(University of Florence, Italy)
The proliferation of 3d reconstructions doesn’t always validate these applications as tools of description, synthesis, explanation, or validation. Even tough in the last years the literature offers many examples of theorizations and focuses on the need of clarifying the aims and processes involved in 3D modeling, listing the potentialities, the applications often do not completely fulfill those assumptions. VA applications need a more clear and honest approach in order to became an effectively research tool overcoming the distrust, especially in the academic world, towards scientific visualization.
The potentiality of 3d reconstructions, considered in a wide sense, are well highlighted and outlined within many projects; what misses are the ending results, whether positive or negative, from an archaeological point of view. Often the level of IT research doesn’t run parallel with the historical-archaeological research which becomes secondary.
The issue pointed out in this paper concerns some of the aspects which are involved when addressing research questions, specifically within small projects, in which the archaeological documentation didn’t foreseen originally further 3d elaborations. Working on data stored in a traditional archaeological documentation implies the need to verify the data and to express them in a explicit way by a “philological procedure”, adding value to further analyses. In Prehistoric sites often the lack of evident structures need an augmented data display in order to better show potential informations embedded in the 3 coordinates. The effectively use of an elaborate documentation should start to become a routine which in a primary stage may integrate textual description.
Case-study will be presented.