Communicating Archaeology at Poggio del Molino. 3D Virtualization and the Visitor Experience On and Off Site

  • Carlo BaioneEmail author
  • Tyler D. Johnson
  • Carolina Megale
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 919)


Although the digital data which archaeologists collect in the field are generally valued for their ability to enhance the scientific, research-oriented goals of field projects, they also promise great potential at a level of communication with the public. The 3D digital documentation produced by the Archeodig project at Poggio del Molino (Populonia, IT) is a valuable tool for communicating an engaging and thorough understanding of the multi-layered archaeological site. Publishing the 3D models of structures and artifacts on the online platform Sketchfab, as well as the creation of virtual environments and reconstructions with Unity3D, archaeologists at Poggio del Molino are experimenting with new ways to supply more detailed scientific information about their discoveries and convey these findings to a broad audience. This open virtual communication of the excavation is in line with Archeodig’s guiding principles, namely of seeking meaningful forms of engagement with the public community which supports it. Archeodig’s 3D approach serves as a powerful example of how modern archaeology can harness the benefit of digital technologies to strengthen its bond with the public community.


Digital outreach 3D visualization Public archaeology Virtual environment 3D modeling 


  1. Adkins L, Adkins R (1989) Archaeological illustration. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Antinucci F (2014) Comunicare nel museo, LaterzaGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrettara M (2013) New methods for sharing and exhibiting 3D archaeology. Post Hole 31:8–13Google Scholar
  4. Beacham R, Denard H, Niccolucci F (2006) An introduction to the London charter. In: Joint event CIPA/VAST/EG/EuroMedGoogle Scholar
  5. De Kerckhove D (1999) L’intelligenza connettiva, De Laurentiis EditoreGoogle Scholar
  6. Fredrick D (2014) Time.deltaTime: the vicissitudes of presence in visualizing Roman houses with game engine technology. AI Soc 29(4):461–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fregonese L et al (2016) 3D survey technologies: investigations on accuracy and usability in archaeology. The case study of the new “Municipio” underground station in Naples. ACTA IMEKO 5:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Manacorda D (2007) Il sito archeologico: fra ricerca e valorizzazione, CarocciGoogle Scholar
  9. Molloy B, Milić M (2018) Wonderful things? A consideration of 3D modelling of objects in material culture research. Open Archaeol 4(1):97–113 Scholar
  10. Olson B, Caraher W (2015) Visions of substance: 3D imaging in mediterranean archaeology. The Digital Press at The University of North DakotaGoogle Scholar
  11. Roosevelt CH et al (2015) Excavation is destruction digitization: advances in archaeological practice. J Field Archaeol 40(3):325–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Baione
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tyler D. Johnson
    • 2
  • Carolina Megale
    • 1
  1. 1.Archeodig ProjectUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Interdepartmental Program in Classical Art and Archaeology (IPCAA)University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations