Visibillity and GIS

Here is the final report from Archaeological Applications of GIS from the University of Southampton

 Intervisibility of Megaliths and Pile-Dwellings along the edge of Lake Neuchâtel in Switzerland

Introduction

Beginning with the chance discovery of the Ober-Meilen prehistoric lacustrine village on the Lake of Zurich in 1854 by a curious school teacher, pile-dwelling sites around lakes and bogs have yielded incalculable knowledge on prehistoric cultures living in the foothills of the Alps. Dendrochronological analyses of well-preserved timbers from numerous sites, along with a wealth of plant and animal remains, suggest a beginning for the Alpine foreland Neolithic around 4300 BC spanning until the seventh century BC (Menotti 2004). Spread across six countries and listed as World Heritage Sites by UNESCO since 2011, the pile-dwellings are hailed as “among the most important examples of archaeological heritage in Europe” (Hafner and Schlichtherle 2008).

As studying nearly one thousand sites throughout the Alpine foreland is beyond the scope of this brief research, Lake Neuchâtel in Switzerland (Figure 1) was selected for study to simplify the necessary computations, as well as to present a straightforward example of using GIS to answer specific archaeological questions. The GIS provides the tools to systematically analyse vision in prehistory, although methods may be the same as manual methods decades ago (Wheatley and Gillings 2000). It should be noted that the scope of this research could easily - read tediously - be adjusted to include all known sites in the surrounding countryside.

Figure 1.  Map of Switzerland with study area. (Copyright: ©2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ)

Undoubtedly, the pile-dwellings have been part of a persistent and respected research tradition for over a century and a half. However, standing solemnly nearby, megalithic monuments are consistently overlooked in the context of the cultural landscape. Although archaeological evidence in associated strata around the megaliths is sparse, they were certainly a part of the landscape throughout the 4000 years of documented Neolithic settlement around the lake, notwithstanding the possibility of their construction during this period. The principle aim of this study is to describe and analyse intervisibility between pile-dwelling and megalithic sites to assess whether the megaliths might have played a significant role in the cultural landscape of the Alpine foreland Neolithic. As Wheatley and Gillings point out, “the suggestion is that it is through viewshed analysis that the GIS makes its most unique and valuable contribution to landscape study” (2000). It has thus been chosen to determine the importance of these mysterious megaliths in context with the pile-dwellings. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample goodness-of-fit test is used to assess the significance of the relationship.

The procedure of georeferencing source maps and digitizing a workable dataset is documented, and the technical and analytical choices made in the interpretation are described. ESRI's ArcMap and ArcCatalog 10.1 were used throughout the data process.

The Context

Lake Neuchâtel is the largest lake in Switzerland at 38 km long and 8 km at its widest point. It was formed through the uplift of the Alps and subsequent glaciations and lies primarily in the modern canton of Neuchâtel, but also shares its border with the cantons of Vaud, Fribourg and Bern. The elevation of its surface is 422 m above sea-level. Visibility from the lake is very high and the assumption that these Neolithic cultures used the lake as a means for transportation and subsistence is not farfetched.

Pile-dwelling sites were settlements built on stilts, or piles, on dry land near the water’s edge. Due to seasonal flooding of the lake, the houses were raised upon piles in such a way that the intermittent overflow did not cause inconvenience. Some of the piles around the lake have been observed to have been taller than 5 m and as short as 0.4 m. There is little evidence to determine what the specific architecture of the dwellings was like, but most research suggests that they were probably single-story houses accessed by ladders or stairs (Leuzinger 2004). Settlements were situated every 2.5-5 kilometres on the shores of Lake Neuchâtel (Rouff 2004), although in this particular study, only the UNESCO qualified sites, of which there are thirteen, are being researched.

The age of the megalithic sites is largely hypothetical due to the lack of archaeological evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to establish precise chronological connections between the megalithic monuments and the pile-dwelling sites, a grim obstacle in my research. Discovering any information of any kind about the megaliths was a challenge in and of itself. However, this problem can cautiously be resolved by suggesting that most megaliths were erected in the Neolithic and were probably contemporaneous with or predated the pile-dwelling settlements. Within the scope of this research, several types of megaliths are being studied: menhirs, large tapered erected stones sometimes found in groups but primarily alone; stone rows or alignments, which include dozens of menhirs in alignment with each other; and dolmens, which are stone slabs assembled as burial chambers. Some of these stones are as tall as 4.5 m (Figure 2). The megaliths must have been important places within the landscape, marked as they were by such imposing heights. For purposes of the research, megalith type is not considered an important factor in intervisibility.

Figure 2.  An example of a Swiss megalith. The Menhir de Clendy of Yverdon-Les-Bains, part of a stone alignment, this is the tallest at 4.5 m.    (Source)

Methodology

Fortunately for the author, a Digital Elevation Model, the foundation for any visibility study, was already available for the study area, obtained from the NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission which has an estimate height error report of 5 m and is accurate to 3 arc seconds, which equates to 90 m on the ground. Of course, the quality of the DEM determines the accuracy of the findings. Although this was not the most accurate of DEMs, the author, with financial constraints, had to opt for data that was free of cost.

This particular DEM uses the World Geodetic System 1984 coordinate system, one of the main reference systems for cartography. However, the author deemed the European Datum 1950 Universal Transverse Mercator projected coordinate system to be better suited to the study area because the UNESCO data utilizes this system. Thus, the elevation data was exported within this datum and all subsequent analyses use ED 1950 UTM Zone 32 North.

Individually georeferenced pile-dwelling maps from a UNESCO nomination file were used to digitize the locations of each pile-dwelling site around the lake. There were inherent problems with the precision of this method because the measured grid around each of these maps was imprecise. This made itself evident in the digitizing process because the edges of the lake did not match the base map. The imprecise maps were individually adjusted to match with the base map which was accurately georeferenced. The viewpoint taken is static and situated in the relative center of the settlements or megaliths. The above factors have clear implications for accuracy and precision of the subsequent data.

The locations of the megaliths were obtained from coordinates from an online database at www.megalithic.co.uk. The coordinates were manually entered into ArcMap and display as central points to the location of the megalith(s). Lake Neuchâtel was also digitized to eventually obtain a cumulative viewshed of all the points within the lake. The end map, created for display, (Figure 3) contains contour lines, both types of sites and the lake itself.

Figure 3. Map of Lake Neuchâtel displaying megaliths and pile-dwellings with surrounding landscape contours made entirely from digitized data.

Now, the process of creating relevant viewsheds was possible. Ideally, the visibility of features should be considered according to factors of the nature, density and height of the vegetation, the weather and season (Wheatley and Gillings 2000). The DEM is a smooth surface and does not take into account the presence or absence of trees or any other vegetation. The area for which visibility was calculated was restricted to a buffer zone of 10 km around the edge of the lake. Because viewshed does not readily extend beyond a radius of about 5 km (Loots 1997), this is an overestimation of perception but, for the sake of the study, it ensures minimal edge effects within the area of study and that the viewshed is not subject to artificial truncation (Wheatley and Gillings 2000, Conolly and Lake 2006).

The modern heights of seven of the megaliths were recorded in the database. However, some of the megaliths have toppled in modern times or are so obscure that the database had no height data, in which case an average of the known megalith heights was calculated (2.7 m) and was used as the height data for the four unknown megalith heights. The heights of the pile-dwellings also had to be interpolated. According to Leuzinger (2004), the piles themselves range from 0.4 m to over 5 m tall. In order not to skew the data, the author elected again to assign the average height of the known piles (2.7 m) plus the average height of a person (1.7 m) as the offset in the viewshed (4.4 m), to simulate a person standing on the floor of a pile-dwelling. As for the heights of the pile-dwellings themselves, a conservative height of 6 m was selected to represent the maximum height of the pile-dwellings.

The author utilized the work of Kvamme (1990) and Wheatley (1995) from which to base her model. To initiate the Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample goodness-of-fit test, a ‘population’ of all possible pile-dwelling locations was generated from the megalith viewshed by creating a 600 m buffer around the lake to ensure all known pile-dwelling locations were within the buffer zone (Figure 4). This is the statistical population, while the pile-dwelling sites are the statistical sample from that population, from which to conduct the goodness-of-fit test. Given these, the author has constructed a pair of hypotheses from which to test as follows:

• H₀ – The pile-dwelling sites are distributed regardless of the number of megaliths which are visible.
• H₁ – The pile-dwelling sites are NOT distributed regardless of the number of megaliths which are visible.
  
  

  

  Figure 4. Map of 10km buffer zone and viewshed map from the megaliths. The thin sliver around the lake is the 600m buffer zone from which the statistical population is derived.

A separate Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was also conducted to test the significance of the intervisibility between the megaliths and the viewpoints on the lake. A buffer of 2000 m around the lake was generated to include all known megaliths sites (Figure 5). In the same manner as before, this buffer is the population and the known megaliths sites are the sample. Given these, the author has constructed a pair of hypotheses from which to test as follows:

• H₀ – The megaliths are distributed regardless of the number of lake-points which are visible.
• H₁ – The megaliths are NOT distributed regardless of the number of lake-points which are visible.

Figure 5. Map of 10km buffer zone and viewshed map from the lake-points. The thin sliver around the lake is the 2000m buffer zone from which the statistical population is derived.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test undertaken for each case adopted a 0.05 confidence interval. Because the sample size was so small for each test, 13 for the pile-dwelling test and 11 for the megalith test, d is 0.361 and 0.391 respectively. Dmax was then obtained from the results. For each data theme used in the final research and the end maps, metadata was created in GeoDoc using the AGMAP 2.1 guidelines and saved as both PDFs and XML files.

Results

For the pile-dwelling test, it can be seen that Dmax (0.14) does not exceed d (0.361) and therefore the test does not allow for the rejection of H0 at the 0.05 confidence interval (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Right: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the pile-dwellings. The test compares the distribution of the population and the sites, or samples, with respect to the number of lines-on-sight to the megaliths. Dmax is highlighted. Left: Cumulative distribution, or percentages, of both population and sample cumulative viewshed values. 

Equally for the megalith test, it can be seen that Dmax (0.12) does not exceed d (0.391) and therefore the test does not allow for the rejection of H0 at the 0.05 confidence interval (Figure 7). Thus, neither the distribution of pile-dwellings not the distribution of megaliths are dictated by the location of megaliths or lake-points, respectively.

Figure 7. Right: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the megaliths. The test compares the distribution of the population and the sites, or samples, with respect to the number of lines-on-sight to the lake-points. Dmax is highlighted. Left: Cumulative distribution, or percentages, of both population and sample cumulative viewshed values. 

Conclusion

Although the results of this study are not exceedingly thrilling, the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test did statistically proof the significance, or lack thereof, of the specific location of the sites in question. The method was relatively straightforward to implement and, with the right question, could potentially yield interesting and valuable results. This is not to say that the particular location of these sites within the landscape are not dictated by other factors, seemingly unknown at the time of study. Indeed, this result doesn’t necessarily mean that visibility was not at all a factor in location, it just means that the author cannot statistically claim that it was. With a larger sample, more conclusive results could be drawn.

Bibliography

Conolly, J. and Lake, M. 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology, 6th edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Hafner, A. and Schlichtherle, H. 2008. Neolithic and Bronze Age lakeside settlements in the Alpine region: threatened archaeological heritage under water and possible protection measures – examples from Switzerland and Southern Germany. In Heritage at Risk: ICOMOS world report 2006/2007 on monuments and sites in danger, edited by Petzet, M. and Ziesemer, J. (Altenburg, Germany: E. Reinhold-Verlag). pp 175-180.

Kvamme, K.L. 1990. One-sample tests in regional archaeological analysis: new possibilities through computer technology. American Antiquity, 55 (2), edited by Raymond, W.W. (Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology). pp 367-381.

Leuzinger, U. 2004. Experimental and applied archaeology in lake-dwelling research. In Living on the lake in prehistoric Europe: 150 years of lake-dwelling research. (Abingdon: Routledge). pp 237-250.

Loots, L., Nackaerts, K. and Waelkens, M. 1999. Fuzzy viewshed analysis of the Hellenistic city defence system at Sagalassos, Turkey. In Archaeology in the age of the internet:  computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology 1997, edited by Dingwall, L., Exon, S., Gaffney, V., Laflin, S. and van Leusen, M., BAR International Series 750. (Oxford: Archaeopress). pp 82 [CD ROM].

Menotti, F. 2004 (ed). Introduction: the lake-dwelling phenomenon and wetland archaeology. In Living on the lake in prehistoric Europe: 150 years of lake-dwelling research. (Abingdon: Routledge). pp 1-6.

Ruoff, U. 2014. Lake-dwelling studies in Switzerland since ‘Meilen 1854’. In Living on the lake in prehistoric Europe: 150 years of lake-dwelling research. (Abingdon: Routledge). pp 9-21.

Wheatley, D. 1995. Cumulative viewshed analysis: a GIS-based method for investigating intervisibility, and its archaeological application. In Archaeology and geographic information systems: a European perspective, edited by Lock, G. and Stancic, Z. (London: Taylor & Francis). pp 171-185.

Wheatley, D. and Gillings, M. 2000. Vision, perception and GIS: developing enriched approaches to the study of archaeological visibility. In Beyond the map: archaeology and spatial technologies, edited by Lock, G.R., NATO Science Series A: Life Sciences. (Amsterdam: IOS Press). pp 1-27.

AutoCAD Solutions

After all my research into reproducing a castle in AutoCAD, I decided to instead do Big Ben in London, England. Here is the final report and model.

 Raising the Great Bell at the Palace of Westminster: Investigating the 1858 Illustrated London News Report in AutoCAD 2014

Photo credit 

Introduction

The aim of this report is to chronicle the process of creating a three-dimensional model of the Elizabeth Tower at the North end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England from sparse data and to document the challenges associated with the inferences and assumptions made. Technical choices of the modelled tower and the resulting analyses are considered, and the methodology and process are described, including any problems and pitfalls encountered along the way.

The purpose of modelling the Elizabeth Tower is to compare the description from the Illustrated London News of the event of raising the Great Bell, or Big Ben, in a three dimensional artificial environment to visualize and investigate the process as reported in 1858. The Illustrated London News is used as a primary data source for understanding and digitizing the raising of the bell.

The Illustrated London News

The Illustrated London News was the world’s first illustrated weekly current events magazine, and began publication in May 1842. Costing sixpence, its audience was primarily the middle class of England. At its peak in the 1860s, 300,000 copies were in circulation (Sinnema 1998).

The Illustrated London News took very special interest in the manufacture and “the labour of lifting the great bell – the ‘Royal Victoria,’ ‘Big Ben,’ or whatever its name is to be” from 1856 to 1858. It published descriptive illustrations printed with elaborate wood engravings (Figure 1 for examples) along with its in-depth account of the events leading up to and the process of raising the bell, which was the largest ever cast (Illustrated London News 1858: 16 October).

Figure 1. Left, mode of raising the great bell and right, sectional view of the clock tower (Illustrated London News 1858: 16 October).

The Palace of Westminster

The Palace of Westminster has a long and storied past. Edward theConfessor first set up court there in 1040. The first clock tower was built in 1290, demolished in 1707 and the bell sold to St. Paul’s Cathedral, which still chimes the hour. The Palace of Westminster remained a piecemeal collection of buildings from different eras until 1834, when a fire destroyed most of the palace, although Westminster Hall was spared. The rest of the palace was demolished to make room for a new single structure.

After a public design competition, Charles Barry’s plans for a Gothic-style parliamentary building were chosen. The foundation stone was laid in 1840, although the new palace’s construction was not completed for more than 30 years (McKay 2010).

The Clock Tower

The clock tower, recently renamed the Elizabeth Tower in 2012 for the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II, holds the largest four-faced chiming clock in the world, at seven metres across, and is the third-highest freestanding clock tower. The minute hand of the clock is over 4 metres long and the tower raises 96 metres in the air. It is one of the most prominent symbols of the United Kingdom. Construction on the tower was completed in 1858. However, changes in ground conditions and tunneling for the Jubilee extension have caused the tower to lean by 230 millimetres to the north-west. In addition, due to thermal fluctuations, the building also oscillates by a few millimetres seasonally (BBC News 2011; McKay 2010). This and the former lean were not taken into account in the AutoCAD reconstruction as no lean was reported in 1858 when the bell was raised to the belfry.

Big Ben

The first casting of the bell in 1856 failed before it was lifted up the tower to the belfry when it cracked, although the metal was nine inches thick. It was broken up and used in a recasting in 1858 (London Illustrated News 1858: 6 March and 17 April). The 13 ton bell was painstakingly transported by sixteen horses from Whitechapel to the foot of the clock tower and deemed “far superior to the former one as the vibration of the ponderous mass is so perfect that sound can easily be produced from it with the knuckles only” (Illustrated London News 1858: 5 June).

A purpose-built crab, or windlass, was constructed to raise the bell up the shaft. A special cradle was made for the bell. It took eight men applying fifteen pounds of force to the handles more than two thousand revolutions with nearly 1800 feet of chain to haul up the bell (Illustrated London News 1858: 16 October).

Methods

Creating a model of the Elizabeth Tower in AutoCAD 2014 was no easy task. Uncovering any information at all about the dimensions of the building was an arduous task in itself. From pictures and Parliament’s interactivevirtual tour, I was able to trace the outline of the building’s shell at each landing and derive the general vertical layout of the building and the spacing of the floors. Of course, these data sources were not produced with the intention of displaying the kind of accuracy and precision I would have liked from which to create a model. Instead, they were made as informative tools to give the general public an idea of the building. This has clear implications on the outer appearance of the building. However, as I was primarily concerned with the raising of the bell, I conceded to an inaccurate representation of the external portion and the internal decorative interior as I had accurate measurements for the central shaft, doors and vertical aspect.

As part of the modelling and end product, I had the intention of recreating two of the events recorded with wood engravings in the main article of reference in the Illustrated London News from 16 October, 1858 about the raising of the bell (see Figure 1 and 2). Measurements of the bell are included in this article and notes on the thickness of the metal throughout. Thus, the resulting model of Big Ben is accurate to those said measurements: the widest part of the bell is its mouth at 2.9 metres and its maximum height is 2.4 metres tall. The measurements for the bell shaft in the Elizabeth Tower are also stated (Illustrated London News 1858: 16 October). As observed in Figure 3, this a tight fit with a maximum of 27 centimetres on each side and 4 centimetres end-to-end. This indicates that, when designing and manufacturing the bell, the maximum size was a direct result of the restrictions of the shaft from which to haul the bell up to the belfry. The shaft extends from the ground to the clock room “upwards of 180 feet [54.86 m] in an unbroken line” (Illustrated London News 1858: 16 October).

Figure 2. Moving the Great Bell (Illustrated London News 1868: 16 October).

Figure 3. Two dimensional illustrative image of the size of the bell and the size of the bell shaft (in blue).

The bell was created in a separate document and externally referenced in the final document. This creates a block from the object which holds an important role in productivity when managing an AutoCAD file. It reduces overall file size, allows the program to consume fewer resources to display the document and simplifies the process of creating a model. Each floor was also converted to a block to reduce repetitive actions and file size.

Materials were added to each object in the rendering stage. A sample of the Ashton Limestone cladding was extracted from a photograph of the Elizabeth Tower. Although not as beautiful as the real thing, the model is approximately the right colour and texture.

Results

The final product is a rather rough model of the Elizabeth Tower as described by the Illustrated London News inn 1858 and Parliament in the modern age. All proportions and measurements are very precise, albeit slightly inaccurate because of the data sources obtained.

Figure 4 is a sampling of possible visual styles from AutoCAD which display various edges and shading in the viewport to more easily understand aspects of the model. As one can see, the exact measurement of the model is 96 metres.

Figure 4. Three different views of the model of the Elizabeth Tower. Conceptual (left), Sketchy (middle) and Wireframe (right).

Due to time constraints, I was only able to recreate one image from the Illustrated London News article. I ran into many troubles and pitfalls when creating the overall model. As this was an extremely time-consuming process, I was forced to narrow my goals to a more feasible product. I focused my energy on recreating Figure 2 as closely as possible.

Figure 5 is that attempt. Although, not the most realistic or enthralling image, I am certain that everything is this image is accurate based on the Illustrated London News account of the event. Undoubtedly, I invested many long hours on this produce. Unfortunately, it is not was I expected. It seems AutoCAD is somewhat limited in creating realistic rendered models, as I have learned the hard way.

Figure 5. Raw 3D rendered model of the event from Figure 2.

Conclusion

Going through the process of creating a three dimensional model of an existing building in AutoCAD was an excellent way of learning how to use the program within the field of archaeology. It also gave me real exposure to the problems and hindrances in accurate model building. Overall, it was a frustrating exercise in patience and creativity. The resulting model would have never existed without the help and collaboration of my fellow classmates and joys of Google.

Bibliography

Illustrated London News. 1858. Breaking-up “Big Ben” (6 March). London: J. Clayton.

Illustrated London News. 1858. Recasting of the Clock Bell for the New Houses of Parliament (17 April). London: J. Clayton.

Illustrated London News. 1858. The Great Bell for the Houses of Parliament (5 June). London: J. Clayton.

Illustrated London News. 1858. Raising the Great Bell at the New Palace, Westminster (16 October). London: J. Clayton.

McKay, C. 2010. Big Ben: the great clock and the bells at the Palace of Westminster. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sinnema, P.W. 1998. Dynamics of the Pictured Page: representing the nation in the Illustrated London News. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

Wiltshire Archaeological Conference

The Wiltshire Archaeological Conference in Devizes is a one-day conference exploring recent archaeological work in Wiltshire.

 Set in the heart of Devizes in the Corn Exchange, the Wiltshire Archaeological Conference was well attended with just under 200 attendees from various commercial and academic backgrounds. The conference was well-publicised and -organised by the Wiltshire Museum and the Archaeology Field Group of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society ensuring a large, engaged audience. With ten presentations throughout the day ranging in subject and timeframe, there was one uniting factor for everyone there: Wiltshire.

 Roy Canham from the Bradford-upon-Avon Museum presented his research project combining field survey, historical maps and LiDAR data to investigate the historical landscape of Bradford-upon-Avon. Canham walked the audience through obtaining and manipulating LiDAR data and the information which might be gleaned through such data was thrilling to see. He produced a short video about his results which overlaid archival maps, geophysical survey data and the newly-obtained LiDAR data to showcase its applications within mapping, referencing a seminal publication about LiDAR (English Heritage 2010).

 A talk by Neil Wilkin of the British Museum about metal hoards from Bronze Age Wessex was another highlight of the conference. Wilkin spoke about the controversial reliance on metal detectorists as an essential source of information. The Treasure Act of 1996 and the 2002 Designation Order has enhanced the quality of data that is being utilised in archaeological studies, because the process became formalised and enshrined. However, proper data collection is still heavily dependent on the training and technology available to detectorists. Nonetheless, there has been a dramatic increase in treasure reported through the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Wilkin’s presentation highlighted some of the most exciting new finds, especially the Wardour Hoard, and asked why these hoards were deposited and what patterns might be identified. He posits that many of these hoards are single deposits within a short timeframe although some of the artefacts may have been more than 1,000 years old when buried (BBC News Wiltshire 2014).

 Overall the conference was a fascinating glimpse into the exciting new archaeological work being undertaken in Wiltshire, and it was a pleasure to a part of it.

AutoCAD Project Problems

I'm in the process of researching for a project in my 3D recording and interpretation class. The assignment will test my ability to choose appropriate Computer Aided Design (CAD) methods to address an archaeological question, to critique their applications and thoroughly document my outcomes.

Because I'm primarily interested in Prehistoric stuff, I'm finding it extremely difficult to find a subject that is suitable for this project. The CAD technology seems to be too rigid for such a subject because most prehistoric remains and features are so organic in shape (and mostly in ruins).

So I've decided to steer away from such ancient remains and model a medieval castle. Herein lies the problem. Finding accurate plans and measurements for medieval castles is nearly impossible. After days of researching, I have yet to find something I can model! So I had this idea to start a blog about my problems (and, hopefully, successes). I'd like to think that this might help someone searching for the same answers.

Here's some cool things that I've found.


A 3D model of Le Château de Pierrefonds
This is the work of Andrea Polato (who has a beautiful website by the way). His work on the castle is exquisite, unfortunately I don't know where he got his source material! According to the website, this project took one and a half years to complete and it shows in the level of detail. With his reconstruction, Andrea was able to visually phase the restoration of the castle, first by producing a ruin model, then a middle restoration and finally a complete restoration model based on the work of Eugene Viollet-le-Duc. Simply beautiful.

Caldonazzo Castle - From Ruins to Archaeological 3D Reconstruction
This model was created using Structure-from-Motion which creates a point cloud in a virtual environment from a series of photographs. The results are an accurate 3D model of this beautiful castle using free and open software.


This is my mom and brother in the early '90s near my favorite castle in the world: Chillon Castle in Switzerland. I would really love to model this castle in AutoCAD. Blueprints and floor plans exist but I'm having trouble finding accurate dimensions of the height of the building.

More stuff coming soon...