Radiology meets archaeology: digital restoration and 3D printing using CT data

Abstract

Aim Archaeological objects are often recovered in blocks since highly porous materials and unstable and highly decayed objects cannot always be uncovered undamaged or time and resources for classic uncovering are lacking. Therefore, clinical computed tomography (CT) combined with freely available software solutions should be tested as a simple and fast method for visualizing and analyzing archaeological finds as an alternative to time-consuming restoration.

Materials and Methods As an example, a block with a shield boss was selected from a block excavation and examined by means of CT. Using the freely available software 3D-Slicer (https://www.slicer.org/), the shield boss and handle were segmented in the surrounding soil with different tools. They were then digitally reconstructed and then restored using Meshmixer (Autodesk Inc., San Francisco, CA). A 3D print was generated based on the reconstructed model of the shield boss.

Results The individual steps of CT examination of the block recovery, segmentation, reconstruction, and 3D printing were successfully performed. Based on the restored fragments of the shield boss, it was possible to date the object and to determine the initial properties of the find non-destructively without classic restoration.

Conclusion Radiological imaging combined with digital reconstruction and 3D printing makes it possible to determine decisive characteristics of the archaeological find before it is uncovered and restored, which is a time-consuming process. This opens up new opportunities for cooperation between radiology and archaeology for the evaluation and analysis of archaeological finds.

Key Points

• The transfer of medical technology, digital image processing and 3D printing to archaeology has been demonstrated.

• The digital restoration and reconstruction of archaeological objects using CT images is possible.

• Medical imaging could make a significant contribution to the investigation and reconstruction of archaeological objects.

Citation Format

• Frohwerk E, Dürr A, Fiebich M et al. Radiology meets archaeology: digital restoration and 3D printing using CT data. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; 196: 607 – 611

Keywords

CT - image manipulation/reconstruction - physics - archeology - 3D printing

Publication History

Received: 29 June 2023

Accepted: 15 October 2023

Article published online:
11 December 2023

• References

• 1 Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege (BLfD). Vorgaben zum Umgang mit Funden auf archäologischen Ausgrabungen in Bayern. 2020
• 2 Hughes S. CT Scanning in Archaeology. In: Saba L. Hrsg. Computed Tomography – Special Applications. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011
• 3 Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J. et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2012; 30: 1323-1341 DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001.
• 4 BWH and 3D Slicer contributors. 3D Slicer image computing platform. Im Internet (Stand: 08.02.2023): https://www.slicer.org
• 5 Autodesk Inc. Autodesk Meshmixer. Im Internet (Stand: 08.02.2023): https://meshmixer.com
• 6 Martin M. Das fränkische Gräberfeld von Basel – Bernerring. Mit einem anthropologischen und einem osteologischen Beitrag von R.Bay und B.Kaufmann. Mainz: Basel / Mainz: Archäologischer Verlag; 1967
• 7 Prusa Research a.s. Prusa Research by Josef Prusa: PLA. Im Internet (Stand: 08.02.2023): https://help.prusa3d.com/de/article/pla_2062#_ga=2.123843212.72348563.1675857062-1339977143.1675857061
• 8 Trenkmann U. Thüringen im Merowingerreich. Zur chronologischen und kulturgeschichtlichen Aussagekraft von Gräberfeldern des 6.–8. Jahrhunderts. Bonner Beiträge zur vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie Band 24. Weimer: Universität Bonn Inst. f. Vor- u. Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie. 2021
• 9 Jansen RJ, Poulus M, Kottman J. et al. CT: A New Nondestructive Method for Visualizing and Characterizing Ancient Roman Glass Fragments in Situ in Blocks of Soil. Radiographics 2006; 26 (06) 1837-1844 DOI: 10.1148/rg.266065079.
• 10 Licata M, Tosi A, Ciliberti R. et al. Role of Radiology in the Assessment of Skeletons from Archeological Sites. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 2019; 40 (01) 12-17 DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2018.10.003.
• 11 Zesch S, Rosendahl W, Döppes D. et al. Eine Mumie aus dem 3D-Drucker: Archäologie und Hightech zur Moorleiche des Yde-Mädchens. Antike Welt 2016; 6: 30-34
• 12 Alterauge A, Döppes D, Rosendahl W. Vom 3D-Scan bis zum 3D-Druck – Allgemeine Grundlagen und Praxisbeispiele aus dem Museumsbereich. Der Präparator 2014; 60: 36-43
• 13 Cooper C. You Can Handle It: 3D Printing for Museums. Advances in Archaeological Practice. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2019; 7 (04) 443-447 DOI: 10.1017/aap.2019.39.
• 14 Carew RM, Morgan RM, Rando C. A Preliminary Investigation into the Accuracy of 3D Modeling and 3D Printing in Forensic Anthropology Evidence Reconstruction. J Forensic Sci 2019; 64 (02) 342-352 DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.13917.
• 15 Kamil S, Kazimierski SK. CT und archäologische Keramik »Darf es auch etwas mehr sein?«. Sonderdruck aus: Fundberichte aus Österreich 2015; Band 54: D63–D72.
• 16 Weisgerber A. Voxel versus STL – die Aussagekraft von 3-D-Scans archäologischer Objekte. Archäologie in Westfalen-Lippe 2012; 241-244 DOI: 10.11588/aiw.0.0.25152.