Human versus computer vision in archaeological recording

As 3D scanning and photogrammetry are supplanting traditional illustration techniques with increasing speed, archaeologists and architectural historians have sounded alarms about what stands to be lost if hand drawing is altogether eliminated from fieldwork. This paper argues that the most direct...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Philip Sapirstein
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Indiana University Office of Scholarly Publishing 2021-04-01
Series:Studies in Digital Heritage
Subjects:
Online Access:https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/sdh/article/view/31520
id doaj-1df7181876c443d78ee767676dd084f3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1df7181876c443d78ee767676dd084f32021-05-04T01:33:18ZengIndiana University Office of Scholarly PublishingStudies in Digital Heritage2574-17482021-04-0142Human versus computer vision in archaeological recordingPhilip Sapirstein0University of Toronto As 3D scanning and photogrammetry are supplanting traditional illustration techniques with increasing speed, archaeologists and architectural historians have sounded alarms about what stands to be lost if hand drawing is altogether eliminated from fieldwork. This paper argues that the most direct threat is to a particular form of archaeological illustration which does not necessarily share the advantages attributed to other kinds of drawing. Recording by means of “technical drawing” communicates a collectively agreed interpretation of the ancient record, and its primary benefit is not stimulating creative thought but rather enhancing human observation. A review of two cases comparing the illustration of ancient Greek architecture through analogue and digital methods indicates that, in practice, both approaches draw attention away from the ancient subject and focus it on distracting protocols for the great majority of the time spent in the field. Even so, technical drawing requires protracted, in-person scrutiny of the subject, whereas 3D technologies pose a genuine risk of altogether eliminating meaningful human interpretation from the recording process. The greater efficiencies of digital techniques suggest a path forward, as time once allocated to tedious stages of technical drawing might be applied toward more thoughtful interpretive tasks. However, such measures must be deliberately integrated into a digital research program through planning around the very different cadences of the digital process. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/sdh/article/view/31520archaeological illustrationbuilding archaeologyfield practicesinterpretationpedagogyphotogrammetry
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Philip Sapirstein
spellingShingle Philip Sapirstein
Human versus computer vision in archaeological recording
Studies in Digital Heritage
archaeological illustration
building archaeology
field practices
interpretation
pedagogy
photogrammetry
author_facet Philip Sapirstein
author_sort Philip Sapirstein
title Human versus computer vision in archaeological recording
title_short Human versus computer vision in archaeological recording
title_full Human versus computer vision in archaeological recording
title_fullStr Human versus computer vision in archaeological recording
title_full_unstemmed Human versus computer vision in archaeological recording
title_sort human versus computer vision in archaeological recording
publisher Indiana University Office of Scholarly Publishing
series Studies in Digital Heritage
issn 2574-1748
publishDate 2021-04-01
description As 3D scanning and photogrammetry are supplanting traditional illustration techniques with increasing speed, archaeologists and architectural historians have sounded alarms about what stands to be lost if hand drawing is altogether eliminated from fieldwork. This paper argues that the most direct threat is to a particular form of archaeological illustration which does not necessarily share the advantages attributed to other kinds of drawing. Recording by means of “technical drawing” communicates a collectively agreed interpretation of the ancient record, and its primary benefit is not stimulating creative thought but rather enhancing human observation. A review of two cases comparing the illustration of ancient Greek architecture through analogue and digital methods indicates that, in practice, both approaches draw attention away from the ancient subject and focus it on distracting protocols for the great majority of the time spent in the field. Even so, technical drawing requires protracted, in-person scrutiny of the subject, whereas 3D technologies pose a genuine risk of altogether eliminating meaningful human interpretation from the recording process. The greater efficiencies of digital techniques suggest a path forward, as time once allocated to tedious stages of technical drawing might be applied toward more thoughtful interpretive tasks. However, such measures must be deliberately integrated into a digital research program through planning around the very different cadences of the digital process.
topic archaeological illustration
building archaeology
field practices
interpretation
pedagogy
photogrammetry
url https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/sdh/article/view/31520
work_keys_str_mv AT philipsapirstein humanversuscomputervisioninarchaeologicalrecording
_version_ 1721482020264083456