Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:06:59.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Closing the seams: resolving frequently encountered issues in photogrammetric modelling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2016

Matthew Magnani ,
Matthew Douglass  and
Samantha T. Porter
Matthew Magnani
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA (Email: matthewmagnani@g.harvard.edu)
Matthew Douglass
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 810 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA (Email: mdouglass3@unl.edu)
Samantha T. Porter
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, 395 Humphrey Center, 301 19th Avenue S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA (Email: port0228@umn.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Photogrammetry provides an accessible, cost-effective means of creating a high-resolution, digital 3D record of archaeological artefacts. The methodology has been widely adopted, but a number of issues remain, especially in relation to model variability, and to misalignments that result in gaps in the models generated. Two new approaches are presented here that have been shown to increase standardisation during data capture and processing routines. This ensures that models are seamless and quantitatively accurate.

Keywords

photogrammetry3D modelling
Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 90 , Issue 354 , December 2016 , pp. 1654 - 1669
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, R.L., Parfitt, S., Ashton, N., Lewis, S.G., Scott, B. & Stringer, C.. 2011. Digital preservation and dissemination of ancient lithic technology with modern micro-CT. Computers & Graphics 35: 878–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2011.03.001 Google Scholar
Agisoft, LLC. 2016. Agisoft PhotoScan user manual, Professional edition, version 1.2. 2016. Available at: http://www.agisoft.com/pdf/photoscan-pro_1_2_en.pdf (accessed 26 August 2016).Google Scholar
Archer, W., Gunz, P., Van Neikerk, K.L., Henshilwood, C.S. & McPherron, S.P.. 2015. Diachronic change within the Still Bay at Blombos Cave, South Africa. PLoS ONE 10: e0132428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132428 Google Scholar
Betts, M.W., Maschner, H.D.G., Schou, C.D., Schlader, R., Holmes, J., Clement, N. & Smuin, M.. 2011. Virtual zooarchaeology: building a web-based reference collection of northern vertebrates for archaeofaunal research and education. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 755–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.021 Google Scholar
Braun, D.R. 2006. The ecology of Oldowan technology: from Koobi Fora and Kanjera South. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bretzke, K. & Conard, N.J.. 2012. Evaluating morphological variability in lithic assemblages using 3D models of stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 3741–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.06.039 Google Scholar
Cox, S.L. 2015. A critical look at mummy CT scanning. The Anatomical Record 298: 1099–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ar.23149 Google Scholar
Douglass, M. 2010. The archaeological potential of informal lithic technologies: a case study of assemblage variability in western New South Wales, Australia. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Douglass, M., Lin, S. & Chodoronek, M.. 2015. The application of 3D photogrammetry for in-field documentation of archaeological features. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3: 136–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.3.2.136 Google Scholar
Douglass, M., Holdaway, S., Shiner, P. & Fanning, P.. In press. Quartz and silcrete raw material use and selection in late Holocene assemblages from semi-arid Australia. Quaternary International.Google Scholar
Iovita, R. & McPherron, S.P.. 2011. The handaxe reloaded: a morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes. Journal of Human Evolution 61: 61–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.007 Google Scholar
Katz, D. & Friess, M.. 2014. Technical note: 3D from standard digital photography of human crania—a preliminary assessment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 154: 152–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22468 Google Scholar
Lin, S.C., Douglass, M.J., Holdaway, S.J. & Floyd, B.. 2010. The application of 3D laser scanning technology to the assessment of ordinal and mechanical cortex quantification in lithic analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 694–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.030 Google Scholar
Lyman, R.L. & VanPool, T.L. 2009. Metric data in archaeology: a study of intra-analyst and inter-analyst variation. American Antiquity 74: 485–504.Google Scholar
Magnani, M. 2014. Three-dimensional alternatives to lithic illustration. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2: 285–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.2.4.285 Google Scholar
Magnani, M. & Schroder, W.. 2015. New approaches to modeling the volume of earthen archaeological features: a case-study from the Hopewell culture mounds. Journal of Archaeological Science 64: 12–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.09.001 Google Scholar
Magnani, M., Douglass, M. & Porter, S.T.. 2016. Three-dimensional models of experimentally-produced lithic artifacts created using expedient and refined photogrammetry protocols. Available at: http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/180304 (accessed 26 August 2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.13020/D6T88N Google Scholar
McManamon, F.P., Kintigh, K.W. & Brin, A.. 2010. Digital antiquity and the digital archaeological record (tDAR): broadening access and ensuring long-term preservation for digital archaeological data. The CSA Newsletter 23 (2). Available at: http://csanet.org/newsletter/fall10/nlf1002.html (accessed 26 August 2016).Google Scholar
McPherron, S.P., Gernat, T. & Hublin, J.-J.. 2009. Structured light scanning for high-resolution documentation of in situ archaeological finds. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.06.028 Google Scholar
Porter, S.T., Roussel, M. & Soressi, M.. 2016. A simple photogrammetric rig for the reliable creation of 3D artifact models in the field: lithic examples from the Early Upper Paleolithic sequence of Les Cottés (France). Advances in Archaeological Practice 4: 71–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.4.1.71 Google Scholar
Shott, M.J. & Trail, B.W.. 2010. Exploring new approaches to lithic analysis: laser scanning and geometric morphometrics. Lithic Technology 35: 195–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2010.11721090 Google Scholar
Soressi, M., McPherron, S., Lenoir, M., Dogandžić, T., Goldberg, P., Jacobs, Z., Maigrot, Y., Martisius, N., Miller, C.E., Rendu, W., Richards, M., Skinner, M.M., Steele, T.E., Talamo, S. & Texier, J.. 2013. Neanderthals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 110: 14186–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302730110 Google Scholar
Tryon, C.T., Crevecoeur, I., Faith, J.T., Ekshtain, R., Nivens, J., Patterson, D., Mbua, N. & Spoor, F.. 2015. Late Pleistocene age and archaeological context for the hominin calvaria from GvJm-22 (Lukenya Hill, Kenya). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 112: 2682–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417909112 Google Scholar