Collective and individual burial practices. Changing patterns at the beginning of the third millennium BC: The megalithic grave of Altendorf

The re-analyses of the Altendorf gallery grave reveal three different phases of inhumation burial practices: collective burials of a whole community (3250–3100 BC), a hiatus in burial practice (3100–2600 BC), and fewer but continuous single inhumations (2600–1450 BC). These changes can be associated with the abandonment of collective social practices all over Central Europe at the end of the fourth millennium BC, and the establishment of new ideologies and the re-use of older monuments by 2600 BC. In Altendorf, this last phase extends to the next pan-European change in burial practices, and reveals an enduring relationship with a local burial monument

Vom Kollektiv zum Individuum

This book deals with the question of whether and how social identities changed in the German Lower Mountain Range at the end of the 3rd mill. BCE. It is stated that the transition from Late to Final Neolithic is accompanied by major changes in burial practices, possibly influenced by migration processes from the North Pontic steppe landscape. To answer the question of whether changes of social identities and burial practices were influenced by these migration processes, social group identities are reconstructed and analysed for transformational processes. Thus, this regional case study of the transition of the 3rd mill. BCE offers a social perspective on the archaeological changes as well as on findings from previous and recent aDNA studies. It becomes evident that the expression of group identities between the Late and Final Neolithic shifts from collective identities to the expression of individuals and their social roles. Possible reasons and triggers for this social transformation are considered alongside migration processes. The outcome is an interweaving of local practices and large-scale phenomena that were negotiated differently in local contexts. Depending on the scale, the networks demonstrate homogeneity over large parts of Central Europe or the diversity of local groups

To use or not to use: 3D documentation in fieldwork and in the lab

Excavating an archaeological site involves many decisions and trade-offs to be made. This is not only due to the limited resources on site but also has methodological roots. As excavations are destructive, decisions on the quantity and on which details documentation should focus must be taken. For documentation, a wide range of tools are available. One such tool is 3D documentation. It brings with it many benefits like the possibility to move in a 3D space through the excavation, the generating of ‘virtual’ profiles, or high precision DEM’s to name a few. 3D documentation of finds offers the possibility of fast unwrapping of complex features, fast drawings from different angles, or printing as a replica for different purposes. However, when compared to conventional methods, more problematic issues arise as well. 3D models must be calculated before the excavation can proceed. The calculation either needs time or powerful hardware. The method also results in a vast amount of data, as, in contrast to a drawing, most details are recorded. The question here is how to balance and evaluate these pros and cons. With this session, we want to ask: How and on which basis do you decide when choosing the documentation method? How do you evaluate the cost and time benefit of 3D documentation, also taking into account consequential costs such as data storage and curation over long periods of time? Is the time saved in the field doubled in the office? How much of the recorded data is used in the evaluation? We aim to bring together archeologists, technicians, and restaurateurs concerned with the above stated questions, whether working in the field or the lab, or as decision-makers in managing positions. We highly encourage members of commercial archaeological enterprises and of heritage offices to bring in their points of view

Integrating all Dimensions: 3D-Applications from Excavation to Research to Dissemination

3D-technologies are increasingly shaping the way archaeologists work and think. The fact that 3D recording techniques are becoming part of the standard toolkit in archaeological fieldwork opens up enormous opportunities for research and public outreach. As archaeological excavations are seen to be destructive, conventional documentation techniques have been shaped over decades if not centuries to mitigate as much information loss as possible. This includes the development of fitting tools and workflows as well as best practices in archaeological data collection, long-term archiving, research and dissemination. As new tools, 3D-Technologies need to be implemented into these existing best practices and workflows. In order to take full advantage of the new possibilities, we consider an integrated approach from the beginning of a project to be essential. This enables the successful implementation of 3D-technologies in all stages: it is not only important during fieldwork, but also later during research or public outreach. There, for instance, challenges concerning interoperability or quality may arise and have to be coped with. Also, the irreversibility of archaeological excavations has to be met with the functioning of long-term archiving of mostly large and complex datasets. Despite the increasing implementation of 3D-technologies in everyday archaeological practice, the overall experience of knowing what decisions to make and how they will affect the later possibilities and limitations is still developing. Nevertheless, there are ever more successful projects showing how 3D-techniques can be fully integrated into archaeological practice. This session aims to bring these examples of integrated research projects to a broader archaeological audience. As these potent documentation techniques have found their way into everyday practice, a broad dissemination and discussion of their possibilities and arising challenges is urgently needed

The 3 Dimensions of Digitalized Archaeology. Data Management, Scientific benefit and Risks od Data Storage in Archaeological image-based 3D-Documentation

Using just a smartphone and the right software, we can reproduce a 3-dimensional model of an excavation site in a highly-detailed resolution. Up to date, we are able to generate 3D-models of objects in different scales, of excavations on land and underwater, buildings, ruins or even whole landscapes. Today the creation of 3D-data is a widely accepted and an established procedure in Archaeology without being standardized yet. While drawing with a pencil is becoming an obsolete technique, we instead face new challenges of creating reproducible workflows, how fully exploit and how to store digital data: After data-production, the question rises what scientific benefit can the data provide for research? What yet unsolved questions can be addressed with the analysis of 3D-data? In short: Does the acquisition of 3D-data have an additional scientific value? Working with these techniques, we face an abundant amount of data not only to be analyzed but also to be stored. Do we need to archive all the raw data for future analyses or could we reduce the amount of bytes to store? How can a large quantity of data be handled for easy exchange between different researchers and different softwaresolutions? And how do we prevent information loss for future generations? In this session, we invite researchers working with 3D-scanning techniques to tackle these pressing questions and to share Open Source solutions for data sharing, further analysis and storage. The aim of the session is to discuss and to evaluate how to manage 3D-data in a meaningful way for scientific purposes and to find new ways to address the risks and challenges posed by digitalization. In short: Where are we, where are we going, and how do we want to design the handling of 3D-data in Archaeology

Bildbasierte 3D-Dokumentation. Wie wird sie genutzt? Eine Umfrage zum Einsatz von 3D Technologien in der Archäologie

Zwischen Januar und März 2020 wurde durch die «EAA Community for 3D-Technologies in Archaeology» eine international ausgerichtete Umfrage zur Nutzung von bildbasierten 3D-Technologien durchgeführt. Das Ziel war, einen breiten Einblick in die Anwendung von bildbasierten 3D-Technologien in der Praxis zu erhalten. Die Auswertung der Befragung erlaubt es, den Stellenwert der Methoden und die wichtigsten Anwendungsziele der Anwender*innen herauszuarbeiten. Zudem gibt sie Einblick in die verwendete Software und Dateiformate sowie in die Umsetzung der Archivierung. Damit lassen sich die wesentlichen Herausforderungen für die weitere Entwicklung und fortschreitende Implementation von 3DTechnologien in die Praxis erkennen

Survey on the current use and application of 3D-technology for archaeological and cultural heritage purposes

Digital archaeology and image-based 3D-documentation have become widespread in archaeological everyday practice. Despite its relevance, a common ground for storing and archiving the massive datasets produced by 3D-documentation is still missing. Aims, applications and strategies are diverse, as are software solutions. To get an insight into the current use and the application of image-based 3Ddocumentation a survey among practitioners was conducted. The survey was spread through brad channels and conducted online. The aim of the survey was to address the following main-questions: - How is image-based 3D-technology used and applied? - What solutions and practices are in use concerning the archiving of 3D-data? - What are the needs for a sustainable and reliable application of 3D-technology? The survey reached more than 70 contributions from a range of different countries from practitioners working with image-based 3D-technology. Preliminary results seem to confirm a broad range of different applications, different programs and different data management approaches

Image-Based 3D-Documentation: Next level of Data Storage in Digital Archaeology

Digital Archaeology and Image-Based 3D-Documentation have become widespread in archaeological everyday practice. Despite its relevance, a common ground for storing and archiving the massive datasets produced by 3D-Documentation is still missing: What needs to be archived? Who needs access to data? What are current solutions? What are long-term challenges? These pressing questions arose during the EAA annual meeting 2019 in Bern and need urgently to be discussed in more detail. This round table will tackle these challenges in an interdisciplinary discussion with participants not only from the archaeological field, but also from digital archives and other institutions dealing with long-term data storage. The aim is to clarify the following points: - the needs for the storage of 3D-related data like reproducibility and compatibility - the challenges of archiving (data amount, data format, access, digital long-term storage) - current available solutions focusing on 3D-data Part of the discussion will draw from a survey on the needs and current solutions in European archaeology. The survey will be conducted in the first half of the year 2020. The planned outcome of this interdisciplinary round table is a joint publication on these 3 topics. We invite researchers of all disciplines that are working with Imaged-Based 3D-Documentation, who have encountered one of these topics and are willing to contribute their experience and knowledge to take 3D-Documentation to the next level

The Erasmus+ BridgET project: A European partnership to renew teaching in marine geosciences

editorial reviewedRecent advances in underwater and airborne robotic systems and ocean technologies have opened new perspectives in marine geology and its applications in the context of coastal and marine economic activities, whose sustainable development is increasingly acknowledged as a pillar for the new blue economy. BridgET (Bridging the gap between the land and the sea in a virtual Environment for innovative Teaching and community involvement in the science of climate change-induced marine and coastal geohazard) is an EU ERASMUS+ project designed to develop innovative and inclusive teaching methods to address a growing demand for strategic skills and scientific expertise in the field of 3D geological mapping of coastal environments. Seamless integration of the wide variety of multisource and multiscale onshore, nearshore and offshore geospatial data is indeed one of the main areas for improvement in the implementation of efficient management practices in coastal regions, where climate change, rising sea level, and geohazards are considerable environmental issues.BridgET involves a partnership consisting of six European universities with outstanding expertise in the study of geological hazards, and climate impacts in marine and coastal areas (i.e., University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy, Arctic University of Tromsø/CAGE - Norway, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens - Greece, Kiel University, Germany, University of Liege – Belgium, and the University of Malta), two Italian research institutes (INGV and INAF) and a German company (Orthodrone GmvH) specialized in UAS-based LiDAR and photogrammetry data acquisition services and analyses. Project implementation relies on delivering learning and teaching activities through dedicated summer schools for MSc students by efficiently combining the partner’s expertise. Schools focus on giving students a hands-on experience with the variety of methods and procedures adopted in geospatial data acquisition and processing, including the use of drones (Uncrewed Aerial System – UAS), acoustic remote sensing techniques and underwater robotic systems, together with      the progress made by computer visions and digital image analysis by using Artificial Intelligence (AI). Students are also introduced to the opportunity to easily examine multiple viewing angles of the seabed and coastal 3D surfaces by using immersive and non-immersive Virtual Reality (VR), to bring them closer to a more straightforward observation of geomorphological data and geological phenomena.The first Summer School was held in Santorini between the 3rd and 14th of October, 2022. It was attended by 26 students coming from 13 different countries. Teaching and learning activities included several classrooms, fieldwork, laboratory sessions, and seven seminars and cultural visits dealing with transversal topics, allowing students to approach an integrated understanding of human interaction with physical processes from social and economic perspectives. In this presentation, we give examples of course content used to allow students to develop a deeper understanding of theoretical and practical knowledge of climate-induced coastal and marine geohazards. Participants' opinions on the quality of the offered learning/training activities of the Erasmus+ BridgET Santorini Summer School (collected through a dedicated questionnaire) will also be presented