Category Archives: Carnegie Museums

3D Scanning and Printing in Archaeology

by Bridget Roddy

Since last semester (Fall 2022), for a Museum Methods class, I myself, along with fellow graduate students Laura Broughton and Liz McCreary, have been working on a hallway exhibit, focusing on 3D printing in archaeology; essentially how 3D printing could be used for educational or preservation purposes, and the issues that can occur when using this technology. Although we began this as an attempt to study how 3D printing could be useful in archaeological contexts or for archaeological purposes, the project really turned into how 3D printing is not as simple as it sounds. The exhibit is not done yet but be sure to keep an eye out for it in McElhaney Hall, or on our Instagram page, for when it is finished!

Scanning a sherd!

Initially we set out to scan and print different artifacts such as lithics (flaked versus groundstone), ceramics (incised versus painted), and bone, from two different 3D printers. We wanted to compare prints from both printers and the prints of different materials and decorations, in order to determine which printers were better and which materials printed better and could be of more use to the field of archaeology. However, we realized we needed to incorporate a 3D scanner first, and thus to save time and money for filament, we decided to print from one 3D printer. As scanning was more time consuming and more difficult than anticipated, we had to cut back on what materials we selected to print as well.

So, what is 3D printing? It is defined as being a process that makes a physical object based on a three-dimensional digital model, usually through the use of a machine that places down thin layers of a material in rapid succession.  In archaeological contexts, 3D printing has been used at sites like Çatalhöyük to record phases of archaeological investigation in 3D, to make the excavation process virtually reversible through a virtual simulated environment. 3D scanning has been used to create models of Bronze Age tools and weapons from Ireland, in order to conduct experimental archaeological research as the models undergo use-wear processes and investigate the development of damage on replica objects versus the ancient ones. Some researchers have even suggested using 3D digitization of use for both diagnostic and collection management purposes. While the vast number of artifacts and accessibility to full collections, technical knowledge of how to scan objects, and the cost of the software and machines, have proven to be obstacles in the pursuit of giving more accessibility to those around the world to more collections through 3D printing, it is a valiant attempt at preserving the archaeological record in a new way and format. The Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania has even used a handheld 3D scanner to digitize collection pieces that are printed and used in a museum exhibit. 3D scanners can be used to even restore damaged cultural objects or monuments, to get a better sense of what they looked like while intact. These are just a few of the ways that 3D printing and scanning are being incorporated into the world of archaeology and museums.

The Ultimaker S3 3D printer.

For this project here at IUP we used a NextEngine, Ultra HD, 3D scanner and or 3D printing we used an Ultimaker S3, both found in Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s STEAMSHOP, along with the appropriate corresponding filament which we were able to get from Amazon. IUP’s STEAMSHOP is an interdisciplinary digital fabrication lab that gives students, staff, and faculty alike the opportunity to engage in things like pressing vinyl on shirts and stickers, laser cutting logos, and of course, 3D printing objects. We extend a huge thanks to Maker in Residence, Johnathan Grengs, for assisting us during the undertaking of this project!

The lasers scanning the sherd on the acrylic stand.

We selected several prehistoric artifacts for scanning and printing; these included an incised ceramic sherd, a painted ceramic sherd, an arrowhead, and a quartz pendant. We set most of the artifacts on a clear acrylic stand parallel to the scanner and around ten inches away. The pendant did not require the stand. Each artifact was scanned about three times from different angles (top, bottom/back, front, and sides of the artifact), to pick up as much detail as possible. However, we started to encounter issues right from the start. First, the scans would take around half-an-hour each to complete. If the scan was incomplete or insufficient, we would have to take another, which took more time. We then needed to take of any excess data that made their way into the scan, before, taking all of the scans we had made to combine them and fuse them together.

Scans being fused together.

However, sometimes the system would crash when we tried to attempt this. When it comes to errors, when we fused the scans together, we had to align each scan by placing down three points on each, attempting to put them in the same spots to match the scans together, which essentially means we could have been accidently putting the dots in different spots, thus creating an inaccurate complete scan if the fused scans were incorrectly aligned. When we first started, we also did not realize we needed to save each individual scan, so much data was lost, and many scans had to be repeated. We eventually learned to save each scan separately before bringing them all back together to be fused and then saved as one complete scan. Essentially, it was a trial-and-error process that taught us there were going to be many fluctuations in the quality of the scans taken, causing us to have to take more scans than we initially planned for, which again took up more time.

Printing a sherd to scale.

As we moved on to transfer the scans to the 3D printer, another issue was encountered. The file sizes for the scans were so big that the system processing the scans to print them, was unable to do so. Eventually Mr. Grengs was able to fix this, and we moved on to the printing of the artifacts. Again, this took time, anywhere from at one hour and fifteen minutes or up to two-and-a-half hours. Once we were able to print some of the artifacts, we were able to discern many things about the abilities and accuracy of 3D scanners and printers. For example, one of the printed items had leftover data on top of the artifact scans that we missed as it was barely perceptible on the top. The printed object had some rough lines on top, most likely caused by the acrylic stand that was picked up by the scanner and not removed during the editing and fusing process.

The incised sherd printed at 200% its size!

We positioned all of the scans to be printed with the best side facing upwards, in the hopes that we would get the best representation of the artifacts. The bottoms of each artifact had to be printed on a base, which then had to be pried off once cooled. However, this basically made the bottom side unrecognizable compared to the original artifact. This showed us that the position in which we print the artifact is very important. We noted that the sides always printed very smooth-like, almost beautifully, with great detail, while the top looked almost like a topographic map, showing the last of the layers that were printed. This led me to realize that it might be worth it to try to print the objects standing vertically from one side, in the hopes that we would be able to get even more detail on the top, bottom/back, front, and the sides, as well, while only sacrificing a small portion of the side, rather than the whole bottom. We did this with a sherd blown up to 200%, and it came out beautifully!

We also learned that that the quality of the prints was also dependent on the artifacts themselves. Certain artifacts worked better than others, such as the incised lines decorations showing up on the prints rather than the painted designs. And for some reason, the pendant would not scan completely, despite not needing the acrylic scan to stay upright. We suspect this had something to do with the light fracturing through the quartz pendent, throwing off the scanner. At this point in time, we have not yet been able to print the arrowhead, as the scans will not even align properly, so hopefully we will be able to get over this hurdle and get a good print of the artifact.

For those that don’t have access to the software and technology to conduct 3D printings like we do, it has to be noted that it is an expensive endeavor. While also being time consuming and riddled with the potential for errors or to make a mistake, one has to be careful when deciding whether or not this is something they wish to pursue in whatever sphere they are doing so. For those planning on conducting work with 3D printers and scanners, we want this post to serve as a source for understanding that it is a lengthy process that does not always turn out how you expect. This method could be used to create replicas or scans for the public to use or examine, it could be used by museums in exhibits, it could allow greater accessibility to collections and even allow for a more in-depth analysis of artifact features, and so much more. However, I personally believe that one must use the highest quality of software and technology for the most accurate results, but what is currently available is just not affordable or the best quality. While our replicas were to scale and recognizable as to which artifacts they were of, higher quality of tech would certainly have made a big difference. For now, we hope our exhibit will show those starting out that 3D printing is a process, one that takes many mistakes and hours to figure out.

Follow IUP Anthropology on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Resources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.2.1.0001.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A607eaebc6bad3a18247324a05deef839&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24327507.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A4b56576788e90abf8501cb4b2f40b66a&ab_segments=&origin=

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26160210.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab3cde67aaa6637c68a77378d1544c100&ab_segments=&origin=

The Chickaree Hill Pictograph

by Bridget Roddy

On March 3rd we held our second Graduate Colloquium of the semester! We invited Archaeologist Kenneth Burkett to come in-person and talk to us about the Chickaree Hill Pictograph (36CB8), currently the only known prehistoric pictograph site recorded in Pennsylvania! Kenneth Burkett is the Executive Director of the Jefferson County History Center and Field Associate Archaeologist with the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. He recently was awarded the Society for American Archaeology’s (SAA) Crabtree Award, and soon he will be partaking in a 2-year grant study investigating the recorded petroglyph sites in Pennsylvania for their conditions and National Register eligibility status.

The Chickaree pictograph is located on private property in the town of Chickaree in Jackson Township, Cambria County, on a north-sloping upper bench of Laurel Ridge. It was first recorded in 1975 by Dr. Virginia Gerald who was a professor at IUP at the time, and also recorded several other times throughout the eighties and nineties before Burkett began to explore it more in depth in 2017. Advancements in technology and GPS systems have allowed for a more accurate recording of the pictograph’s location.

The pictograph itself is located on the ceiling of a small rock overhang facing north, on a large, sandstone rock tor. It does not appear to somewhere where people would have ‘camped out’ as it faces directly into the wind. What appears to be a test unit was opened up sometime in the past directly in front of the overhang, and the soil beneath the overhang was removed too. The place the rock art was drawn in is a well-protected spot, away from the dripline from rain, in a depressed surface away from weather effects, and also difficult to reach without something to elevate one’s height.

The red, circular pictograph is very small, measuring around 14 cm in diameter. It depicts a bird-like figure with orientation of the detached head facing east and the feet facing west, with what has been interpreted as a tail, and with the body and wings spread out as lines forming a horizontal hourglass pattern. Image digitalization aids like DStrech have been useful in making the patterns more visible.

The pictograph was not painted on with something liquid, rather it was applied by abrading something hard over the stone. A hand-held digital microscope and a portable XRF spectrometer were used to learn more about the pigment and how it might have been applied. The red pigment had a high iron content, which was determined to be the mineral hematite. Burkett used experimental archaeology to determine how siderite could have been heated with an open wood burning campfire to be converted into hematite. He placed a sample of siderite in embers and coals for 2 hours. This allowed the siderite, which prior to firing produces a brown color on a streak plate, to convert to hematite, which produced a more reddish-brown color that was consistent with hematite samples from regional prehistoric sites and the Chickaree pictograph itself.

Burkett then discussed similarities with other sites where hematite traces have been found and sites with similar figures, such as the Indian Cave Petroglyphs aka the Harrison County Pictograph site (46HS1) in West Virginia, petroglyphs within the Upper Ohio and Susquehanna river basins, or the Browns Island site (46HK8) in West Virginia. He questioned why there have not been recorded pictographs in Pennsylvania, besides the Chickaree pictograph. He suggested that perhaps they did not survive as the use of hematite and other natural pigments made them easy to be eroded or degraded from the weather and climate, as well as vegetation, which would both obscure and chemically deteriorate the images. Records from the Sullivan Expedition in 1779 stated that Native American iconography was found on trees or logs, which might be connected to the lack of pictographs found in Pennsylvania, as well.

Although Kenneth Burkett concluded that it is impossible to confirm whether the figure is an authentic prehistoric Native American pictograph or not, there are several considerations he pointed out. For one, the pictograph was put in a place that was naturally protected which contributed to its’ survival over the many years. It is also small and concealed, which is opposite of modern graffiti or vandalism which is typically large and visible to attract attention and was not present at the site. The figure itself is stylistically similar to known prehistoric figures including regional components, however the encirclement of the figure is questionable as it is not common within known styles of other Pennsylvania rock art. And finally, the hematite that was used is expected as the correct pigment.

Burkett also discussed other sites that included large rock landforms that show the importance of these landforms, as well as other parts of the landscape, to prehistoric communities. The Parker’s Landing site in Pennsylvania, popular for the 179 petroglyphs carved into a group of rocks by the Allegheny River, was one such site. He also emphasized that although we are archaeologists, we need to look around at sites in different and new perspectives, such as how the sun might hit parts of the site, or even if it is not a place where people might have settled, they still could have buried someone there or created rock art at the site if the area was important to them.

Burkett emphasized that there are most likely more pictographs out there, but indifference and ignorance might play a role in their inability to be found. However, with public education, hopefully more rock art sites can and will be discovered.

Follow IUP Anthropology on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

3D Archaeology: Tech, Techniques, and Applications for Artec3D Scanners

by Bridget Roddy

On October 5th, the Pennsylvania Archaeological Council held their first in a series of four programs in honor of 2021 Virtual Archaeology Month. This session was titled 3D Archaeology: Tech, Techniques, and Applications for Artec3D Scanners, and was led by Lisa Saladino Haney, Ph.D., assistant curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, and Josh Cannon Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh Honors College.

The Artec Space Spider.

Haney started by describing the types of 3D scanners that she is using and that could be applied to future field archaeology projects. These Artec3D scanners are the Space Spider and Eva. The Space Spider is a handheld, portable scanner that uses blue light technology that works best when scanning smaller objects or finer textures or details. It also works well with complex geometry, sharp edges, and incised ceramics. It has internal temperature stabilization, meaning it works well in the winter and summer. The Eva works better with larger objects and is also portable. It uses structured light scanning technology to capture its images. Because of its larger field of vision, it can capture more in less time. Combining both scanners allow for the collection of even more details. The presenters stated that these scanners work much better with shiny surfaces than photogrammetry. Overall, the scanners capture reflective surfaces, have a higher level of accuracy, and work faster in post-processing than photogrammetry.

The Artec Eva.

Dr. Haney and Dr. Cannon are working with University of Pittsburg honor students in a museum internship program to instruct them on how to use this technology, and once trained can hopefully send them to other sections of the Carnegie Museum where needed. Projects the scanners are being used for right now include an exhibition titled From Egypt to Pittsburgh, in which the team are scanning small fragments from a 1922 excavation from an Egyptian city called Amarna, in the hopes that the pulverized royal statuary pieces can be reconstructed and used for future research. Another project, Egypt on the Nile, plans on scanning a model of a Dahshur funerary boat to create both a virtual and physical model. They also plan to use the scanners to scan broken pot pieces to then create magnetic replicas that can be used to “put the pot back together” in a sort of puzzle, increasing accessibility and the chance to interact with ‘artifacts’ for the public.

The 3D models created from the scanners are extremely accurate, with precise and detailed measurements. This allows the data from the models to be of high quality scientifically, making them great for sharing to researchers around the world, especially in times of covid where travel and use of collections is limited. The models also aid with conservation efforts, allowing pieces to be brought out, scanned, and then put safely away, with the data being used for study and public engagement. Aligning pottery sherds with the Artec3D software that are difficult to glue together, was also illustrated as a positive example of the scanners’ possibilities.

The application for scanners to be used in the field during an archaeological excavation is promising. The scanners could be used to record small finds quickly and could also be used to scan things in situ. The models produced are more detailed, more accurate, and can be done faster than hand drawings. For archeological field surveys, battery packs can be attached to belts to make the light scanners portable and give archaeologists the ability to scan in real time. However, a laptop is needed to be attached as well, to upload the scanned data. The scanner captures images instantly, the Eva can do a square meter at a time. Josh Cannon predicted that it could scan a hearth in about ten minutes. While the scanners can handle temperature changes, it might not fare well with elements like sand or dust, but if taken care of can last a long time.

The files of data from the scans are large, and therefore external storage sources are required to remove data from laptops. If files are kept on laptops, processing times will be slowed as the hard drive fills up. The presentation ended with the viewing of a scan of a wolverine skull. It took eight different scans over an hour to create the entire skull. Even the smallest details were visible, and it took up over 1 GB of data.

The presentation was incredibly interesting, and hopefully this technology will be used to aid archaeological excavations in the future. Please consider registering for the other three programs being held throughout the month of October!

Follow IUP Anthropology on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

https://sourcegraphics.com/3d/scanners/artec/eva/

https://www.javelin-tech.com/3d/3d-scanners/artec-space-spider/

 

Working At the Carnegie Museum: A Love Affair.

by Genevieve Everett

By: Kristina Gaugler

The Carnegie Museum and I have a long history.

Early photograph of the Hall of Architecture

I was born and raised in the North Side of Pittsburgh, and like many a “city kid” I was shuttled by school bus to and from the Carnegie Museum throughout grade school, middle school, and high school. I have vivid memories of sitting at the long wooden tables in the museum cafeteria, under enormous glass windows, scarfing my brown bag lunch so I could get back to exploring. I was the kid who shushed classmates who were interrupting the docents, who asked a thousand questions, read every single word on the exhibit displays, and who didn’t want to leave at the end of the day. When I was an angst-ridden teenager, I would hang out at the museum after school, moping around the hall of architecture or sitting alone in the replica Egyptian tomb. Visiting the museum now, so many years later, I still have the same feelings of comfort and wonder as I did when I was younger. As an archaeologist and general history enthusiast, I love all museums, but the Carnegie definitely holds a special place for me. It feels like my museum.

My purpose in writing this post is to share some of my experiences working and volunteering at the Carnegie. I hope that I also highlight the notion that outreach programs and education within public institutions is valuable, worth our efforts, and fun for people of all ages.

I went to the University of Pittsburgh for my undergraduate in anthropology. While attending Pitt I had a work-study position through the Carnegie at the “Bone Hunters Quarry,” where I taught visitors (mostly school groups) about extinct animals through the excavation of a fake site. I learned that if you gave a small child a chisel and told them to dig wherever they wanted, you were very likely to ignite a spark within them that excited their curiosity in the past. Although, on occasion a spark was ignited within them to throw the chisel, sometimes narrowly missing your own head, those times were fun too. Either way, this was the first time that I really began to discover how much I enjoyed talking to visitors about archaeology and history.

Talking with visitors during Artifact I.D. day at the Carnegie

After graduating from Pitt, I found work as an archaeological field technician. Eventually though, I decided that I wanted to take a break from full time field work to prepare to go back to graduate school. Through a series of fortunate events I began, once again, to work for the Carnegie Museum. This time I volunteered at the Edward O’Neil Research Center, which is the Carnegie Museums off-site collections facility. My supervisor and friend, Amy Covell, allowed me the freedom to work on projects that interested me in the lab. When I started volunteering at the annex, the building was in the process of being renovated and many artifacts were going to be moved to new locations. Thus, I began my time there by helping to build permanent supports for fragile materials, including prehistoric pottery, stone tools, and glass artifacts. I learned proper handling of artifacts in accordance with the most current curatorial procedures, and I learned conservation techniques used in cleaning objects, including removing old plastics, adhesives, and ink that were used in the early days of museum storage and curation.

My favorite task at the museum however, was to be a part of the educational outreach programs. Last June I had the opportunity to speak with visitors about archaeology during the Carnegie’s “After Dark Program,” a monthly series where guests can come to the museum in the evening to explore, eat, drink, and hear lectures on various subjects. Another one of my favorite programs at the museum is “Artifact Identification Day.” This event gives visitors the opportunity to bring in their heirlooms and artifacts to have them identified by staff. It is always amazing, and sometimes humorous (see photo of me holding a Lodoicea) to help identify the items that people bring.

Holding a Lodoicea, or sea coconut, during Artifact I.D. Day. Lodoicea is the largest seed in the world! (And yes, it does look like a butt)

 

I have often thought of the Carnegie as being a museum of a museum. The Carnegie began acquiring artifacts and creating exhibits over a hundred years ago, and many of those early exhibits and artifacts are still on display. Working and volunteering at the museum gave me the opportunity to be a part of the team of people who were helping to conserve and protect these cherished items for future generations. To me, protecting artifacts and archaeological sites begins by showing people why they should care about them. For this reason, programs and institutions that promote stewardship of the past are incredibly important. History is made up of millions of stories. One of those stories is bound to pique the interest of someone! I’m very thankful for my time at the Carnegie, and I look forward to many more years of learning and visiting!

Photo of “Early Hall of Architecture” from: http://carnegiemuseums.org/about-us/our-history/

IUP DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY