Integrated Geomatic Techniques for Georeferencing and Reconstructing the Position of Underground Archaeological Sites: The Case Study of the Augustus Sundial (Rome)

A large part of the archaeological remains still to be discovered and excavated are not in remote and depopulated areas of the earth but are often beneath urban centres that have buried them with centuries of debris and later constructions. Excavating in these contexts is much more complex than digging in rural or sparsely inhabited areas because of the constraints imposed by existing buildings and infrastructure. It should also be considered that within an urbanised area, any archaeological remains are concentrated in the subsoil of the historic centre, which is, therefore, often surmounted by buildings that are more recent than the remains but historical as well, and thus, of considerable value and vulnerability. For this reason, an archaeological excavation in an urban area must be preceded by a real feasibility study, where the potential risks for the structures above are minimised and accurately quantified. In many situations, as in the case under study, the discovery of a small segment of a structure is the only clue to reconstruct the development of the remaining part still to be excavated, which may stretch tens or hundreds of metres away from the measurable part. As a consequence, an error of a few centimetres in the survey of the excavated part can lead to errors of metres in estimating the positions of the far parts still to be excavated, and this, in many cases, as in the one under study, must absolutely be avoided. In practice, high-precision geomatic surveys, in support of the archaeological and historical interpretation of the observable structures, will help to establish the exact locations to possibly continue the excavations, helping the accurate planning of the excavation itself. Here, we have shown how the various techniques, compared to each other, have made it possible to reconstruct the location of a short stretch (less than 7 m) of the Emperor Augustus’ Sundial, the only currently visible evidence of a scientific instrument of imposing dimensions (tens of metres in length and height) that served to define some of the characteristics of the calendar that we still use today. The portion of the sundial currently observable, according to the most reliable hypotheses, is located approximately at one end of a structure and extends for several tens of metres. The accurate positioning of the observable parts in a geodetic reference system will enable to identify with certainty the possible areas in which excavation may continue and will also allow to accurately reconstruct the principle of operation of the sundial through an approach that could be defined as “reverse engineering” of the scientific instrument itself. The aim of this work is to study and thus define the combination and integration of existing geomatic techniques for this specific field of application.

[1]  Valerio Baiocchi,et al.  AUGUSTO'S SUNDIAL: IMAGE-BASED MODELING FOR REVERSE ENGENEERING PURPOSES , 2017 .

[2]  M. Schütz The Horologium on the Campus Martius reconsidered , 2011, Journal of Roman Archaeology.

[3]  Valerio Baiocchi,et al.  A PROMPT METHODOLOGY TO GEOREFERENCE COMPLEX HYPOGEA ENVIRONMENTS , 2017 .

[4]  S. Ullman The interpretation of structure from motion , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[5]  Shannon P. McPherron,et al.  Additional statistical and graphical methods for analyzing artifact orientations and site formation processes from total station proveniences , 2005 .

[6]  Gabriele Guidi,et al.  A Multi-Resolution Methodology for the 3D Modeling of Large and Complex Archeological Areas , 2009 .

[7]  S. Troisi,et al.  The sundial of Augustus and its survey: unresolved issues and possible solutions , 2015, Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica.

[8]  Pierre Grussenmeyer,et al.  Accurate documentation in cultural heritage by merging TLS and high-resolution photogrammetric data , 2011, Optical Metrology.

[9]  Emmanuel P. Baltsavias,et al.  A comparison between photogrammetry and laser scanning , 1999 .

[10]  Jaroslav Šedina,et al.  COMBINED PRECISE DOCUMENTATION AND VIRTUAL RECONSTRUCTION OF PROPHET NAHUM SHRINE IN ALQOSH, IRAQ , 2019 .

[11]  Dimitrios Skarlatos,et al.  PRECISION POTENTIAL OF UNDERWATER NETWORKS FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION THROUGH TRILATERATION AND PHOTOGRAMMETRY , 2019 .

[12]  L. Alessandri,et al.  A flexible and swift approach for 3D image–based survey in a cave , 2020, Applied Geomatics.

[13]  Clive S. Fraser,et al.  Digital camera self-calibration , 1997 .

[14]  Peter Heslin,et al.  Augustus, Domitian and the So-called Horologium Augusti , 2007 .

[15]  Thomas P. Kersten,et al.  COMPARATIVE GEOMETRICAL ACCURACY INVESTIGATIONS OF HAND-HELD 3D SCANNING SYSTEMS – AN UPDATE , 2018, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences.

[16]  F. Nex,et al.  LiDAR or photogrammetry? Integration is the answer , 2011 .

[17]  Manuela Cecconi,et al.  THE TEMPIO DELLA CONSOLAZIONE IN TODI: INTEGRATED GEOMATICTECHNIQUES FOR A MONUMENT DESCRIPTION INCLUDING STRUCTURALDAMAGE EVOLUTION IN TIME , 2017 .

[18]  Valerio Baiocchi,et al.  ACYOTB Plugin: Tool for Accurate Orthorectification in Open-Source Environments , 2020, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[19]  Fabio Radicioni,et al.  THE CATHEDRAL OF S. LORENZO IN PERUGIA AND THE HYPOGEAL SPACES. GEOMATIC TECHNIQUES FOR SPATIAL INVESTIGATIONS AIMED AT THE KNOWLEDGE AND INTERPRETATION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE TRANSEPT , 2019, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences.

[20]  Alberto Guarnieri,et al.  Automatic registration of large range datasets with spin-images , 2011 .

[21]  D. Lague,et al.  Accurate 3D comparison of complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: Application to the Rangitikei canyon (N-Z) , 2013, 1302.1183.

[22]  Andrea Masiero,et al.  Performance Evaluation of Two Indoor Mapping Systems: Low-Cost UWB-Aided Photogrammetry and Backpack Laser Scanning , 2018 .

[23]  Harold L. Dibble,et al.  Measurement of artifact provenience with an electronic theodolite , 1987 .

[24]  Filippo Coarelli,et al.  Il Campo Marzio occidentale. Storia e topografia , 1977 .