From Photography to 3D Models and Beyond: Visualizations in Archaeology

Donald H. Sanders, From Photography to 3D Models and Beyond: Visualizations in Archaeology (Oxford: Archeopress, 2023). 9781803276182.

Reviewed by David M. Wheeler, University of California, Berkeley, david.wheeler@berkeley.edu.

From Photography to 3D Models and Beyond: Visualizations in Archaeology is, in many ways, a summation of Donald H. Sanders’s life’s work as a scholar and advocate for digital heritage. This book considers the position of 3D strategies, and in particular 3D modeling, within archaeology. To understand the current state of 3D modeling and what he sees as the reluctance of the discipline to fully embrace digital strategies, Sanders explores how the evolution of digital heritage practices closely parallels the introduction and eventual acceptance of photography into the field. As he states in Chapter 6, Sanders’s primary goal is to advocate for greater integration of digital strategies into the archaeological process: “How can we put forth an inescapably compelling case for virtual heritage? How can the current crop of new interactive image-gathering and display technologies be utilized successfully and comprehensively to further the goals of (if not completely redefine) archaeology and improve those three ways we can learn about the past discussed in Chapter 1?” (p. 126). Though other forms of digital heritage, such as photogrammetry, GIS, LiDAR, drones, and AI are briefly discussed, this book is specifically focused on interactive 3D computer graphics and how virtual reality reconstructions of archaeological sites have changed and could continue to change how we approach archaeology.

Sanders begins with a brief preface in which he introduces himself to his audience, mapping out his trajectory within academia and how he arrived at digital heritage. There are some who might consider this brief autobiography to be unnecessary, but it is an important contribution to the work Sanders does in this book. He frames this preface as necessary context for the reader so they will understand his perspective and the choices he has made. His discussion of sections, plans, and elevations should be considered within the context of his training and work as an architect, just as his comments on digital heritage should be seen through the lens of his role as a founder of several companies that create virtual reconstructions of the ancient world. This approach not only makes his own expertise and biases clear, it also provides an opportunity for the reader to consider their own relationship to the topic. But the long-term benefits run deeper. By charting his own non-traditional path through academia, Sanders highlights the value in alternative perspectives and sets an example of different ways to become an archaeologist, just as his exploration of digital heritage considers different approaches to the past. At a time when the discipline is actively working to diversify, such narratives are a valuable reminder that there is more than one way to be a scholar.

Sanders then provides a brief introduction that lays out a basic background of digital heritage and summarizes the chapters to follow. Though his introduction makes it clear he is advocating for a more universal adoption of digital strategies, he does not explicitly articulate the specific, overarching goal(s) of this monograph. A more nuanced and unambiguous explanation of what he hopes to accomplish with this work would have clarified his position and provided useful context for the chapter summaries as well as the rest of the text. The chapter summaries, however, provide the general picture of the topics he will explore and the narrative arc of the book, just as they make it clear that Sanders believes digital heritage has important contributions to make to archaeological research and dissemination. 

From here Sanders moves into Chapter 1, which provides a summary of how archaeologists, historians, and educators learn about the past through archaeological excavations, visits to archaeological sites, and the dissemination of data. As he discusses each strategy, he imagines some of the ways 3D modeling could be employed to enhance our understanding of the past. Using the fictional excavation of a site as narrative device, he proposes, among other things, that hypothetical reconstructions could be built during excavations to test theories in the field and plan future fieldwork, which could then be explored by visitors in augmented or virtual reality. These and other suggestions are a prelude to Chapter Six where he explores the possibilities of 3D strategies in greater detail. This chapter will not be particularly informative for established scholars but does provide some descriptions and perspectives that could help introductory undergraduate students think about how we learn about the past. It also provides further context concerning how the author thinks about 3D modeling and its possibilities.

The next few chapters treat the historical development of image-making in archaeology to place the development of digital heritage within its larger archaeological environment. Chapter 2 looks at the adoption of plans, sections, and elevations from architecture at the birth of the discipline and considers the long history of documenting structures in this way. Chapter 3 narrates the slow development and adoption of photography within the field, laying the groundwork for the comparison he uses in later chapters. Sanders considers the early difficulties in adopting photography due to the expensive and fickle nature of the equipment as well as some of the early discussions around the objectivity of the photograph. In doing so, he demonstrates that it is not until a clear set of standards was adopted in the 1950s (equipment selection, the use of scales, documentation etc.) that scientific photography was fully accepted as a reliable and objective form of documenting archaeological materials (pp. 60–62). This is one of the most engrossing of Sanders’s chapters and is a very valuable summary of the history of photography within archaeology.

Chapter 4 continues the historical narrative by tracking the development of 3D modeling from its earliest origins in the 1940s through the emergence of virtual heritage in the 1990s and up to the current state of the field in the 2020s. Sanders’s primary argument in this chapter is that the reasons why early archaeologists were slow to adopt photography (expensive and fragile equipment, concerns with the results, etc.) are very similar to those that have hindered the integration of 3D technologies. He begins by reviewing similarities that have been noted by other scholars, such as how excavations are perceived as being more scientific with the integration of new technology and the ways in which photographs and models start to replace the artifacts they depict, but he also highlights parallels in the trajectory of the acceptance of these technologies (96, Table 4.1). The key parallels he observes between photography and 3D modeling include questions of accuracy and objectivity, perceived benefits to fundraising and publication, the ability to better document deteriorating cultural heritage, and concerns around the expertise needed to successfully operate both technologies. He also notes some of the differences between these technologies, namely the ways in which a 3D model can be changed to reflect different time periods or situations and how the interactive features of a model allow us to explore and interrogate the image in dynamic ways. 

Chapter 5 considers what happens when a new technology with a visual component replaces an old one and what this might tell us about the adoption of 3D modeling in archaeology. Using historical examples ranging from Imhotep and ashlar masonry to the book-like layout of early webpages, Sanders employs the evolutionary design model to demonstrate that newer technologies are often couched in the visual vocabulary of older technologies to make them more recognizable and palatable to their audiences. He observes that photography initially adopted the visual vocabulary of the drawings, engravings, and paintings of archaeological ruins and was judged by the same conventions and aesthetic standards. Photographs intentionally imitated these earlier forms of documentation, and it was only when photography escaped this vocabulary and adapted to do what drawings could not (rather than attempt to replicate what drawings could do) that it truly found its place within archaeology. Sanders argues that 3D modeling similarly started out by adopting the visual vocabularies of both drawings and photographs, but the true benefit of virtual archaeology is that it offers alternatives that move beyond 2D images: “The real advantages of this new visualization mode are the dynamic, interactive, full sensory, 3D spatial and lighting qualities of virtual worlds, which are fundamentally and expansively beyond what can be done on paper” (p. 116). Sanders closes by arguing that virtual reality can move beyond the limitations of traditional paper publication, such as the length of time between excavation and publication, accessibility of the material, the limited amount of data included, etc.

In Chapter 6, Sanders closes by considering the future of 3D heritage and how it will change the ways we excavate, teach, and disseminate our findings. He says his goal is “not to design the multipast infrastructure nor solve the potential problems but only to offer possible directions in which the new virtual heritage approach to the past could evolve, given both how the discipline got to its present state and given the current crop of visualization tools” (p. 149). Returning to his discussion in Chapter 2 and using his comparison with photography from the preceding chapters, Sanders seeks to understand why it is taking so long for digital heritage to be more universally adopted within archaeology. He argues that one of the main hindrances is the lack of globally accepted standards to provide a guide and ensure best practices for 3D strategies (pp. 125–26), and though he mentions past attempts to move in this direction, there is no discussion of how to work towards setting these standards. Instead, he goes on to describe the preceding chapters as a prelude to consider how to build a compelling case for digital heritage, which is the ultimate goal of the monograph. His way of answering this question is to ruminate on the possibilities available through digital heritage. He starts by outlining some of the technologies and strategies that are currently available (drones, LiDAR, AI, etc.) and the opportunities they present before moving on to think about how these digital strategies could be utilized at different stages of the archaeological process, from survey work all the way through dissemination.

Though a persuasive defense of digital heritage, the text is hindered by a lack of representative virtual projects to draw on to demonstrate the value of virtual archaeology. Stills of various models, including several that Sanders worked on, are included in the book, but even when one visits the websites for these projects there do not appear to be any example virtual reconstructions that the reader can explore. Sanders notes the irony of this paradox in the introduction (p. 2), but he also talks about the possibilities of hybrid publishing options in Chapter 6 (p. 148). It would have been great to see something similar done with this publication, especially because it would allow Sanders to model what such publications could look like. Nevertheless, this omission does not detract from the case Sanders makes for digital heritage (in some respects, it even demonstrates what we are missing out on), but examples would have allowed those individuals with little to no experience with digital heritage to better comprehend the value of these digital worlds. 

Overall, Sanders is an effective advocate for the future of digital heritage and uses this book to contextualize the evolution of virtual approaches and what they can offer the discipline. His writing style is clear, and though there are times when he over-summarizes his work, this will be useful for those who only plan to read parts of the monograph. There is a pervading sense of impatience about the slow pace of adoption that can at times be distracting, but this impatience is certainly understandable. For a scholar who has been working within digital heritage for several decades, it must be frustrating to watch as so many opportunities are routinely missed. However, Sanders’s own comparison with photography demonstrates not only that the integration of new technologies takes time, but that time can be a gift that allows us to engage in beneficial discussions to ensure that such technologies are used responsibly and to their fullest potential. Indeed, one of the real benefits of this work is that it moves the conversation forward in ways that will certainly help actualize Sanders’s goal.

Table of Contents

Introduction (1–3)
1. How Archaeologists Learn About the Past (4–22)
2. A Brief History of Architectural Depictions (23–32)
3. A History of Photography for Excavations (33–63)
4. History of Interactive 3D Computer Modeling in Archaeology (64–104)
5. When New Technology Replaces Old Technology (105–17)
6. One Future of Archaeology (118–52)

Discussion

1. Your preface begins with a brief description of your own journey within academia and how you came to work within digital heritage. Can you explain why you felt it was important to start the book in this way and how you think it relates to the possibilities for the future of archaeology that you lay out in Chapter 6?

I began the book with a brief summary recap of my academic zigzags for a couple of reasons. First, I felt that it might be mildly interesting to other readers to learn about both how my initial grade-school fondness for ancient stuff eventually prevailed despite the numerous tangents taken in the subsequent 30+ years and how sometimes life has a way of autocorrecting even though strong influences may tug in other directions. Second, I felt it was important to lay out my credentials for the prognosticating that bookended my discussions at the volume’s finish line. That is, all my earlier professional diversions, in architecture, doing archaeological fieldwork, and even pursuing thesaurus construction provided solid, widely varied, and valuable expertise that allowed my interests to blossom (with the first wave of virtual reality) into a new direction for the study of the past. The lessons learned during that journey and the wisdom that comes with repetition, I believe, provided some modicum of legitimacy for the forecasting unveiled in Chapter 6.

2. In your introduction, you mention the paradox of writing a book about 3D interactive graphics that relies on still images rather than the models themselves. Could you speak to the struggles inherent to incorporating digital materials into traditional monographs and articles? How might authors and publishers integrate virtual reality and other digital heritage techniques in the future?

This issue has been a minor pet peeve of mine for a long time—that despite all the advantages of virtual heritage, there has been really no good way of disseminating either its visualizations or its virtues to a wider public. This was, in fact, also an impediment to the acceptance of photographs as a necessary part of archaeological publications throughout the 19^th century, until finally new printing methods and a reduction in book costs enabled field teams to take full advantage of the medium to reach huge new audiences (as well as peers). This breakthrough has yet to occur for interactive 3D graphics (despite a bunch of digital online archaeological journals and despite the, now, relatively easy way of viewing virtual worlds online). Until ezines and peer-reviewed online journals embrace interactive 3D media, those in the virtual heritage community are shut out of time-honored methods of reaching students, scholars, and the general public in any trustworthy manner. Although the means of immersing oneself in a virtual world has and continues to change (both in the software and hardware sides of the equation), there has always been a way to interactively view virtual worlds online. Authors need to insist that publishers acknowledge this and offer it as part of the publication pipeline.

3. In Chapter 6, you acknowledge that the slow adoption of 3D modeling is perhaps not uncharacteristic given the 100+ years it took archaeology to adopt photography. Though a major goal of this monograph is to advocate for the quick adoption of digital strategies, do you see any value in the hesitance over the last 30 years? Has it provided any benefits that will improve digital heritage?

It has been frustrating to watch as the visualizations created using interactive 3D modeling improve and the insights into the past continue to change how we can understand history, yet the adoption of virtual heritage methods has not taken hold (as quickly as we all thought it would back in the 1990s). We figured that each new generation of students and scholars would naturally be educated in the latest technologies showing benefits for archaeology, much as dating techniques, statistics, GIS and other originally non-archaeological approaches were quickly absorbed into the discipline. The only benefits I see in the delay of its adoption into standard archaeological teaching, fieldwork, analysis, and publication are that the quality and details of 3D visualizations continually improve, modeling and viewing software becomes easier to use, and viewing hardware gets better and cheaper. But, it seems, still more is needed to create a tipping point.

4. The question of the accuracy or objectivity of 3D models is a common thread through this book, showing up in the comparison with photography set up in Chapter 3 and your discussion of 2D artists’ reconstructions in Chapter 5. What are the challenges to ensuring accuracy in 3D models and how is the medium perhaps well-suited to more consciously highlight and interrogate issues of objectivity?

The issue of defining accuracy in a 3D model and persuading viewers of the efficacy of the resulting interactive 3D reconstruction has been much discussed since the very inception of virtual heritage. There are perhaps two ways to approach resolving the degree of trustworthiness of a 3D visualization. One way has to do with the creator and the creation process. What evidence was used, how was it interpreted, and who built the underlying model? These questions are similar to standard inquiries made when evaluating journal articles, books, and even museum displays and teaching modules. The second way involves how the images are presented. Unlike photographs (or drawings), which are static and cannot have embedded information regarding the scene, any staging or skewing of the reality depicted, interactive 3D environments can indeed include the evidence used to create the 3D model, textures, lighting, furnishings, and people. One of the many benefits of virtual worlds is that they can have, as I outlined in Chapter 6, linked databases that include how the models were made and what data were used to construct the model so that the viewer can evaluate the results by comparing them to the source material. Of course, data is subject to multiple interpretations, and another advantage of digital media is that multiple virtual worlds can show multiple analytical results, which is fine. However, in all of this, one must have a degree of critical thinking when interacting with virtual environments, similar to evaluating any other media.