S. Pescarin, S. Zanni CNR ITABC, Rome, Italy Reconstructing Roman landscapes: interpretation and virtual reality

Table of content VHLab at CNR ITABC Reconstructing roman landscape: archaeological landscape ancient landscape Research and/or communication Interpretation Methodology Case-study 1 (rich set of data/sources): Ca' Tron Case-study 2 (poor set of data/sources): Flaminia/Tiber Valley Issues: transparency, data inconsistency, reliability, scale Conclusions

VHLab activities Reconstruction of archaeological landscape through digital technologies > activity carried out since 15 years Aksum Project (2003) Appia Narrative Virtual Museum (2005) Flaminia Virtual Museum (2008) Ca' Tron (2009) Xi'an western Han landscape (2010) Bologna and Apa (2011) Aquae Patavinae (2011) Tiber Valley VR project (2012) Advanced school, from 2009 Italian School of Virtual Archaeology and from 2011 V-MUST Virtual Heritage School

Reconstructing the landscape Reconstructing archaeological landscape and reconstructing ancient landscape is different. They have different challenges, issues, methodologies Is landscape reconstruction just for dissemination? Can it be also useful for research? Why reconstructing, what reconstructing and how reconstructing ? Our assumption is that the process of reconstructing the landscape can help the interpretation process.

Reconstructing archaeological landscape Archaeological landscape is the contemporary landscape in its diachronicity. It includes: archaeological remains past historical traces present structures Us Its reconstruction is therefore aimed at acquiring it as it is at different scale and with different technologies: RBM, IBM > 3D modeling Remote Sensing GIS

Reconstructing Ancient Landscape The ancient potential landscape is how the landscape might have been during a certain historical period at a certain latitude/altitude. It includes: natural vegetation natural morphology human activities Techniques: Not reality based modelling Complex system and Procedural Modelling Spatial Analysis Based on FAO studies on Land Evaluation ('70s); Landscape archaeology studies

Procedural Modeling for the interpretation of ancient landscapes Procedural modeling allows to visualize and better comprehend the spatial organization of ancient cities, not only the aspect of the main monuments. Archaeological strong points: GIS data as input (street network, archaeological relief data, land use, ...) flexibility of the rules and consequent adaptability to different architectural styles ability to create large-scale models ability to generate different LoD for the visualization

Ancient Potential Landscape Anthropology Archaeology Geography Architecture History Ancient Potential Landscape Geology Computer Science Botany Topography

Research and/or communication Research requirements DTM Reality-based 3D models Botanic data Archaeological GIS Cultural data about landscape management Communication requirements Graphically attractive environments User friendly interfaces Storytelling Transparency of reliability

Research and/or communication Communication needs: Immersivity and interactivity Augmented comprehension of the past Clear distinction among visible, invisible, certainty, hypothetical, imaginary. Research needs: Data integrity Integration of simulation and experimental data Connection with metadata Transparency

Interpretation VR reconstructions of ancient landscape help the interpretation of archaeological contents: Linking the sites and objects to their wider social, cultural, historical and natural setting Resulting from the collaboration between heritage professionals, CG experts, professionals of other disciplines (biology, botany, climate study, geology, …) Maintaining the connection with the metadata Enabling the visualization and contextualization of a huge amount of information Providing a suitable environment to test the reconstructive hypothesis > ICOMOS Ename Charter for the Interpretation of Cultural Heritage (Québec, 2008)

Issues data inconsistency/ reliability ? Scale? Transparency ? > London Charter reconstructing for an interactive application is different from reconstructing for a not-interactive application!

Virtual Reality applications for landscape reconstructions Virtual Reality (VR) is a suitable medium to manage and visualize complex data such as ancient landscape reconstructions. Main goals in the archaeological domain: Communication Reliability TRANSPARENCY + = INTERACTIVITY OPENNESS AFFORDANCE INTERACTION with METADATA

The approach Ancient Potential Landscape S C I E N T F M H O D three-dimensionality terrain potentiality spatiality latitude altitude morphology soil Natural attitude of a terrain unit Archaeological and cultural data Ancient Potential Landscape

The approach In order to reconstruct the potential landscape it is necessary to: Map the archaeological landscape Generate the terrain (based on DTM) Map the natural vegetation Perform spatial analysis for mapping the ancient pontential landscape Locate 3D models of archaeological sites/objects in the space Link virtual contents to metadata and enable their usability

(6) Data post-processing Virtual Reality application The Workflow (8) Terrain generation (1) Planning the acquisition (2) Trial test (3) Verification of the tests in the different stages (4) choice of the acquisition techniques (7) GIS (9) Landscape reconstruction New data (6) Data post-processing (5) Data acquisition (10) Virtual Reality application (7) 3D modeling Texturing Shading Graphic libraries Techniques: - total station - DGPS - 3D photogrammetry - Scanner Laser - Photomodeling (8) Database/ media: contents VR offline VR online

Case study 1: Reconstructing Roman Ca' Tron What happens when we can have a rich set of sources and data?

Case study 2: Reconstructing Rome Suburbium (Flaminia/Tiber Valley) What happens when you have little environmental information regarding the past?

Issues Data inconsistency/ reliability Transparency Scale > Flaminia Virtual Museum: information on the level of reliability of architecture... why not also for landscape? How? Transparency > Aquae Patavinae Scale > Aquae Patavinae: constraint in the exploration

Conclusion The process of reconstructing the landscape helps the interpretation process: Linking the sites and objects to their wider social, cultural, historical and natural setting Resulting from the collaboration between heritage professionals, CG experts, professionals of other disciplines (biology, botany, climate study, geology, …) Maintaining the connection with the metadata Enabling the visualization and contextualization of a huge amount of information Providing a suitable environment to test the reconstructive hypothesis > ICOMOS Ename Charter for the Interpretation of Cultural Heritage (Québec, 2008)