGÍA SUBACUÁTICA. ARQUA Jon Arambarri Basáñez y Unai Baeza Santamaría 301 EVOLUCIÓN DE LAS TECNOLOGÍAS UTILIZADAS EN EL DESARROLLO DE MUSEOS VIRTUALES María Dolores Robles Ortega, Francisco R. Feito Higueruela, Juan J. Jiménez Delgado y Rafael J. Segura Sánchez 304 CUENCA, REALIDAD VIRTUAL Concepción Rodríguez Ruza, Adela Mª Muñoz Marquina, Aurelio Lorente González y Virginia Cañas Córdoba 309 ESPACIOS EXPOSITIVOS VIRTUALES: PROYECTO UMUSEO, UNA NUEVA OPCIÓN PARA DIFUSIÓN ARTÍSTICA Francisco Javier Caballero Cano 314 MESA COMUNICACIONES_6 / TABLE OF COMMUNICATIONS_6 PUESTA EN VALOR: LA HIPÓTESIS VIRTUAL ARQUEOLÓGICA EN INVESTIGACIÓN, DOCUMENTACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN ENHANCEMENT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIRTUAL HIPOTHESIS IN R ESEARCH, DOCUMENTATION AND DIFUSIÓN 320 José Manuel Rodríguez Hidalgo. ESPAÑA


13

APLICACIÓN PARA LA INSPECCIÓN ESPACIAL, VOLUMÉTRICA Y SECCIONAL INTERACTIVA DE LA CATEDRAL DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA. Viviana Barneche Naya, Luis Hernández Ibáñez, Alberto Jaspe Villanueva y Gustavo Fariña Fernández 321 RECONSTRUCCIÓN INFOGRÁFICA DEL CASTELLUM DE TAMUDA (TETUÁN, MARRUECOS) Javier Bermejo Meléndez, Juan Manuel Campos Carrasco, Salvador Delgado Aguilar, Lucía Fernández Sutilo, Clara Toscano Pérez y Javier Verdugo Santos 326 PROYECTO DE MUSEALIZACIÓN DE LOS RESTOS HALLADOS EN LA ESTACIÓN DE ÓPERA (METRO DE MADRID). RECONSTRUCCIONES INFOGRÁFICAS, ESCANEADO LÁSER 3D Y DIGITALIZACIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO. Eduardo Penedo Cobo, Patricia Moraga Vaz, Elia Organista Labrado, Áurea Izquierdo Zamora y Ana Belén Martínez Granero 331 COMUNICACIÓN VISUAL MEDIANTE TÉCNICAS GIS EN EL LITORAL DEL CAMPO DE DALÍAS: LA DEFENSA COSTERA DE LOS PUEBLOS DEL INTERIOR. Enrique Villanueva Ojeda y Andrés Miguel García Lorca 336 DOCUMENTACIÓN, VALORIZACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO HIDRAÚLICO ROMANO EN EL VALLE MEDIO DEL EBRO. Paula Uribe, Jorge Angás, María Ángeles Magallón y Jorge Víctor Miranda 341 NUEVAS APORTACIONES A LA RECONSTRUCCIÓN VIRTUAL DEL CASTILLO DE AGUILAR DE LA FRONTERA Francisco Cabezas Pérez y Carmen Carbajo Cubero 346

PÓSTERS / POSTERS PROJECT PRADIGEO 2009 – 2011 Mario Antonacci DEMOCRATIZACIÓN DE APLICACIONES 3D EN LA DIGITALIZACIÓN ARQUEOLÓGICA: LA PRESA ROMANA DE MUEL (ZARAGOZA). Paula Uribe, Jorge Angás y Ángeles Magallón EL REGISTRO Y LA DOCUMENTACIÓN GRÁFICA EN ARQUEOLOGÍA: LA CIUDAD ROMANA DE CÁPARRA. (2009/2010) Eulalia Gijón Gabriel|, Javier García González y Román Rivera Jofré


14

VIRTUAL MUSEUM TRANSNATIONAL NETWORK / V-MUST.NET V-MUST.NET THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING / V-MUST.NET THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA & Victor Manuel Lopez Menchero ESPAÑA INTRODUCTION Daniel Pletinckx ESTUDIO DE CASO DE RESTAURACIÓN DIGITAL / CASE STUDY ON DIGITAL RESTORATION Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA & Victor Manuel Lopez Menchero ESPAÑA DIGITAL RESTORATION OF ANCIENT SCULPTURES Bernard Frischer ESTUDIO DE CASO DE DIGITALIZACIÓN DE OBJETOS DE MUS EO / CASE STUDY ON DIGITISATION OF MUSEUM OBJECTS Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA & Victor Manuel Lopez Menchero ESPAÑA THE IMAGINARTE PROJECT Julio Ruiz y Luis Rovés ESTUDIO DE CASO DE DIGITALIZACIÓN DE MONUMENTOS / CASE STUDY ON DIGITISATION OF MONUMENTS Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA & Victor Manuel Lopez Menchero ESPAÑA 3D DIGITISATION OF THE MEDIEVAL CASTLE RUIN OF BOUVIGNES WITH IMAGE-BASED TOOLS Daniel Pletinckx y Massimiliano Corsini INVESTIGACIONES EN CURSO / ONGOING RESEARCH Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA & Victor Manuel Lopez Menchero ESPAÑA RECONSTRUCTION OF THE AENEAS GROUP THROUGH A HYBRID HUMAN-COMPUTER APPROACH Antonio Adán Oliver INVERSE PROCEDURAL MODELLING Markus Mathias and Anđelo Martinović DIGITAL HERMENEUTICS IN ARCHAEOLOGY Maurizio Forte ANUNCIO DEL THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING 2 ANNOUNCEMENT OF THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING 2 Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA & Victor Manuel Lopez Menchero ESPAÑA ANUNCIO DEL THEMATIC CLUSTER MEETING 2 Victor Manuel Lopez Menchero V-MUST.NET SME / SME V-MUST.NET ENCUENTRO DE CENTROS DE COMPETENCIA / MUST.NET COMPETENCE CENTRE MEETING Daniel Pletinckx. BÉLGICA INTRODUCTION Daniel Pletinckx


15

II ENCUENTRO DE EMPRESAS DE ARQUEOLOGÍA Y PATRIMONI O /

2ND MEETING OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE COMPANIES ENCUENTRO DE EMPRESAS SEAV / SEAV BUSINESS MEETING II ENCUENTRO DE EMPRESAS DE ARQUEOLOGÍA Y PATRIMONI O / 2ND MEETING OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE COMPANIES Consuelo León Lozano. ESPAÑA. INTRODUCCIÓN Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma & Alfredo Grande León EL NUEVO ENTORNO DE LAS TIC Guillermo Martínez INTERNACIONALIZACIÓN DE LAS EMPRESAS DE ARQUEOLOGÍA Y PATRIMONIO: SALIR O MORIR / Manuel Jiménez Diaz & Marcos Prieto Sánchez EXPERIENCIAS / EXPERINCES O HACEMOS ALGO O VAMOS A VIVIR MUCHO PEOR QUE NUESTROS PADRES Héctor José García Fernández DE LAS TABLILLAS DE CERA AL SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN DIGITAL Lucas Gonsálvez Ciria PRODUCTO CULTURAL + SOCIAL MEDIA = CONSUMO CULTURAL Sergio Raya Trasierras y Dolores Lobillo Aranda DEBATE / DEBATE Guillermo Martínez Manuel Jiménez Diaz Marcos Prieto Sánchez Héctor José García Fernánde. Lucas Gonsálvez Ciria. Sergio Raya Trasierras y Dolores Lobillo Aranda. Ángeles Hernández-Barahona Palma. Alfredo Grande León. Consuelo León Lozano.


16

III EXPO ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2011 / III EXPO ARQUEOLÓG ICA 2.0 2011 EXPOSICIÓN INTERNACIONAL / INTERNATIONAL EXPO III EXPO ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2011 / 3RD EXPO ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2011 GRAN TENOCHTITLAN Universidad de Utah. Salt Lake City. Utah. Estados Unidos. USA TIRO EL CEMENTERIO FENICIO DE ALBAS (2008) EL BARCO FENICIO DE MAZARRON 1, 2 y 3. SIGLO VII a C. Diego Bravo Infografía. Madrid. España PERSEPOLIS 3D Demana Vision. Architecture and Archaeology. Alemania DIGITAL KARNAK PROJECT Universidad de California UCLA. Estados Unidos. USA ESCUELA DE ESTUDIOS ÁRABES Escuela de Estudios Árabes. CSIC. Granada. España MEDIEVAL DUBLÍN II Noho Ltd. Dublin. IRLANDA CARNUNTUM 2009-2011 – REBORN CITY OF EMPERORS (2011) 7Reasons. Salzburgo. AUSTRIA NERO AND THE DOMUS AUREA Y VIRTUAL EGIPT 3D (2011) Altair4. Roma. ITALIA EL PÓRTICO DE LA GLORIA 3D MAR. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. ESPAÑA MADINAT AL-ZAHRA Conjunto Arqueológico de Madinat Al-Zahra. Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. Córdoba. España CATEDRAL DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA INTERACTIVA VIDEAlab Universidade da Coruña. A Coruña. España


17

THE CENOBIUM WEB SYSTEM, SUPPORTING VISUAL ACCESS TO MEDIEVAL CLOISTER SCULPTURES. ISTITUTO DI SCIENZA E TECNOLOGIE DELL'INFORMAZIONE, CNR, PISA, ITALY

CONFERENCIA / CONFERENCE

SAMPLED 3D MODELS FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE: WHICH USES BEYOND VISUALIZATION?/

SAMPLED 3D MODELS FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE: WHICH USES BEYOND VISUALIZATION?


18

Sampled 3D models for Cultural Heritage: which uses beyond visualization?

Roberto Scopigno

Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione, CNR, Pisa, Italy

Resumen Las tecnologías digitales están ahora maduras para la producción de réplicas de alta calidad digital del patrimonio cultural (CH). Los resultados de la investigación producidos en la última década han mostrado una impresionante evolución y consolidación de las tecnologías para la adquisición de alta calidad, los modelos digitales 3D (escaneado 3D) y para la prestación de esos modelos a la velocidad interactiva. La tecnología es ahora lo suficientemente madura como para empujarnos a ir más allá de la simple visualización de los activos, la elaboración de nuevas herramientas capaces de ampliar nuestra visión y capacidades de intervención y de revisar los procedimientos actuales para la investigación consolidados CH y gestión. El artículo presenta algunas experiencias recientes en los modelos de alta calidad en 3D se han utilizado en CH investigación, restauración y conservación. Estos ejemplos constituyen una amplia revisión de los diferentes usos de los activos digitales 3D en el dominio CH. Palabras Clave: MODELOS DIGITALES 3D, ESCANEO 3D, PROCESAMIENTO GEOMÉTRICO ASISTIDO POR ORDENADOR RESTAURACIÓN. Abstract Digital technologies are now mature for producing high quality digital replicas of Cultural Heritage (CH) artefacts. The research results produced in the last decade have shown an impressive evolution and consolidation of the technologies for acquiring high-quality digital 3D models (3D scanning) and for rendering those models at interactive speed. Technology is now mature enough to push us to go beyond the plain visualization of those assets, devising new tools able to extend our insight and intervention capabilities and to revise the current consolidated procedures for CH research and management. The paper presents a few recent experiences where high-quality 3D models have been used in CH research, restoration and conservation. These examples constitutes a broad review of different uses of digital 3D assets in the CH domain. Key words: DIGITAL 3D MODELS, 3D SCANNING, GEOMETRIC PROCESSING, COMPUTER-AIDED RESTORATION.

1. Introduction

The evolution of the technologies for creating digital models of reality has been impressive in the last decade. The virtual representation of real or imaginary worlds is now a common resource in many application domains, with astonishing utilizations in entertainment industry. Even if most of those technologies have been developed for industrial applications (among others, rapid prototyping and movies), they find an ideal application to the Cultural Heritage (CH) domain. Most of the technologies developed for digital sampling the real world (we usually term them the 3D scanning) can be used for producing digital 3D models of CH artefacts. Available digitization technologies allow to cover all the scale, from the smaller (a jewel or a small prehistoric stone tool) up to the larger artefacts (a building or an entire historical city). The evolution of acquisition devices has been paired with the improvement of sampled data processing and visual presentation technologies. Therefore, the advent of a wide availability of sampled 3D models might bring to the CH domain an impact similar to those brought at the end of 19th century by the advent of photography. Due to the introduction of low cost devices, of inexpensive 3D acquisition methods based on digital pho-tography and on the advent of new capabilities to process 3D

data and to get new insight (STANCO et al. 2011), the near future should bring a much larger diffusion and use of digital models in the CH domain.

So far, most of the CH applications have been limited to visualization over different media or platforms, e.g. desktop-based multimedia presentations, museums kiosks, or videos produced with computer animation. There is a general agreement that new visualization technologies have a paramount effect on our capabilities to disseminate CH knowledge. An easy example is education at all levels, that can increase the awareness of our common CH, allowing us to know different cultures and to help us in creating a common multi-cultural background.

Even if visualization has a great potential, producing just digital images is perceived as an intermediate goal by CH scholars and practitioners. They are questing to go beyond plain visualization, asking for new tools to assist research on CH by means of digital 3D models, for example to help assessing the conservation status or to plan and document CH restoration. The scope of this work, that is mostly based on a recent paper (SCOPIGNO et al. 2011) is therefore to present just very briefly the status of 3D acquisition and visualization technologies, to leave most of the space to the presentation of a few experiences that can show how we can use digital 3D models to affect the daily work of CH scholars, curators and restorers.


19

2. Digital 3D models - Acquisition and visualization

Technologies for the digital sampling of reality appeared around twenty years ago and consolidated in the last decade. A good survey is presented in (STANCO et al. 2011). The most well known approach is laser-based 3D scanning, that is often the subject of articles on the press or of television programs, but this is not the only approach available today. A full range of technologies is available, that differentiate either in terms of the sampling methodology or of the sampling scale supported (how big could be the sampled volume and, usually accordingly, how dense is the sampling). 3D data can be sampled by adopting a scanning device or also by one of the recent image-based approaches (which return raw 3D data by processing set of images, looking for stereo-matching of feature points).

The improvement of the technology has been impressing since the Digital Michelangelo Project (LEVOY et al. 2000), that is usually considered a pioneering project in the CH domain. We have now much better resolution (number of samples and density of those samples on the measured surface), improved accuracy, faster acquisition time, largely improved post-processing instruments and, finally, a reduced cost of technology. Nowadays, 3D scanning systems are priced in the range 3,000 -100,000 USD, with the less expensive devices playing a very important role: opening the market to the wide public and increasing awareness on the potential and on technology know-how. Consequently, the availability of free software solutions is also an important asset. This is the case of both reconstruction systems based on images and multi-stereo matching (e.g. Arc3D http://www.arc3d.be/) and processing tools for raw sampled data (see for example the open-source MeshLab tool http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/ ).

The reduction of the cost of the devices and of the time needed for processing the raw sampled data are making 3D digitization an affordable action. While the scanning of a single statue took around one month of work ten years ago, a high-resolution and high-quality 3D model can be produced nowadays in a couple of days of work.

We should also look to the other side of the coin: are we able to visualize the huge digital models produced with 3D sampling devices? Models made of up to hundreds million triangles can now be rendered in real time on commodities PCs, thanks to the impressing progress of graphics processing units (driven by the video-game industry) and the efficient multi-resolution visualization methods developed in the last decade. Moreover, we are now ready to move those 3D data on the web (for example, endorsing the new WebGL standard, see http://www.khronos.org/webgl/ and http://www.spidergl.org/).

3. Using 3D models in Cultural Heritage

Initially, the most obvious CH applications of 3D sampled data focused on different incarnations of visualization-oriented applications. Being able to present visually an artwork is valuable for several tasks and to different potential users (art scholars, restorers, students, tourists and ordinary people). Therefore, by a large extent visual communication is the most common utilization of digital 3D models in the CH domain.

With the attempt to go beyond naive visualization, several previous experiences (see for example (CALLIERI et al. 2004)) have already shown that digital 3D models can be used for two major tasks:

� Studying artworks with digital 3D models (and related processing methodologies). Given the availability of digital 3D models, we can devise new processes able to execute specific investigations directly on the digital replica. Here the availability of a digital clone and of innovative modelling and shape-based analysis methodologies might allow us to gather new knowledge and new insight.

� Digital 3D models as a support medium for indexed archival of knowledge. The knowledge gathered from the different studies and analysis undertaken on a work of art can be mapped, annotated, indexed, retrieved, visualized, compared by means of the use of digital 3D models.

Another important distinction is among visual media used for story-telling purposes (e.g. animations produced to present a virtual reconstruction) and visual media used to increase knowledge or to provide quantitative experiences/insight. In the second case, the high accuracy of the digital model is basic requirement for any serious work: the level of accuracy satisfied by a given digital 3D model is a parameter of basic importance. This implies that models have to be produced adopting a sampling-based approach and, moreover, that digital data have to be paired with provenance data. Provenance data is of paramount importance in any scientific process or research, since it is crucial to document how a digital model has been created and up to what extent it can be considered a good representation of the real artefact. Provenance data should include complete information on the technology used to produce the digital model (sampling device used, specs of the sampling campaign, software used to process the sampled data, complete specification of all the post-processing filters used over the sampled data).

We cannot propose here a comprehensive presentation of all major experiences done in the last few years on this domain. Conversely, we present briefly just a few examples of enhanced use of 3D data either for improving knowledge or for offering enhanced opportunities for data presentation and integration.

4. Studying artworks with the help of the digital 3D medium

Digital 3D models would allow scholars to study artworks on a much wider scale than in real life, since the availability of good digital 3D models can allow scholars to dissolve the space and time constraints (e.g. virtual ”hands on” experience on object located far away, no more time limitation due to museum working time and access rights). A crucial requirement for imposing digital models as the modern replacements of printed materials is the availability of: enhanced searching over digital libraries; interactive visual analysis (possibly, with no compromise on model accuracy and quality); flexible tools for shape comparisons and improved shape reasoning capabilities. With the potential of current technologies, this can be much easier accomplished in a connected web-based environment than in the real word. The integration of different media and the availability of good, searchable metadata and provenance data is a must to envision the digital library of the future.


20

A first step in this sense has been performed with the design of the CENOBIUM syste, designed in 2006 as a pioneering example of integration between textural descriptions, high-resolution images and 3D models (CORSINI et al. 2010). The CENOBIUM goal was to provide art scholars with a resource for studying Medieval sculpture by means of digital multimedia representations, at the highest level of quality available but in a very open approach. All the results of the digitization process (high-resolution images and high-resolution 3D models) are thus made available for remote consultation, by means of easy to use tools. The CENOBIUM web site (http://cenobium.isti.cnr.it) provides an integrated access to those different media. It is therefore possible to analyze and compare visually in a coordinated manner images or 3D models at full resolution (see Figure 1).

Searching is an important component in this vision. Even if shape-based search methodologies have evolved considerably in the last few years, we are still far from the performances expected by CH scholars: it is thus not sufficient to recognize a vase from a chair. More advanced characterization methods are needed, which should be able to discern between similar objects and, ideally, to characterize even the workshop of provenance.

Fig. 1: The CENOBIUM web system, supporting visual access to medieval cloister sculptures. The web page presenting the data available for the single

capitol is presented in the image above, while an interactive inspection session (three photographs and a 3D model) is in the image below.

An example of a shape comparison project concerned the evaluation of the attribution of a bronze horse statuette, conserved at the National Archeological Museum in Florence and attributed to Benvenuto Cellini (DELLEPIANE et al. 2007). The goal here was to find some numerical shape-based evidence to the similarity noticed with a Leonardo's metal-point drawing (RLW no.12358, Windsor Royal Collection). We confronted the two artworks by devising a shape-matching experiment between the 3D-scanned model of the bronze horse and the digitized 2D drawing (see Figure 2). The shape comparison was based on a technology that allows register a photo (or a drawing, as in this case) on a 3D model, following tightly the perspective projection rules. The results of the matching were extremely good, demonstrating that the drawing could have been produced from the bronze statuette by using some sort of camera obscura from two different points of view (the horse body and three legs in the drawing come from a first orientation, while the front-most leg and the head are traced according to a second position).

Fig. 2: We used geometric processing to estimate the shape similarity between two artworks, a bronze horse statuette and a drawing, and to find

evidence for a new attribution hypothesis.

Another more recent experience with shape-matching, still in course of development, is the study of the residual traces left by carving instruments over unfinished Michelangelo's sculptures. We aim at a new methodology to perform the characterization and comparison of unfinished carved surfaces that still maintain traces of the carving process and of the instruments used. The final goal is to have more evidence and knowledge to get new light on the artist's sculpting procedure and, eventually, on some disputed attribution hypothesis.

Methods for visualizing and measuring residual traces have been developed in the framework of the Digital Michelangelo Project (LEVOY et al. 2000). The classical approach experimented so far in the digital domain has been to produce accurate digital 3D models of the artefact and to work with cut-through planes and with the corresponding section lines produced. Those section lines give us some information on the depth and the 2D shape of sections of the residual chisel traces. Main issues with this approach are that the selection of those cut-trough planes is not easy and, more important, it is a subjective choice. Section lines represent only a partial representation of a given chisel mark. Moreover, since the surface regions to be compared have different basic shapes, this make very complex also the comparison of the extracted section lines.

Conversely, we are working on an approach where a new "digital instrument" should allow the CH expert to make measurements and comparisons in a radically new way. Our idea is to design a new methodology based on the following three major ideas:


21

� At the level of the digital 3D representation, split the basic shape description (the overall shape of the sculpture) from the high-frequency detail corresponding to the remains of the chisel marks (the shape detail over the statue corresponding to just the traces of the sculptor's carving tools).

� Encode the high-frequency detail using a mapping from 3D space to 2D space, thus encoding with images the chisel marks shape detail. We maintain at the same time full control over the metric information encoded in the 2D image (since image gray levels are directly proportional to the depth of the chisel marks and are encoded in a known scale) and the accuracy of this encoding transformation (a pre-requisite is that the 3D-to-2D mapping transformation should be as much as possible isometric).

� Finally, design new tools for performing easy comparisons and analysis of the traces over and among the 2D representations. These tools will work on the 2D representation and will be sufficiently flexible to allow the CH expert to compute several different types of measures and matches.

5. Supporting documentation for on-site archaeology

Archaeology has been a pioneering domain for the use of digital technologies. Excavations require a sophisticated representation of the destructive digging process and of its intermediate results and findings. This originated, first, the use of Data Base Management technologies and, later on, an early adoption of Geographic Information Systems. In this domain, digital representations have been based so far mostly on 2D or 2D 1/2 spaces. Very few are the experiences so far going towards a real 3D documentation of the excavation process and of its findings.

Fig. 3: Four different 3D models showing the progress of an excavation (3D models produced with Arc3D and MeshLab).

On-site documentation of archaeology excavations is an ideal application domain for the new 3D sampling solutions based on dense stereo matching or structure from motion, due to their minimal hardware requirements (just a digital photo camera) and easiness

of use in all environments. The availability of inexpensive 3D sampling solutions (e.g. the ARC3D web-based multi-stereo-matching reconstruction server coupled with the MeshLab processing tool) is a great advancement for a domain where low budget is the norm. Some issues inherent with this specific data sampling approach are that the quality of reconstruction can vary among scenes, and also inside a single scene, depending on factors related to the object (texture, scale of features, optical characteristics), but also on the environment (illumination, sharpness of photos, completeness of photographic coverage). Moreover, dense stereo matching data are usually generated with an unknown scale, and a scale factor is needed to bring the data in a usable 3D space.

Anyway, it has been demonstrated that those technologies can be proficiently used to document the excavation status on a daily time frequency, replacing the usual 2D images with 3D models (DELLEPIANE et al. 2011). The availability of 3D models that depict the status of the excavation opens a large number of different ways to monitor and analyze the progress: production of cut-through sections, computation of relative depths and distances, relocation of the findings in proper locations, production of high-resolution images, etc. The usually destructive excavation process can thus be recorded in its full space: 3D plus color plus time, since we can to put in the same reference space all the acquired 3D models enhanced by photographic detail. Therefore, we can visualize spatial and temporal information at the same time (see Figure 3).

6. Supporting the restoration of fragmented artwork

Virtual reconstruction has been so far one of the most common CH applications of 3D graphics. The reconstruction of artefacts which are not existent anymore, using the available historical material (photographs, maps, drawing, knowledge) is a fascinating opportunity. In this domain, procedural reconstruction methods present a huge potential for the construction of realistic and navigable models of ancient monuments or even entire cities (DYLLA et al. 2009).

The focus of these technologies is not just to produce visual representations, but to allow us to experiment and assess different reconstruction hypothesis, thus helping us to increase the knowledge on the artwork.

3D technologies can also be proficiently used for either real or virtual reassembly of broken or dismantled artworks. An example is the restoration of the Pietranico's Madonna (a painted terracotta, XV cent., L'Aquila Museum, Italy). This statue has been severely damaged during a recent earthquake in central Italy, since it was fragmented in 19 large pieces and several smaller remains. In this case the goal was not just using digital 3D models to document the restoration project, but to actively contribute to the restoration with the definition and rehearsal of virtual reassembly hypothesis.

Reconstructing a fragmented artefact is a slow process usually performed manually by archaeologists or restorers, with several iterations of the cycle: fragments visual analysis - devising matching hypothesis - rehearsal by adjoining pieces. Checking matching pairs is a critical step, since the pieces are often fragile and holding together a few pieces (if not the entire reassembled set) is highly complex in the physical space. Restorers perform this action either by gluing/fixing the fragments or by building


22

specific supporting structures. Moreover, the rehearsal and assessment phase cannot be done by just considering a subset of the pieces; we should build the entire puzzle to have a global view and a solid assessment of the hypothesis, which makes the job even more complicated. This makes reassembly a really complex and highly time consuming task.

Fig. 4: The digital assembly of the Madonna of Pietranico from the digitized fragments (image above) and the design of the two supporting elements (head

and bust) created as digital shapes and then constructed using rapid prototyping for the real assembly.

Digital reassembly has been studied in several projects, focusing on reassembly of shreds of ancient pottery, statues, frescos, bas-relieves, etc. The adoption of a computer-aided approach can be requested in case of: extreme fragility of the artefact, complicated manipulation (being the fragments too heavy to be easily manipulated) or the very high number of shreds, that make the manual search extremely complex (a good example is the case of fragmented frescos, decomposed in a huge number of pieces (TOLER-FRANKLIN et al. 2010)). Most of the approaches present automatic matching solutions (HUANG et al. 2006), focusing on the shape properties of the shreds or, in some cases, by taking into account also the pictorial and decoration content of the pieces.

In the case of the Pietranico's Madonna, the virtual reconstruction was performed by keeping the CH experts in the loop. Conversely than adopting pure automatic solutions, we asked the restorers to show us all the matches they have individuated in the first analysis phase (based on fragments' shape, decoration, finishing, etc). Since the fragments were sufficiently small and lightweight to be manipulated by the restorers (even if with a lot of care to avoid further damages), we asked the restorer to hold each of these matching pairs in the adjoining pose and acquired a single range map of the two joined fragments. This single range map has been used to translate the fragments in the correct position in the virtual digital space (see Figure 4). While working on the digital space, we validated the matching pairs proposed by restorers, individuated some other matches induced by the initial ones (those new joins hypothesis

have been communicated to the restorers and further checked with them), and finally made an overall validation of the entire graph of pair-wise matches and of the proposed re-assembly. the latter work was also done by comparing the results of the digital reunion with the available historical photos of the artefact.

Once a recombining scheme was agreed, the real physical reassembly started. A restoration goal was to avoid to simply glue the fragments, but to design and build a structure which should hold all fragments in their correct reciprocal position. Here again the availability of a digital model was helpful. The final supporting structure is based on two solid pieces that fill up the internal void space in the inside of the terracotta statue, i.e. the chest and the back of the head; these two pieces are connected by an iron bar and are used to hold and glue all the fragments. These internal filling components have been designed by using the digital 3D models of the reassembled fragments (see Figure 4) and have been produced by using rapid reproduction technology (3D printing). The design of the filling parts has been performed with MeshLab by reconstructing the shape of the internal void space bounded by the statue fragments. This resulting shape was then manually edited in order to correct small meshing problems (minor interpenetrations, protruding surfaces) and to remove some protrusions with the aim of facilitating the proper assembly of the fragments on top of the internal nucleus.

Another important issue in terms of virtual restoration is the study and visual presentation of the original aspect of archaeological sculptures or architectures. Due to the deteriorating effect of both time and human activities, most archaeological findings lost their original painted decoration or present severe deteriorations. The Pietranico Madonna lost most of the painted decoration and thus a digital restoration of its original aspect was also envisioned. This work resulted much more complex than expected. An extensive analysis of the original polychrome decoration done over the Madonna revealed a very complex structure: we had a base of preparatory plaster and several different layers of painted detail, including also the use of metal leaf (silver and gold) attached to the surface to increase the transparency and lightness of the painted decoration. Our plan was to produce a virtual restoration of the polychrome decoration over the digital 3D model, by using the painting features of the MeshLab tool. Two major problems emerged from this case study and clarified some limitations of the current technology:

� Thick layers of preparation material usually allow to have a basic surface that is much smoother than the raw terracotta surface; this means that we should be able to simulate the deposition of this thick layer, by changing the surface geometry (i.e. applying a material that has both tint and thickness, possibly in a progressive manner);

� Polychromy is usually implemented by the overlap of different pigments layers, in such a way that the final appearance is produced by the way the light interfere with those layers. This implies that an accurate simulation requires to encode explicitly the existence of those layers (possibly, encoding also the reflection properties of each of those materials) and not just the composition of different RGB values. The presence of metal leaf in some regions and an underground reflective layer makes this even more complex.

The results obtained with the current capabilities of MeshLab are shown in Figure 5.


23

7. Concluding remarks

This paper briefly presented some experiences where digital 3D models and geometry processing technologies have been used to support the work of CH scholars and restorers. Since we have very good and consolidated technologies for constructing digital replicas of works of art, it is now time to enlarge the offer of interactive tools based on visual computing technologies. Those new tools should become the instruments of the new millennium for CH expert or practitioner (archaeologist, scholars, restorers, students).

Fig. 5: A snapshot of MeshLab during the repainting of the head section of the Madonna.

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreements no. 231809 (IST IP "3DCOFORM") and no. 270404 (IST NoE "V-Must.Net").

References

CALLIERI M., CIGNONI P., GANOVELLI F., IMPOCO G., MONTANI C., PINGI P., PONCHIO F., SCOPIGNO R. (2004) "Visualization and 3D data processing in David’s restoration". IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications 24, 2 (Mar.-Apr. 2004), 16– 21.

CORSINI M., DELLEPIANE M., DERCKS U., PONCHIO F., CALLIERI M., KEULTJES D., MARINELLO A., SIGISMONDI R., SCOPIGNO R., WOLF G. (2010) "Cenobium - putting together the romanesque cloister capitals of the mediterranean region". In Bar International Series BAR S2118 2010 (Proc. of III International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology, 17th-21st August 2009) (2010), S. Campana M. F., Liuzza C., (Eds.), pp. 189–194.

DELLEPIANE M., CALIERI M., DELL’UNTO N. (2011) "Monitoring archeological excavation using dense stereo matching techniques". Tech. rep., CNR-ISTI, Pisa, Italy, 2011.

DELLEPIANE M., CALLIERI M., FONDERSMITH M., CIGNONI P., SCOPIGNO R. (2007) "Using 3D scanning to analyze a proposal for the attribution of a bronze horse to Leonardo da Vinci". In The 8th Int. Symp. on International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (VAST 07) (Nov 2007), Eurographics, pp. 117–124.

DYLLA K., FRISCHER B., MUELLER P., ULMER A., HAEGLER S. (2009) "Rome Reborn 2.0: A case study of virtual city reconstruction using procedural modeling techniques". In 37th Proceedings of the CAA Conference, March 22-26, 2009 (2009), pp. 62–66.

HUANG Q.-X., FLORY S., GELFAND N., HOFER M., POTTMANN H. (2006) "Reassembling fractured objects by geometric matching". ACM Trans. Graphics 25, 3 (2006), 569–578.


24

LEVOY M., PULLI K., CURLESS B., RUSINKIEWICZ S., KOLLER D., PEREIRA L., GINZTON M., ANDERSON S., DAVIS J., GINSBERG J., SHADE J., FULK D. (2000) "The Digital Michelangelo Project: 3D scanning of large statues". In SIGGRAPH 2000, Computer Graphics Proceedings (July 24-28, 2000), Annual Conference Series, AddisonWesley, pp. 131–144.

SCOPIGNO, Roberto et al. (2011): "Sampled 3D models for CH: beyond plain visualization", IEEE Computer, IEEE Press, July-Aug. 2011, pp. (in press).

STANCO F., BATTIATO S., GALLO G., (ED.) (2011) "Digital Imaging for Cultural Heritage Preservation". Taylor & Francis Group, 2011.

TOLER-FRANKLIN C., BROWN B., WEYRICH T., FUNKHOUSER T., RUSINKIEWICZ S. (2010) "Multi-feature matching of fresco fragments". ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia) 29, 6 (2010), 185–197.


25

FORO INTERNACIONAL DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL 2011. BORRADOR INTERNACIONAL DE LA CARTA DE SEVILLA

SESIÓN PLENARIA / PLENARY SESSION

FORO INTERNACIONAL DE LA ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL 2011: BORRADOR INTERNACIONAL DE LA CARTA DE SEVILLA/

INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY 2011: SEVILLE CHARTER INTERNATIONAL DRAFT


26

On Cultural Heritage Conventions and Charters.

Jean-Louis Luxen

Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione, CNR, Pisa, Italy

President of CHEDI. Culture, Heritage & Development – International. Bruselas. Bélgica. Resumen Los debates internacionales han profundizado y ampliado las nociones de Patrimonio y Conservación. Esta evolución ha incluido la elaboración de Convenios y Cartas. En el curso de los últimos años, ha habido un aumento considerable en dichos documentos. En la actualidad hay decenas de ellos, cientos de páginas publicadaos. Los estudiosos y expertos en conservación se refieren regularmente, en sus estudios y prácticas, a los principios contenidos en estos documentos, que están destinados a ser universales en su alcance. En general, se cree que estos principios hacen posible el avance en al menos tres áreas principales: en la práctica, en la doctrina y en el diálogo entre las culturas. Hoy, sin embargo, surgen preguntas en cuanto a la realidad de estas contribuciones. Existe una creciente inquietud sobre estos convenios y estatutos, la relevancia y la autoridad de la que a veces promulgan.. Palabras Clave: CARTAS INTERNACIONALES, PRINCIPIOS, RECOMENDACIÓN, UNESCO, ICOMOS Abstract International debates have deepened and expanded the notions of heritage and conservation. This evolution has included the drawing up of Conventions and Charters. In the course of the last few years, there has been a considerable increase in such documents. There are now dozens of them, constituting hundreds of published pages. Scholars and conservation experts regularly refer, in their studies and practices, to the principles contained in these documents, which are intended to be universal in scope. It is generally believed that these principles make possible advancement in at least three major areas: in practice, in doctrine, and in the dialogue among cultures. Today, however, questions are being raised as to the reality of these contributions. There is growing unease over these Conventions and Charters, the relevance and authority of which are sometimes contested. Key words: INTERNATIONAL CHARTER, PRINCIPLES, RECOMMENDATION, UNESCO, ICOMOS With regard to practice, some critics cite examples in which the norms laid out in charters and conventions are not respected, either through ignorance or by deliberate choice. Diverging interpretations can also be observed, with professionals opting for contradictory interventions in the name of the same principles.

In terms of doctrine, many people criticize these texts for seeking a common denominator and often for being too general. At the same time, the proliferation of documents appears to undermine their credibility. Some compare texts and raise questions regarding their coherence, suggesting that their juxtaposition creates confusion and leaves too much room for differing interpretations.

With respect to international dialogue, charters and conventions are criticized for having a high rate of failure. Imbalances between different regions and types of heritage have led to different approaches to conservation, fueling tensions and undermining exchanges of ideas and experiences. In addition, the multilateral approach to heritage is losing ground in the context of international cooperation.

As a matter of fact, international standards are not applied with the same rigor everywhere. This is more the consequence of the economic and social conditions of the different countries and regions rather than the result of differing cultural approaches. This can also been observed among European countries. Admittedly, norms were originally influenced by the European - and even the Mediterranean- context, but they have been

enriched considerably by contributions from other regions of the world. After all, the conservation and restoration methods of Japanese temples or Chinese tombs follow a long tradition of rigor, which applied the concepts of the Charters before they were even written. And management methods based on strong traditional customs and practices are considered to be the equivalent of "management plans".

Terminology

Before an analysis of these highly varied documents is carried out, it is important to define their terminology and scope.

"Conventions" and "Recommendations" emanate from intergovernmental organisations such as UNESCO, the Council of Europe, and other public international agencies.

Once Conventions - such as the Convention on the Illicit Traffic of Cultural Property (1970), the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), or the European Convention on Landscapes (2000) - are signed and ratified, they are binding for the member states.

"Recommendations" do not have the force of law, they bring together for public authorities and other stakeholders highly recommended management guidelines. Examples include the Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of Landscapes


27

and Sites (1962), the Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property (1978), and numerous recommendations by the Council of Europe.

These norms are considered public international law, and before being adopted and applied, they are subject to meticulous preparations and consultations between states to ensure the widest possible consensus.

"Charters", "Codes of ethics", "Principles" and other "Documents" have moral rather than legal authority. They usually set forth principles and codes of good conduct that professionals set for themselves to serve as guidelines for their practices. The virtues of this self-regulatory collective approach include its flexibility and its ability to adapt to change. This category includes the Charter of Athens (1931) and the Charter of Venice (1964), the specific Charters on Historic Gardens (1987) and Cultural Tourism (1999), and the Codes of ethics of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the International Council of Archives (ICA), as well as the "Nara Document on Authenticity" (1994). To acquire strong moral credibility, these norms need to be the outcome of very broad consultations, involving as many professionals as possible from all regions of the world.

It should be noted that a fertile relationship can grow between Charters and Conventions of varying scopes. Thus, the Charter on Underwater Cultural Heritage (1996) prepared the ground for UNESCO to adopt the Convention of 2001 on the same theme. Likewise, it frequently happens that public authorities responsible for museums refer to the ICOM Code of Ethics or that courts base their decisions on the principles of a given Charter (soft law).

All these documents form a considerable corpus of norms to be combined with national, regional, and municipal legislation in each country. In addition to cultural heritage, they cover regional and urban planning, as well as the protection of nature and the environment. Who can claim to have complete knowledge and understanding of these norms? It is easy to understand why most people get lost in the profusion of documents.

Dissemination

Frequently, these norms are not well disseminated. A striking example is the lack of knowledge of the Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at National Level, of Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted in 1972, in the same year as the widely known Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. While these UNESCO texts are complementary, the Recommendation is much more comprehensive and concrete, and hence more useful for everyday management, but it is not nearly as well known.

On the whole, better dissemination is required so that the stakeholders can refer to the texts themselves, preferably in their native language. These texts are far from being readily available, and they are even less available in accurate translations.

Another factor is that these texts are not always accompanied by detailed and clear commentaries that would make them more understandable to the site managers. Because of this lack of knowledge, an initiative is often taken to prepare a new Charter for a problem already dealt with. For example, the ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (1987), also known as the Washington Charter, did not

contribute anything new to the Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas, adopted by UNESCO 11 years earlier! We can also wonder whether the Recommendation on Urban Cultural Landscapes in preparation would really be innovative in this field.

Not enough emphasis has been placed on the need to review existing documents before aspiring to innovate. In general, priority should be given to the broad and effective dissemination of existing texts. While efforts have been made in this direction, especially through Internet sites, they remain inadequate.

It should be acknowledged that the formulation of norms is, in many cases, very general, since they seek to cover a wide variety of specific situations. Consequently, this general formulation leaves the door open to differing interpretations. Efforts have been made to overcome this difficulty by developing guidelines geared toward the particular circumstances of a country. Thus, the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China (2002) consist of two distinctive parts: the "Principles," of general scope, and the "Commentary," which deals in a detailed and explicit manner with Chinese heritage. Another example is the Burra Charter, which provides a synthesis of the latest ideas on conservation applicable to Australia, with a very clear outline of the decision-making process, illustrations and commentaries.

In the same spirit, more practical manuals can also be proposed to guide site managers and decision makers on the measures to be taken day by day. The "Management Guidelines for World Cultural Sites" and the "Guidelines for Risk Preparedness", published by ICCROM, convert the major principles of Charters and Conventions into advice on management. Similarly, the World Tourism Organization has taken the initiative to publish the handbook "Visitor Management in Cultural and Natural Sites". These publications illustrate the Global Code of Ethics of this organisation and the Charter on Cultural Tourism in concrete terms, using models of good practice. The time is clearly ripe for the publication of works that are simple, clear, inexpensive, and available in several languages.

Indeed, it is simple and clear language that is often missing. There is an unfortunate tendency to develop a specific jargon and concepts whose definitions are not obvious to all, especially given language differences. Thus, the problems raised and the vocabulary used during the discussions on the implementation of the Convention on the World Heritage and, more specifically, in the latest version of the Operational Guidelines, are probably fully understood by no more than 200 people worldwide, and by few site managers.

Another difficulty that has arisen relates to the adaptation of norms to changes in ideas, social life, and techniques. This is why revising Conventions can turn out to be a problematic exercise. It required many years, for example, to adopt the Additional Protocol to The Hague Convention of 1954. Another example is provided by the recent adoption, in 2003, of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage, at a time when it appeared impossible to many states to extend further the concepts and arrangements of the Convention on the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972. But was a new Convention really necessary? Some people question whether this was the moment to treat the intangible aspect separately instead of carrying out a more in-depth study on the relationship between the physical and intangible dimensions of heritage.

As for Charters, ICOMOS has decided not to update the 1964 Charter of Venice and instead has opted to adopt complementary Charters and Principles dealing with specific types of heritage and new themes. This approach has led to the


28

drawing up of new texts of unequal value, superimposed over already existing ones, a practice that intensifies the impression of proliferation. In this regard, the option chosen by ICOM and ICA of periodic but infrequent revisions of their Codes of ethics seems more appropriate. This is also the approach made in respect to the Australian Burra Charter, which is revised from time to time.

Professional discipline

Nongovernmental organisations have an important role to play in the name of civil society. Because they have the necessary distance from the political authorities, it is up to scholars and professionals to remain in active contact, to stimulate the debate, and to highlight constantly the universal values of heritage and the basis for its conservation: authenticity, integrity, management plans, integrated conservation, reversibility of interventions, and the presentation and interpretation of sites. Today, taking into account new communication technologies, a priority is to respond to the increasing demand of visitors for a plural and interactive reading of heritage and the cultures it reflects.

Used wisely, Recommendations, Charters, Codes of ethics, and other handbooks continue to be vital tools for the protection of heritage. Because there is already a considerable corpus of normative texts, a reflection of the impressive extension of the concepts related to heritage, priority should be given to the dissemination of these documents, through public awareness campaigns and training, and to their effective implementation. It would also be very useful to adapt international norms to the specific situations of regions or countries, in more accessible, explicit, and detailed guidelines and in the local language, a process already undertaken in some places. In addition, there is a need for practical handbooks on specific topics, such as visitor management and site interpretation.

Given that there is a constant need for intellectual development and progress in practice - through the international exchange of ideas and experiences - it is probable that new Conventions, Charters, and the like will be drawn up. One would hope that more normative texts would be developed only if they bring added value, avoid divergent interpretations, and reflect a wide consensus among heritage professionals and different regions of the world. In grappling with all of these issues, we should not lose sight of what is, or should be, the ultimate objective of heritage conservation: the affirmation of universal values and the encouragement of mutual understanding.


29

The implementation of an International Charter in the field of Virtual Archaeology

Alfredo Grande y Víctor Manuel Lopez-Menchero Bendicho

Sociedad Española de Arqueología Virtual (SEAV). España

Resumen La visualización del patrimonio cultural asistida por ordenador, como el concepto de Arqueología Virtual, es algo muy nuevo. Sin embargo, en los últimos diez años los diferentes grupos de expertos han trabajado en la creación de estándares y recomendaciones dedicadas específicamente al campo de las TIC y el patrimonio cultural. Las recomendaciones de Lund y Carta de Londres son dos buenos ejemplos de ello. Sin embargo, la aplicación de las TIC en el ámbito del patrimonio arqueológico no tiene, por el momento, un documento específico o estándares. Desde su creación en 2008, la Sociedad Española de Arqueología Virtual (SEAV) agrupa a más de 23 grupos de investigación y 21 empresas privadas preocupadas por el futuro de la arqueología virtual en el mundo. Por esta razón SEAV ha puesto en marcha el Foro Internacional de Arqueología Virtual, un foro internacional de expertos destinadas a establecer el fundamento teórico del futuro internacional de Arqueología Virtual. El primer objetivo del Foro Internacional de Arqueología Virtual es liderar la creación transnacional de la Carta Internacional de Arqueología Virtual, llamada Carta de Sevilla (Seville Charter). Para gestionar este proceso SEAV ha creado el Encuentro Internacional de Arqueología e Informática Gráfica, Innovación y Patrimonio (ARQUEOLOGICA 2,0), la revista científica Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), y el portal web www.arqueologiavirtual.com Palabras Clave: SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL, ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL, ESTÁNDARES, PATRIMONIO ARQUEOLÓGICO, CARTA DE SEVILLA, CARTA DE LONDRES Abstract Computer-based visualisation of cultural heritage, like the concept Virtual Archaeology, is something very new. Nevertheless in the last ten years different groups of experts have worked in the creation of standars and recommedations devoted specifically to the field of ICT and cultural heritage. Lund recommendations and London Charter are two good examples of it. However the application of ICT in the field of archaeological heritage haven´t, by the moment, specific recommedations or standars. Since its creation in 2008 the Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology (SEAV) groups more than 23 research groups and 21 private companies concerned about the future of virtual archeology in the world. For this reason SEAV has set up the International Forum of Virtual Archaeology, an international forum of experts intended to establish the theoretical foundation of the international future of Virtual Archaeology. The first purpose of the International Forum of Virtual Archaeology is lead the transnational creation of the International Charter of Virtual Archaeology, called Carta de Sevilla (Seville Charter). To manage this process SEAV has created the International meeting of archaeology and graphic informatics, heritage and innovation (ARQUEOLOGICA 2.0), the online scientific journal Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), and the website www.arqueologiavirtual.com. Key words: SPANISH SOCIETY OF VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY, STANDARS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE, SEVILLE CHARTER, LONDON CHARTER.

1. Introduction

If we refer to the development of art history, the representation of reality has undergone a major evolution. The lucky invention of perspective is an important step in the visualization of space, but, however, is a limited resource, because there is more than a flat representation of three-dimensional space. Had to spend much time to reach the 3D representation of space in a generic environment that allows the user to feel, to some extent, which is in the place represented, more unique experience if done in an area of interest.

Introduced as a new millennium, it is necessary to rethink our thinking and adapt to technological advances around us. The possibilities offered by current computer should be seriously considered, to take advantage of that horizon opened by digital technology, especially computer graphics technologies, with its

possibilities and benefits are revolutionizing the fields of audiovisual production. It is, therefore, that technology can help in the representation of reality and can become a powerful ally of History.

Of all the applications of new technologies in the field of Humanities and Culture in general, archaeology where they are getting excellent examples of virtual historical reconstruction and of preservation and dissemination of archaeological heritage. The concept “Virtual Archeology” was first proposed by Paul Reilly in 1990, describing it as “a set of computer techniques that allow 3D visualization and realistic virtual representation of objects and buildings whose remains are gone or are in a poor state of preservation as to make it impossible or very difficult its interpretation” [4]. Virtual Archaeology, in fact, can depict immediately complex contexts relating to the past or forward readings of historical, architectural, territorial or social situations, proving to be a valid contribution to the transposition of information, thus proposing a potent instrument for the cultural transmission.


30

In recent years the impact of new technologies has been very strong in the way of representing the archaeological heritage. Knowledge has been change from exclusive, erudite and almost inbred in the way of representing and managing the archaeological heritage, to a completely different way. Despite what one might think, the discipline of Virtual Archaeology born with certain conceptual maturity. In its few years of life and based on some experiences of failure, has managed to hold and try to design, as a scientific discipline, far removed from the external printing as fun toy, that has been seen by some.

Why should this certain conceptual maturity? Virtual Archaeology germinate in a field where long and farreaching international charters and recommendations have created specific rules in the field of research, conservation, restoration and dissemination of conventional archaeological heritage. Many professionals have been able to extrapolate the guiding principles of these charters and recommendations to the new virtual archaeological projects. However, many professionals have forgotten this obvious relationship between the conventional archaeological heritage and virtual archeology, justifying this attitude by the seemingly neutral character of virtual archeology.

However, despite the innocuous nature of virtual archeology for the physical dimension of heritage, play a very active role in the dissemination of it. In a society where we live under the tyranny of the image, a simple failed recreation can override the more complete and thorough archaeological scientific research. A superficial walk by the world wide web can offer many examples of unfortunate digital interventions that can, with its iconological value, contaminated us with a false history difficult to eradicate later.

Nevertheless, when the 3D tools are applied in optimum conditions, the resulting product passes far beyond the primary objective of seeing what no longer exists. Opens a new avenue for research, recording, preservation and dissemination, where the universal language of the image becomes the key to ensuring effective integrated management of archaeological heritage.

However, at this point the question arises: What are these optimum conditions to ensure the quality of the resulting product? Or better yet, under what criteria are set the quality of virtual archaeological project?

2. The historical background in the creation of Standars for the Computer-based Visualisation of Cultural Heritage

In June 2000 the eEurope 2002 Action Plan endorsed by the EU Member States in the European Council in Feira (Portugal). The objective of this Plan was to stimulate European contents in global networks, thus take full advantage of opportunities created by the advent of digital technologies.

Within this overall objective there was a specific joint action of States and the Commission aimed at creating a coordination mechanism for digitization programs in the Member States. Almost a year later, on April 4, 2001, met in Lund (Sweden) representatives and experts from Member States to discuss this issue and recommend measures to promote better coordination and add value to digitization activities in a sustainable manner in time. The meeting agreed that European resources in the field of culture and scientific knowledge provide a unique public asset

that represents the collective memory and experience of our different societies and provide a solid foundation for the development of our digital content industries in a sustainable knowledge society.

Likewise representatives and experts at Lund stressed the value and importance of cultural and scientific digital content in Europe, so long as these contents represent: An accessible and sustainable heritage. The cultural and scientific heritage of Europe is a unique and valuable asset. The digitization of their resources is an essential activity to make them more accessible to citizens and preserve the collective cultural heritage (both past and future) in Europe.

A support for cultural diversity, education and content industries. Digital cultural goods are essential to maintain and promote cultural diversity in the current worldwide and are a key resource for education and tourism industries and the media.

A resource of great variety and richness. Member States have invested large sums of money on programs and projects of digitalization of cultural and scientific content. These activities cover various fields and content types, such as museum artefacts, public records, archaeological sites, audiovisual archives, maps, historical documents and manuscripts.

Parallel to the declaration of Lund in recent years of the twentieth century and early twenty-first many researchers began to stress the importance of open international debates on epistemological, ontological and theoretical questions on the use of virtual reality in the field of cultural heritage . Authors such as Maria Roussou (Foundation of the Hellenic World), Juan Antonio Barcelo (Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona), Nick Ryan (University of Kent), Bernie Frisher (University of Virginia) or Franco Niccolucci (The Cyprus Institute) posed openly interpretive problems that are associated with any attempt to reconstruct virtually a thing of the past. The debate originally centered on the credibility and transparency of the virtual reconstructions gradually drifted into a wider debate based on acceptance by researchers from the premise that “not anything goes” when it comes to reconstructing the past or use the new technologies applied to cultural heritage.

The growing concern over these issues led to the creation in 2000 the organization's Virtual Reality Cultural Organisation (CVRO) and one year after the group Virtual Archaeology Special Interest Group (VASIG), whose work was crucial to keep alive and enhance the debate within the most important international academic forums as CAA (Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology) or VAST (International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage).

In 2005 the King's Visualisation Lab (KVL) belonging to King's College London was launching a project called Making Space whose purpose was “to investigate a methodology for documenting the cognitive process of research based on three-dimensional visualization”. Between 23 and 24 February, 2006, 50 researchers debated the issue of scientific transparency in the British Academy. As a result of that meeting on 25 February, a smaller group of researchers led by Franco Niccoluccio prepared a document to serve as a preliminary draft of the Charter of London, but above all, laid the foundation for what would be the Advisory Board Charter responsible to continue to improve the document for months and even years later. The Advisory Board was jointly chaired by Richard Beacham (King's College London) and Franco Niccolucci (The Cyprus Institute), under


31

the overall coordination of Hugh Denard (King's College London) and Sorin Hermon (The Cyprus Institute).

In March 2006 Hugh Denard, circulated the first draft of The London Charter, structured mode Ename Charter for discussion, improvement and adoption. In June of that year decided to publish the first version of the Charter that was housed and displayed to the public in August 2006 in www.londoncharter.org under the title “The London Charter for the Use of 3D Visualisation in the Research and Communication of Cultural Heritage” [1].

Fig. 1: www.londoncharter.org

In November 2007, published the translation of the Charter for the Italian and Japanese, and a year later saw the light the first version in spanish through collaboration between Alfredo Grande (President of Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology SEAV) and Victor M. López-Menchero (University of Castilla-La Mancha).

After strenuous debates about the principles emanating from the first draft of the London Charter in February 2009 appeared a new and improved version of the document known as Draft 2.1, whose title also suffered some changes compared with version 1.1, running under the title “The London Charter for the Computerbased Visualisation of Cultural Heritage”. The first authorized translation of the new draft was on this occasion the spanish version that would run again by Alfredo Grande and Victor M. López-Menchero, Spanish representatives approved for that purpose by the Advisory Board of the Charter.

The London Charter for the Computer-based Visualisation of Cultural Heritage has served to establish a set of general principles and recommendations that serve to increase the scientific rigor with which new technologies are being applied worldwide in the field of cultural heritage. This aspiration is supported by a strong belief that computer visualization applied to the field of cultural heritage is not simply a tool or an auxiliary technique, but that really is, or may constitute, a discipline itself able to develop a method and specific techniques designed to meet an object of particular study. However, as the London Charter recognized the application of computer visualization applied to the field of cultural heritage is a theme too broad that it requires much more precise specification. It is at this point the idea to create an international charter of virtual archeology. The Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology (SEAV) will be responsible for coordinating the entire process.

3. The historical background of the International Charter Of Virtual Archaeology

Since its creation in 2008 the Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology (SEAV) groups more than 23 research groups and 21 private companies concerned about the future of virtual archeology in the world. For this reason SEAV has set up the International Forum of Virtual Archaeology, an international forum of experts intended to establish the theoretical foundation of the international future of Virtual Archaeology. The first purpose of the International Forum of Virtual Archaeology is lead the transnational creation of the International Charter of Virtual Archaeology, called Carta de Sevilla (Seville Charter). To manage this process SEAV has created in 2009 the International meeting of archaeology and graphic informatics, heritage and innovation (ARQUEOLOGICA 2.0). In Sevilla, June 2009, at the I International Meeting on Archaeology and Graphic Informatics, Heritage and Innovation ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0, several major purposes were pointed out. Among the most significant aims was to have feedback from the experts of this discipline in order to seek for an opportunity to create an international charter which should apply the London Charter especifically to Virtual Archaeology.

This was the purpose of the lecture session called “Reflections about the London Charter”, where three of its signers, Richard Beacham from King's Visualisation Lab. King's College, Sorin Hermon from Digital Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Sciences of Cyprus and Juan A. Barcelo from the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, joined SEAV's initiative in order to create a new document, counting on wide international agreement, and linked to ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 [2].

After such session, the Plenary Assembly called “Foundations of Virtual Archaeology” took place. Thirty well-known experts and researchers of this field of knowledge took part at it, and they claimed it was highly necessary to define, shape and properly ground Virtual Archaeology, which has not been yet set up in spite of its success and use worldwide.

Fig. 2: Session called “Reflections about the London Charter”. I International Meeting on Archaeology and Graphic Informatics, Heritage

and Innovation ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 2009


32

The conclusions of the first meeting of the International Forum left no room for doubt: it was an urgent need to start working to create an international charter of virtual archeology. The SEAV then began intensive work to produce a first draft of the international charter of virtual archaeology. This draft was presented in Sevilla, June 2010, during the second meeting of the international forum within the II International Meeting on Archaeology and Graphic Informatics, Heritage and Innovation, ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0. receiving a great welcome by those attending the forum [3].

Parallel to the celebration of ARQUEOLOGICA 2010 and since one of the central objectives of International Forum was confirm Virtual Archaeology as an independent and recognized field of research, in 2010 born the online scientific journal Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR) with the objective of consolidating itself as an prestigious international publication. The creation of VAR is playing a major role in the drafting of the Seville Charter. So, for example, the number four of the journal is dedicated exclusively to treat theoretical aspects of the discipline, which is essential to establish real scientific standars.

Figure 3:Web portal www.arqueologiavirtual.com

Furthermore, and to improve the dissemination and knowledge that the international community have about the process of drafting the Seville Charter, has created web portal www.arqueologiavirtual.com. This site provides not only the disclosure of the International Charter of Virtual Archaeology but also of accompanying activities, such as the International Forum, ARQUEOLOGICA 2.0 or Virtual Archaeology Review.

4. Conclusions

Despite the work done by the working team of the International Forum of Virtual Archaeology is still necessary to continue leading the transnational creation of the International Charter of Virtual Archaeology.

To achieve this purpose The International Forum of Virtual Archaeology conceive the following activities:

� ENCOURAGE open and permanent cooperation between the Seville and London Charters.

� COORDINATE supporting actions and the spread of Virtual Archaeology together with major international entities.

� PROMOTE transnational discussion about the theoretical foundation of Virtual Archaeology.

� OFFER researchers from the field of virtual archaeology an adequate edition to have their research results, theoretical contributions and procedures properly publicated.

� RATIFY the international draft of Seville Charter at the Plenary Assembly of the IV International Meeting on Archaeology and Graphic Informatics, Heritage and Innovation ARQUEOLÓGICA 2.0 which will take place in Sevilla, June 2012.

� ENSURE the spread and proper performance of the Seville Charter principles.

References

[1] BEACHAM, R., DENARD, H., NICCOLUCCI, F.: An Introduction to the London Charter, The E-volution of ICTechnology in Cultural Heritage, Papers from the Joint Event CIPA/VAST/EG/EuroMed Event, 2006.

[2] LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M.: Propuesta para profundizar en la carta de londres y mejorar su aplicabilidad en el campo del patrimonio arqueológico, Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), vol. 2 nº. 4, 2011, 65-69.

[3] LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M., GRANDE, A.: Hacia una carta internacional de arqueología virtual. El borrador SEAV, Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), vol. 2 nº. 4, 2011, 71-75.

[4] REILLY, P.: Towards a virtual archaeology, Computer Applications in Archaeology, Edited by K.Lockyear and S.Rahtz. oxford: British Archaeological Reports (Int. Series 565), 1991, 133-139.


33

La Carta de Sevilla. Avances hacia el primer borrador de la Carta Internacional de la Arqueología Virtual

Victor Manuel López-Menchero Bendicho y Alfredo Grande León

Sociedad Española de Arqueología Virtual (SEAV). España

Resumen Tras más de tres años de duro trabajo el presente paper recoge la versión más actualizada de la Carta Internacional de la Arqueología Virtual más conocida como Carta de Sevilla. Esta vez se presenta un primer borrador elaborado y consensuado por el International Forum of Virtual Archaeology que viene a ampliar, matizar y mejorar el trabajo que ya fuera realizado años atrás por parte de la Sociedad Española de Arqueología Virtual (SEAV). Por su parte esta nueva versión, con algunas ligeras modificaciones que serán añadidas a finales de 2011, servirá de base para la discusión trasnacional entre más de cien grupos de investigación y empresas de medio mundo. Palabras Clave: ARQUEOLOGÍA VIRTUAL, CARTA DE SEVILLA, STANDARDS. Abstract After more than three years of hard work, this paper includes the latest version of the International Charter of Virtual Archaeology known as Seville Charter. This time we present a first draft drawn up and agreed by the International Forum of Virtual Archaeology comes to expand, refine and enhance the work already carried out years ago by the Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology (SEAV). Meanwhile this new version, with some slight modifications that will be added in late 2011, will serve as a basis for a transnational discussion between more than one hundred research groups and companies worldwide. Key words: VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY, SEVILLE CHARTER, STANDARDS.

1. Preámbulo

La aplicación a nivel mundial de la visualización asistida por ordenador en el campo del patrimonio arqueológico presenta a día de hoy un panorama que podría ser calificado como de “luces y sombras”. El espectacular crecimiento del turismo cultural y los increíbles avances tecnológicos desarrollados en los últimos años han propiciado la elaboración y ejecución de un sin fin de proyectos encaminados a investigar, preservar, interpretar y presentar distintos elementos del patrimonio arqueológico a partir de la utilización de la visualización asistida por ordenador. Estos proyectos han servido para demostrar el extraordinario potencial que la visualización asistida por ordenador encierra en si misma pero también han dejado al descubierto numerosas debilidades e incongruencias. Por ello se hace ineludible plantear un debate teórico de implicaciones prácticas que permita a los gestores del patrimonio aprovechar lo mejor que las nuevas tecnologías pueden ofrecernos en esta materia minimizando sus aplicaciones más controvertidas. En definitiva se trata de establecer unos principios básicos que regulen las prácticas de esta pujante disciplina.

La Carta de Londres (http://www.londoncharter.org) constituye hasta la fecha el documento internacional que más ha avanzado en esta dirección. Sus diversas actualizaciones revelan la necesidad imperante de encontrar un documento cuyas recomendaciones sirvan como base para diseñar nuevos proyectos cada vez con mayor rigor dentro del ámbito del patrimonio cultural, pero también para plantear nuevas recomendaciones y guías adaptadas a las necesidades específicas de cada rama del saber y comunidad

de expertos. Es por ello que entre los objetivos que se marca La Carta de Londres se encuentra “Ofrecer unos sólidos fundamentos sobre los que la comunidad de especialistas pueda elaborar criterios y directrices mucho más detalladas”. Y es que no debemos olvidar la inconmensurable amplitud que presenta el concepto de Patrimonio Cultural dentro del cual quedan englobados campos tan amplios como los de patrimonio monumental, etnográfico, documental, industrial, artístico, oral y por supuesto arqueológico.

La Carta de Londres es plenamente consciente de la amplitud conceptual que posee el Patrimonio Cultural, y por consiguiente de las necesidades específicas que pueden requerir cada una de las partes que lo componen. Es por ello que en su Preámbulo, La Carta de Londres ya reconoce estas necesidades: “en la medida en que las pretensiones que motivan el uso de los métodos de visualización varían ampliamente de unos campos a otros, Principio 1: “Implementación”, se deben elaborar directrices específicas que resulten apropiadas para cada disciplina y para cada comunidad de expertos”. Por su parte el Principio 1.1 recomienda: “Cada comunidad de expertos, ya sea académica, educativa, conservativa o comercial, debe desarrollar las directrices de implementación de la Carta de Londres de manera coherente con sus propias pretensiones, objetivos y métodos”. Parece pues evidente que, dada la importancia que el patrimonio arqueológico tiene dentro del patrimonio cultural, y reconocida por muchos la existencia de una comunidad de expertos propia que trabaja de manera habitual entorno al concepto de Arqueología Virtual, se deba plantear la redacción de guías, documentos y recomendaciones que aun siguiendo las directrices generales que marca La Carta de Londres tomen en


34

consideración el carácter específico que posee la Arqueología Virtual.

Los Principios que se expondrán a continuación pretenden aumentar las condiciones de aplicabilidad de La Carta de Londres de cara a su mejor implantación en el campo específico del patrimonio arqueológico, incluido el patrimonio arqueológico industrial, simplificando y ordenando secuencialmente sus bases, al mismo tiempo que se ofrecen algunas recomendaciones nuevas que toman en consideración la peculiar naturaleza del patrimonio arqueológico con respecto al patrimonio cultural.

2. Definiciones

Arqueología Virtual: es la disciplina científica que tiene por objeto la investigación y el desarrollo de formas de aplicación de la visualización asistida por ordenador a la gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico.

Patrimonio arqueológico: es el conjunto de elementos materiales, tanto muebles como inmuebles, hayan sido o no extraídos y tanto si se encuentran en la superficie o en el subsuelo, en la tierra o en el agua, que junto con su contexto, que será considerado también como formante del patrimonio arqueológico, sirven como fuente histórica para el conocimiento del pasado de la humanidad. Estos elementos, que fueron o han sido abandonados por las culturas que los fabricaron, tienen como sello distintivo el poder ser estudiados, recuperados o localizados usando la metodología arqueológica como método principal de investigación, cuyas técnicas principales son la excavación y la prospección, sin menoscabo de la posibilidad de usar otros métodos complementarios para su conocimiento.

Gestión integral: comprende las labores de inventario, prospección, excavación, documentación, investigación, mantenimiento, conservación, preservación, restitución, interpretación, presentación, acceso y uso público de los restos materiales del pasado.

Restauración virtual: comprende la reordenación, a partir de un modelo virtual, de los restos materiales existentes con objeto de recuperar visualmente lo que existió en algún momento anterior al presente. La restauración virtual comprende por tanto la anastilosis virtual.

Anastilosis virtual: recomposición de las partes existentes pero desmembradas en un modelo virtual.

Reconstrucción virtual: comprende el intento de recuperación visual, a partir de un modelo virtual, en un momento determinado de una construcción u objeto fabricado por el ser humano en el pasado a partir de las evidencias físicas existentes sobre dicha construcción u objeto, las inferencias comparativas científicamente razonables y en general todos los estudios llevados a cabo por los arqueólogos y demás expertos vinculados con el patrimonio arqueológico y la ciencia histórica.

Recreación virtual: comprende el intento de recuperación visual, a partir de un modelo virtual, del pasado en un momento determinado de un sitio arqueológico, incluyendo cultura material (patrimonio mueble e inmueble), entorno, paisaje, usos, y en general significación cultural.

3. Objetivos

Dado que el marco teórico de referencia para la los Principios de Sevilla es la propia Carta de Londres el documento asumiría todos los objetivos aprobados por la Junta Consultiva de dicha Carta. A estos objetivos generales sería necesario añadir algunos nuevos, a saber:

� Generar criterios fácilmente comprensibles y aplicables por toda la comunidad de expertos, ya sean estos informáticos, arqueólogos, arquitectos, ingenieros, gestores o especialistas en general en la materia.

� Establecer directrices encaminadas a facilitar al público un mayor entendimiento y mejor apreciación de la labor que desarrolla la disciplina arqueológica.

� Establecer principios y criterios que sirvan para medir los niveles de calidad de los proyectos que se realicen en el campo de la arqueología virtual.

� Promover el uso responsable de las nuevas tecnologías aplicadas a la gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico.

� Contribuir a mejorar los actuales procesos de investigación, conservación y difusión del patrimonio arqueológico mediante el uso de nuevas tecnologías.

� Abrir nuevas puertas a la aplicación de métodos y técnicas digitales de investigación, conservación y difusión arqueológica.

� Concienciar a la comunidad científica internacional de la necesidad imperante de aunar esfuerzos a nivel mundial en el creciente campo de la arqueología virtual.

4. Principios

Principio 1: Interdisciplinariedad

Cualquier proyecto que implique la utilización de nuevas tecnologías, ligadas con la visualización asistida por ordenador, en el campo del patrimonio arqueológico, ya sea para investigación, conservación o difusión, debe de estar avalado por un equipo de profesionales procedentes de distintas ramas del saber:

1.1 Dada la compleja naturaleza que presenta la visualización asistida por ordenador de patrimonio arqueológico, esta no puede ser abordada únicamente por un solo tipo de experto sino que necesita de la colaboración de un buen número de especialistas (arqueólogos, informáticos, historiadores, arquitectos, ingenieros…).

1.2 Un trabajo verdaderamente interdisciplinar implica el intercambio de ideas y opiniones entre especialistas de distintos campos de una manera habitual y fluida. El trabajo dividido en compartimentos estanco nunca podrá ser considerado como interdisciplinar aunque participen en él expertos procedentes de distintas disciplinas.

1.3 Entre los especialistas que deben colaborar en este modelo interdisciplinar es indispensable contar con la presencia concreta


35

de arqueólogos e historiadores, preferiblemente de aquellos que tienen o tuvieron a su cargo la dirección científica de la excavación o del resto arqueológico sobre el que se pretende trabajar.

Principio 2: Finalidad

Previamente a la elaboración de cualquier visualización asistida por ordenador siempre debe quedar totalmente claro cual es la finalidad última de nuestro trabajo, es decir, cual es el objetivo final que se persigue alcanzar.

2.1 Cualquier proyecto de visualización asistida por ordenador siempre tendrá el objetivo de mejorar aspectos relacionados o bien con la investigación, o bien con la conservación o bien con la difusión del patrimonio arqueológico. La finalidad de todo proyecto debe quedar encuadrada dentro de alguna de dichas categorías (investigación, conservación y/o difusión). La categoría referente a difusión engloba tanto proyectos con fines educativos, ya sea educación reglada o informal, como proyectos con fines recreativos (turismo cultural).

2.2 Además de esclarecer cual es el objetivo o finalidad principal de la visualización asistida por ordenador siempre será necesario definir objetivos más concretos que sirvan para conocer con más exactitud cual es el problema o problemas que se pretenden resolver.

2.3 La visualización asistida por ordenador debe estar siempre al servicio del patrimonio arqueológico y no el patrimonio arqueológico al servicio de la visualización asistida por ordenador. Las nuevas tecnologías aplicadas a la gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico deben poder satisfacer, como objetivo primordial, las necesidades reales de arqueólogos, conservadores, restauradores, museógrafos, gestores y/o profesionales en general del mundo del patrimonio, y no al revés.

2.4 En última instancia la finalidad principal de la arqueología virtual siempre será servir a la sociedad en su conjunto y contribuir al incremento del conocimiento humano.

Principio 3: Complementariedad

La aplicación de la visualización asistida por ordenador en el campo de la gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico debe de ser entendida como complementaria, no como sustitutiva, de otros instrumentos de gestión más clásicos pero igualmente eficaces.

3.1 La visualización asistida por ordenador no debe aspirar a sustituir a otros métodos y técnicas en el campo de la gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico (por ejemplo la restauración virtual no debe aspirar a sustituir a la restauración real al igual que la visita virtual no debe aspirar a sustituir a la visita real).

3.2 La visualización asistida por ordenador debe buscar vías de colaboración con otros métodos y técnicas de distinta naturaleza que ayuden a mejorar los actuales procesos de investigación, conservación y difusión del patrimonio arqueológico. Para ello el cumplimiento del Principio 1: Interdisciplinariedad, se revelará como fundamental.

3.3. Pese a todo, las visualizaciones asistidas por ordenador podrán tener un carácter sustitutivo cuando los restos arqueológicos originales hayan sido destruidos (por ejemplo por la construcción de grandes infraestructuras), se encuentren en lugares de difícil acceso (por ejemplo sin carreteras) o corran riesgo de deterioro ante la visita masiva de turistas (por ejemplo las pinturas rupestres).

Principio 4: Autenticidad

La visualización asistida por ordenador trabaja de manera habitual reconstruyendo o recreando edificios, artefactos y entornos del pasado tal y como se considera que fueron, es por ello que siempre debe ser posible saber que es real, veraz, auténtico y que no. En este sentido la autenticidad debe ser un concepto operativo permanente para cualquier proyecto de arqueología virtual.

4.1 En tanto en cuanto la disciplina arqueológica no es una ciencia exacta e incontestable, sino compleja, se debe apostar abiertamente por realizar interpretaciones virtuales alternativas siempre y cuando presenten igual validez científica. Cuando no exista esa igualdad se apostará únicamente por la hipótesis principal.

4.2 Cuando se realicen restauraciones o reconstrucciones virtuales se debe mostrar de forma explícita o bien mediante interpretación adicional los distintos niveles de veracidad en los que se sustenta la restauración o reconstrucción.

4.3 En la medida que muchos restos arqueológicos han sido y siguen siendo restaurados o reconstruidos en la realidad la visualización asistida por ordenador debe ayudar tanto a los profesionales como al público a diferenciar claramente entre: los restos que se han conservado “in situ”, los restos que han vuelto a ser colocados en su posición originaria (anastylosis real), las zonas que han sido reconstruidas parcial o totalmente sobre los restos originales, y finalmente las zonas que han sido restauradas o reconstruidas virtualmente.

Principio 5: Rigurosidad histórica.

Para lograr unos niveles de rigurosidad y veracidad histórica óptimos cualquier forma de visualización asistida por ordenador del pasado debe estar sustentada en una sólida investigación y documentación histórica y arqueológica.

5.1 La rigurosidad histórica de cualquier visualización asistida por ordenador del pasado dependerá tanto de la rigurosidad con la que se haya realizado la investigación arqueológica previa como de la rigurosidad con la que se use esa información para la creación del modelo virtual.

5.2 Todas las fases históricas registradas durante la investigación arqueológica tienen un gran valor. Por lo tanto, no se considerará riguroso mostrar únicamente el momento de esplendor del resto arqueológico reconstruido o recreado sino todas las fases, incluidas las de decadencia, por las que pudo atravesar. Tampoco se debe mostrar una imagen idílica del pasado con edificios que parecen recién construidos, personas que podrían pasar por modelos, etc.., sino real, es decir con edificios en diferente estado de conservación, personas de distinto tamaño y peso, etc.

5.3 El entorno, contexto o paisaje asociado a un resto arqueológico es tan importante como el resto arqueológico en sí (Carta de Cracovia, 2000). Las investigaciones antracológicas, paleobotánicas, paleozoológicas y de paleoantropología física deben servir como base para la realización de recreaciones virtuales del paisaje y del contexto rigurosas. No se pueden mostrar sistemáticamente ciudades sin vida, edificios solitarios o paisajes muertos, pues ese es un falso histórico.

5.4 Las nuevas técnicas de documentación del patrimonio arqueológico sustentadas en el uso de nuevas tecnologías como los escáneres láser o la fotogrametría pueden servir para aumentar los niveles de rigurosidad histórica, ya que cuanto


36

mejor sea la documentación del patrimonio arqueológico realizada mayor será rigurosidad histórica obtenida.

Principio 6: Eficiencia

El concepto de eficiencia aplicada al campo que nos ocupa pasa inexorablemente por lograr una ajustada sostenibilidad económica y tecnológica. Usar menos recursos para lograr cada vez más y mejores resultados será la clave de la eficiencia.

6.1 Cualquier proyecto que implique la utilización de la visualización asistida por ordenador en el campo del patrimonio arqueológico debe evaluar previamente cuales serán las necesidades de mantenimiento económico y tecnológico que generará una vez se instale y ponga en funcionamiento.

6.2 Se debe apostar por sistemas que aunque en un primer momento presenten una elevada inversión inicial a largo plazo impliquen un bajo coste de mantenimiento económico y una alta fiabilidad de uso, es decir sistemas resistentes, fáciles de reparar o modificar y de bajo consumo.

6.3 Siempre que sea posible se aprovecharán los resultados obtenidos por proyectos de visualización anteriores, evitando la duplicidad, es decir, la realización de los mismos trabajos por dos veces.

Principio 7: Transparencia científica

Toda visualización asistida por ordenador debe de ser esencialmente transparente, es decir, contrastable por otros investigadores o profesionales, ya que la validez, y por lo tanto el alcance, de las conclusiones producidas por dicha visualización dependerá en gran medida de la capacidad de otros para confirmar o refutar los resultados obtenidos.

7.1 Es indudable que toda visualización asistida por ordenador tiene un alto componente de investigación científica. Consecuentemente para que los proyectos de arqueología virtual caminen por la senda del rigor científico y académico se vuelve indispensable la elaboración de bases documentales en las que quede recogido y expresado con total transparencia todo el proceso de trabajo desarrollado: objetivos, metodología, técnicas, razonamientos, origen y características de las fuentes de la investigación, resultados y conclusiones.

7.2 Sin menoscabo de la creación de las citadas bases documentales es imprescindible promover la publicación de los resultados de los proyectos de arqueología virtual en revistas, libros, actas o cualesquiera medios editoriales, tanto científicos como de divulgación científica, para conocimiento y consulta de la comunidad científica internacional y de la sociedad en general.

7.3 La incorporación de metadatos y paradatos es crucial para asegurar la transparencia científica de cualquier proyecto de arqueología virtual. Los metadatos y paradatos deben ser claros, concisos y fáciles de consultar pero al mismo tiempo deben tratar de proporcionar la mayor cantidad de información posible. La comunidad científica trabajará para lograr la normalización internacional de dichos metadatos y paradatos.

7.4 En cualquier caso y en líneas generales el registro y organización de toda la documentación concerniente a proyectos de arqueología virtual estará basado en los “Principios para la creación de archivos documentales de monumentos, conjuntos arquitectónicos y sitios históricos y artísticos” aprobada por la 11ª asamblea General del ICOMOS en 1996.

7.5 En aras de la transparencia científica se hace necesario crear una gran base de datos accesible a nivel mundial con aquellos proyectos que posean unos niveles de calidad óptimos (art 8.4),

sin menoscabo de la creación de bases de datos de este tipo de ámbito nacional o regional.

Principio 8: Formación y evaluación

La arqueología virtual constituye una disciplina científica asociada a la gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico que posee un lenguaje y unas técnicas que le son propias. Como cualquier otra disciplina académica requiere de programas específicos de formación y evaluación.

8.1 Deben fomentarse los programas de formación posgraduada de alto nivel que potencien la formación y especialización de un número suficiente de profesionales cualificados en esta materia.

8.2 Cuando las visualizaciones asistidas por ordenador tengan como objetivo servir como instrumento de disfrute y comprensión para el público en general el método de evaluación mas apropiado será el de los estudios de público.

8.3 Cuando las visualizaciones asistidas por ordenador tengan como objetivo servir como instrumento de investigación o conservación del patrimonio arqueológico el método de evaluación más apropiado será su prueba por parte de un número lo suficientemente representativo de usuarios finales es decir de los profesionales a los que este destinado el producto final.

8.4 La calidad final de cualquier visualización asistida por ordenador deberá medirse en función de la rigurosidad con la que haya sido elaborada y no de la vistosidad de sus resultados. El cumplimiento de todos los principios determinará que el resultado final de una visualización asistida por ordenador pueda ser considerado “de calidad”.


37

Bibliografía

BEACHAM, R., DENARD, H., NICCOLUCCI, F. (2006): “An Introduction to the London Charter”, en The E-volution of ICTechnology in Cultural Heritage, Papers from the Joint Event CIPA/VAST/EG/EuroMed Event.

LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M. (2011): “Propuesta para profundizar en la carta de Londres y mejorar su aplicabilidad en el campo del patrimonio arqueológico”, en Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), vol. 2 nº 4, pp. 65-69.

LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M., GRANDE, A. (2011): “Hacia una carta internacional de arqueología virtual. El borrador SEAV”, en Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), vol. 2 nº 4, pp. 71-75.

LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M., GRANDE, A. (2011): “The Principles of the Seville Charter”, en: Proceedings XXIIIrd International CIPA Symposium, Prague, Czech Republic, September 12-16.

LÓPEZ-MENCHERO, V. M., GRANDE, A. (2011): “The implementation of an international charter in the field of virtual archaeology”, en Proceedings XXIIIrd International CIPA Symposium, Prague, Czech Republic, September 12-16.