Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:51:05.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digital Modeling for Bioarchaeologists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2019

Gabriel D. Wrobel ,
Jack A. Biggs  and
Amy L. Hair
Gabriel D. Wrobel*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, 655 Auditorium Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Jack A. Biggs
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, 655 Auditorium Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Amy L. Hair
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Southern Mississippi, Liberal Arts Building 428, 118 College Drive, Box #5074, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA
*
([email protected], corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The creation of digital repositories of human skeletal remains offers bioarchaeologists a variety of potential means of aiding efforts related to curation and analysis. We present a discussion of how issues of preservation and access can affect research and argue that digital repositories not only maintain a record of objects but that the digital format allows researchers to expand their studies to include otherwise inaccessible collections. Digital models can be utilized by bioarchaeologists to collect and analyze a wide variety of quantitative and qualitative data. We review several digital capture methods employed by bioarchaeologists, including CT scanning, laser scanning, and photogrammetry. While photogrammetry is underutilized by bioarchaeologists, we point out its many advantages over other methods.

La creación de repositorios digitales de restos óseos humanos ofrece una variedad de medios potenciales para auxiliar a los bioarqueólogos en esfuerzos relacionados con la curación y el análisis. Presentamos una discusión sobre cómo las investigaciones pueden verse afectadas por problemas de preservación y acceso, y argumentamos que los repositorios digitales no solo mantienen un registro de objetos, sino que el formato digital permite a los investigadores ampliar sus estudios para incluir colecciones inaccesibles. Los bioarqueólogos pueden utilizar los modelos digitales para recopilar y analizar una amplia variedad de datos cuantitativos y cualitativos. Revisamos varios métodos de captura digital empleados por los bioarqueólogos, incluidos la tomografía computarizada, la exploración láser y la fotogrametría. La fotogrametría está actualmente infrautilizada por los bioarqueólogos, y abogamos por su uso mediante la identificación de ventajas relacionadas con su costo, eficiencia y capacidad para proporcionar texturas de superficie.

Keywords

Photogrammetry3-D modelingdigital archaeologycranial morphologypreservation and access3-D datasetsDigital Bioarchaeological Datadigital repositoriesfotogrametríamodelado tridimensionalarqueología digitalmorfología cranealpreservación y accesoconjuntos de datos tridimensionalesdatos bioarqueológicos digitalesalmacenes digitales
Type
Articles
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 7 , Special Issue 1: The Practice and Ethics of Skeletal Conservation , February 2019 , pp. 47 - 54
Copyright
Copyright 2019 © Society for American Archaeology 

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.)

Footnotes

Out of respect for diverse cultural traditions, sensitive photographs of human remains generally are not accepted for publication in any SAA journals, however some waivers of this policy are allowed by the editorial policies, when other alternatives to photography are not effective. Articles in Advances in Archaeological Practice 7(1), a theme issue on The Practice and Ethics of Skeletal Conservation, discuss the need for sensitive and ethical care of human skeletons as they are excavated, documented, conserved, and curated by archaeological projects conducted around the world. Selected images of human skeletons are published here to support education about the best treatments for these human ancestors. No images of Native American or First Nation ancestors are published in this issue. Prior to publication, figures in these manuscripts were carefully reviewed by the Society for American Archaeology president and president-elect.

References

REFERENCES CITED

Berggren, Åsa, Dell'Unto, Nicolo, Forte, Maurizio, Haddow, Scott, Hodder, Ian, Issavi, Justine, Lercari, Nicola, Mazzucato, Camilla, Mickel, Allison, and Taylor, James S. 2015 Revisiting Reflexive Archaeology at Çatalhöyük: Integrating Digital and 3D Technologies at the Trowel's Edge. Antiquity 89:433–448.Google Scholar
Bookstein, Fred L. 1991 Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Buikstra, Jane E., and Ubelaker, Douglas H. 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Report Research Series 44. Arkansas Archaeological Society, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Colwell, Chip 2018 Lesson from Brazil: Museums Are Not Forever. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/lesson-from-brazil-museums-are-not-forever-102692, accessed October 15, 2018.Google Scholar
Davies, Thomas G., Rahman, Imran A., Lautenschlager, Stephan, Cunningham, John A., Asher, Robert J., Barrett, Paul M., Bates Stefan Bengtson, Karl T., Benson, Roger B. J., Boyer, Doug M., Braga, José, Bright, Jen A., Claessens, Leon P. A. M., Cox, Philip G., Dong, Xi-Ping, Evans, Alistair R., Falkingham, Peter L., Friedman, Matt, Garwood, Russell J., Goswami, Anjali, Hutchinson, John R., Jeffery, Nathan S., Johanson, Zerina, Lebrun, Renaud, Martínez-Pérez, Carlos, Marugán-Lobón, Jesús, O'Higgins, Paul M., Metscher, Brian, Orliac, Maëva, Rowe, Timothy B., Rücklin, Martin, Sánchez-Villagra, Marcelo R., Shubin, Neil H., Smith, Selena Y., Matthias Starck, J., Stringer, Chris, Summers, Adam P., Sutton, Mark D., Walsh, Stig A., Weisbecker, Vera, Witmer, Lawrence M., Wroe, Stephen, Yin, Zongjun, Rayfield, Emily J., and Donoghue, Philip C. J. 2017 Open Data and Digital Morphology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284(1852):20170194.Google Scholar
Evans, Thomas L., and Daly, Patrick (editors) 2006 Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Evin, Allowen, Souter, Thibaud, Hulme-Beaman, Ardern, Ameen, Carly, Allen, Richard, Viacava, Pietro, Larson, Greger, Cucchi, Thomas, and Dobney, Keith 2016 The Use of Close-Range Photogrammetry in Zooarchaeology: Creating Accurate 3D Models of Wolf Crania to Study Dog Domestication. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9:87–93.Google Scholar
Fruciano, Carmelo, Celik, Mélina A., Butler, Kaylene, Dooley, Tom, Weisbecker, Vera, and Phillips, Matthew J. 2017 Sharing Is Caring? Measurement Error and the Issues Arising from Combining 3D Morphometric Datasets. Ecology and Evolution 7(17):7034–7046.Google Scholar
Gunz, Philipp, and Mitteroecker, Philipp 2013 Semilandmarks: A Method for Quantifying Curves and Surfaces. Hystrix 24:103–109.Google Scholar
Hassett, Brenna R. 2018a Which Bone to Pick: Creation, Curation, and Dissemination of Online 3D Digital Bioarchaeological Data. Archaeologies 14:231–249.Google Scholar
Hassett, Brenna R. 2018b The Ethical Challenge of Digital Bioarchaeological Data. Archaeologies 14:185–188.Google Scholar
Hefner, Joseph T. 2018 The Macromorphoscopic Databank. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 166:994–1004.Google Scholar
Katz, David, and Friess, Martin 2014 Technical Note: 3D from Standard Digital Photography of Human Crania—A Preliminary Assessment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 154:152–158.Google Scholar
Killgrove, Kristina 2018 Here's How You Can Help Document Rio's National Museum Collections After the Catastrophic Fire. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2018/09/05/heres-how-you-can-help-document-rios-national-museum-collections-after-the-catastrophic-fire, accessed October 15, 2018.Google Scholar
Kuzminsky, Susan C., and Gardiner, Meagan S. 2012 Three-Dimensional Laser Scanning: Potential Uses for Museum Conservation and Scientific Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2744–2751.Google Scholar
Kuzminsky, Susan C., Tung, Tiffiny A., Hubbe, Mark, and Villaseñor-Marchal, Antonio 2016 The Application of 3D Geometric Morphometrics and Laser Surface Scanning to Investigate the Standardization of Cranial Vault Modification in the Andes. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10:507–513.Google Scholar
Monge, Janet, Schoenemann, Paul Thomas, Lewis, Jason E., and Daniel Glotzer, L. 2004 The CT Database at the University of Pennsylvania Museum. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 123(S):149.Google Scholar
Niven, Laura, Steele, Teresa E., Finke, Hannes, Gernat, Tim, and Hublin, Jean-Jacques 2009 Virtual Skeletons: Using a Structured Light Scanner to Create a 3D Faunal Comparative Collection. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2018–2023.Google Scholar
Olson, Brandon R., and Caraher, William R. (editors) 2015 Visions of Substance: 3D Imaging in Mediterranean Archaeology. Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.Google Scholar
Novotny, Anna C. 2019 Implementing Photogrammetry in Three Bioarchaeological Contexts: Steps for In-Field Documentation. Advances in Archaeological Practice 7:87–96.Google Scholar
Pink, Christine M., Maier, Christopher, Pilloud, Marin A., and Hefner, Joseph T. 2016 Cranial Nonmetric and Morphoscopic Data Sets. In Biological Distance Analysis: Forensic and Bioarchaeological Perspectives, edited by Pilloud, Marin A. and Hefner, Joseph T., pp. 91–107. Elsevier, London.Google Scholar
Pomidor, Benjamin J., Makedonska, Jana, and Slice, Dennis E. 2016 A Landmark-Free Method for Three-Dimensional Shape Analysis. PLoS One 11(3):e0150368.Google Scholar
Roberts, Charlotte, and Mays, Simon 2011 Study and Restudy of Curated Skeletal Collections in Bioarchaeology: A Perspective on the UK and the Implications for Future Curation of Human Remains. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21:626–630.Google Scholar
Slice, Dennis E. (editor) 2005 Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
Thompson, Erin L. 2017 Legal and Ethical Considerations for Digital Recreations of Cultural Heritage. Chapman Law Review 20:153–176.Google Scholar
Ulguim, Priscilla 2018 Models and Metadata: The Ethics of Sharing Bioarchaeological 3D Models Online. Archaeologies 14:189–228.Google Scholar
Wrobel, Gabriel D. 2014 Introduction. In The Bioarchaeology of Space and Place: Ideology, Power, and Meaning in Maya Mortuary Contexts, edited by Wrobel, Gabriel D., pp. 1–14. Springer Press, New York.Google Scholar