The Rise of 3D in Maritime Archaeology

1
John McCarthy, Jonathan Benjamin, Trevor Winton,
and Wendy van Duivenvoorde

Abstract 1.1 Background

This chapter provides an overview of the rise of 3D tech-
nologies in the practice of maritime archaeology and sets The need for a volume focused on the use of 3D technologies
the scene for the following chapters in this volume. in maritime archaeology has become increasingly apparent
Evidence is presented for a paradigm shift in the disci- to practitioners in the field. This is due to an exponential
pline from 2D to 3D recording and interpretation tech- increase in the application of several distinct 3D recording,
niques which becomes particularly evident in publications analysis and interpretation techniques which have emerged
from 2009. This is due to the emergence or improvement and become part of the maritime archaeologist’s toolbox in
of a suite of sonar, laser, optical and other sensor-based recent years. In November of 2016, a workshop on this theme
technologies capable of capturing terrestrial, intertidal, was hosted by the UNESCO UNITWIN Network for
seabed and sub-seabed sediments in 3D and in high reso- Underwater Archaeology and Flinders University, Maritime
lution. The general increase in available computing power Archaeology Program, in Adelaide, South Australia. The
and convergence between technologies such as UNITWIN Network (2018) is a UNESCO twinning network
Geographic Information Systems and 3D modelling soft- of universities involved in education and research of mari-
ware have catalysed this process. As a result, a wide vari- time and underwater archaeology. The criteria for full mem-
ety of new analytical approaches have begun to develop bership requires that each university must offer a dedicated
within maritime archaeology. These approaches, rather degree in maritime or underwater archaeology. Membership
than the sensor technologies themselves, are of most (full and associate members) of the Network currently stands
interest to the maritime archaeologist and provide the at 30 universities worldwide and the network continues to
core content for this volume. We conclude our discussion grow as more universities with existing courses are added.
with a brief consideration of key issues such as survey Flinders University chaired the Network as its elected
standards, digital archiving and future directions. Coordinator (2015–2018), which was passed on to
Southampton University at the end of 2018. The workshop in
Keywords Adelaide and this publication have been undertaken in line
3D applications · 3D reconstruction · 3D mapping · with the objectives of the UNITWIN Network which include
Shipwrecks · Submerged landscapes · Marine survey promotion of ‘an integrated system of research, training,
information and documentation activities in the field of
archaeology related to underwater cultural heritage and
related disciplines.’ A major element of the workshop was
group discussion and many participants in the workshop
noted an urgent need for stronger communication and col-
laboration between maritime archaeologists working in the
areas of 3D applications. This volume was inspired by the
group discussions held at the workshop and is the first col-
J. McCarthy (*) · J. Benjamin · T. Winton · W. van Duivenvoorde
lection of studies devoted exclusively to discussion of 3D
Maritime Archaeology Program, Flinders University,
Adelaide, SA, Australia technologies for maritime archaeology. As such it is hoped
e-mail: john.mccarthy@flinders.edu.au; jonathan.benjamin@ that it will make an important contribution towards fulfilling
flinders.edu.au; wint0062@flinders.edu.au; wendy. the aims of the Network.
vanduivenvoorde@flinders.edu.au

© The Author(s) 2019 1

J. K. McCarthy et al. (eds.), 3D Recording and Interpretation for Maritime Archaeology, Coastal Research Library 31,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03635-5_1
2 J. McCarthy et al.

Fig. 1.1  The percentage of International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA) articles by year which mention the phrase 3D or related varia-
tions, from 1972 to mid-2018

The recent and rapid adoption of 3D techniques is well standardized 2D record has been the accepted standard for
known by practitioners of maritime archaeology but can be recording sites during the twentieth century. This includes
illustrated for those outside the discipline by tracing use of the production of scaled plans in which the third dimension
the term 3D and related variants in papers published in the was indicated using symbolic conventions, such as spot
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA). As heights and hachure lines. Such outputs remain in use but as
the longest running periodical focused on maritime archaeol- 3D surveys have become more popular there is increased
ogy (founded in 1972) a review of the IJNA serves as a use- recognition that flattening of an archaeological feature cre-
ful indicator of activity in the field. A search was undertaken ates more abstraction (Campana 2014; Morgan and Wright
of all IJNA articles (including references) using the citation 2018). This leads to some interesting debates on the tensions
analysis software Publish or Perish (Harzing 2007), which between capturing the most accurate and objective surveys
draws on the Google Scholar database. The search covered possible and the archaeologist’s ultimate goal of cultural
the period 1972 to mid-2018 and returned 466 published interpretation. So successful has been the research on high-
articles that include the term 3D (or similar variants) from a resolution 3D sensors for maritime archaeology in the last
total of 3400 articles. A breakdown by year demonstrates decade that Drap et al. (Chap. 9) can now state that ‘In a way,
clearly that use of the term in the journal was consistently building a 3D facsimile of an archaeological site is not itself
low from the first edition up to 2009 when values jumped a matter of archaeological research even in an  underwater
from roughly 6% to over 20%, up to a maximum of 65%. context.’ Menna et al. (2018) have provided an overview of
While some of these articles may only mention 3D applica- the main passive and active sensors generating 3D data for
tions in passing, this nevertheless illustrates a noteworthy maritime archaeology at present, categorized with respect to
step change within the discipline (Fig. 1.1). their useable scale, depth and applicable environment, with a
list of key associated publications for each. There will always
be a need for research into technical improvements in 3D
1.2  he Importance of 3D for Maritime
T survey techniques but research into new analytical tech-
Archaeology niques founded upon these 3D survey datasets is just begin-
ning. The chapters in this volume demonstrate this in a wide
The general shift towards greater use of 3D sensors and variety of innovative and exciting ways.
workspaces is not exclusive to archaeology and can be seen Broadly, maritime archaeology is the study of the human
in many other disciplines. Although archaeology encom- past, through material culture and physical remains, that spe-
passes many different perspectives and approaches, it is, by cifically relate the interaction between people and bodies of
definition, grounded in the physical remains of the past. A water and there are numerous factors that make data capture
1  The Rise of 3D in Maritime Archaeology 3

and analysis in 3D particularly important to the maritime mously important due to their ability to non-invasively
archaeologist. There is a greater reliance upon recording recover 3D data from shallow water (lidar bathymetry) sites
techniques that capture data quickly in maritime archaeology and from below the seabed (sub-bottom profilers and ERT),
(Flatman 2007, 78–79), especially in subaquatic environ- but due to cost and availability are not nearly as widely used
ments where maritime archaeology fieldwork often occurs. as multibeam and photogrammetry. On a final note regarding
This is mainly because of the cost of vessels and equipment, terminology, Agisoft rebranded Photoscan as Metashape
as well as the fact that divers can spend only short periods of with the release of Version 1.5 at the end of 2018. In order to
time under water. Until recently, maritime archaeologists avoid confusion, the term ‘Photoscan/Metashape’ is used
working in complex underwater surveys or excavations had throughout this volume for all versions.
to rely almost entirely upon difficult and time-consuming
manual techniques. A single measurement required a diver to
swim around the site taking several tape measurements from 1.3 Photogrammetry
datums to obtain a single position (Rule 1989). This manual
approach still has a place; however, since 2006, high resolu- One of the most rapidly adopted and widely used techniques
tion 3D capture has increasingly become the first choice of photogrammetry, or Structure from Motion, is now fre-
survey method for wrecks underwater, using both sonar and quently applied to record archaeological material underwa-
photogrammetric techniques. Of the sonar techniques, the ter—it is worth pausing here for a more detailed look at the
use of high resolution multibeam has allowed 3D capture of impact of the technique. Underwater survey of complex fea-
vast areas of the seabed in 3D at resolutions of up to a metre tures is a frequent task for maritime archaeologists, who aim
and of individual exposed wrecks at much higher resolu- to achieve a standard of recording equal to terrestrial site
tions. Demonstration of the value of high resolution multi- investigations. Excavations at Cape Gelidonya (Bass et  al.
beam for wrecks was perhaps first clearly demonstrated by 1967) are often described as the first attempt to apply this
the RASSE (Bates et  al. 2011) and ScapaMap projects standard. For some detailed wreck excavations, achieving
(Calder et  al. 2007), described as ‘the most influential in this standard  has required an investment of time and
illustrating the potential for multibeam in archaeology and money that far exceeds terrestrial excavation, particularly for
the most pertinent to multibeam use for deepwater shipwreck deep wreck sites. The excavation and survey dives required
studies’ (Warren et  al. 2010, 2455). Multibeam data are for the wreck at Uluburun reached a total of 22,413 dives to
increasingly gathered on a national scale by governmental depths of between 44 m and 61 m (Lin 2003, 9), with all the
agencies and often made available to maritime archaeolo- attendant cost and risk that goes with such high figures.
gists to underpin their site-specific studies. Work on the Since it is possible to carry out high quality photography
Scapa wrecks continues with demonstration of extremely under water, it is understandable that the potential to recover
high-quality survey and visualization for large metal wrecks measurements from photographs should have been of inter-
(Rowland and Hyttinen 2017). est from the earliest underwater surveys. Despite some suc-
Representing another step change in 3D recording, under- cesses in the earliest experiments by underwater
water photogrammetry is now capable of highly detailed sur- archaeologists (Bass 1966), the use of photogrammetry
veys of large wreck standing well above the seabed. Good failed to generate significant levels of interest for the first
examples include the Mars Project—involving comprehen- 30 years of the discipline as it remained technical and time
sive 3D survey of an incredibly well-preserved shipwreck in consuming (Green 2004, 194–202). Outside of archaeology,
the Swedish Baltic  (Eriksson and  Rönnby 2017)  and the major developments in algorithms and mathematical models
Black Sea Project—where deep-sea ROVs are being used to were slowly accruing in the field of photogrammetry
3D survey some of the oldest intact shipwrecks ever discov- (Micheletti et al. 2015, 2–3), eventually leading to the advent
ered (Pacheco-Ruiz et al. 2018). Photogrammetry even facil- of automated software packages that removed much of the
itates 3D survey of the spaces inside large vessels, as overhead for technical knowledge. These software packages
demonstrated by the early results of the Thistlegorm Project were created for use in terrestrial contexts, but scientific div-
(2018)—a comprehensive survey in 3D of one of the most ers quickly realized that they could be applied underwater
well-known and dived wrecks in the world. Other important with some simple adaptations (McCarthy and Benjamin
3D sensing techniques for the marine environment also 2014). There has been a flurry of publication in maritime
emerged around the same time, including lidar bathymetry archaeology (Menna et al. 2018, 11–14), much of which has
(Doneus et  al. 2013, 2015), 3D sub-bottom profilers focussed exclusively on the technical challenges of achiev-
(Gutowski et al. 2015; Missiaen et al. 2018; Plets et al. 2008; ing higher quality and accuracy. Photogrammetry has also
Vardy et  al. 2008) and Electrical Resistivity Tomography been extremely effective for archaeological survey when
(ERT) (Simyrdanis et al. 2016; Passaro et al. 2009; Ranieri used with multi-rotor aerial drones, which first began to
et al. 2010; Simyrdanis et al. 2015, 2018). These are enor- make an impact in archaeological publication circa 2005
4 J. McCarthy et al.

(Campana 2017, 288). Paired with software such as In practice, the umbrella term ‘photogrammetry’ appears
Photoscan/Metashape and Pix4D from 2011, drones have to have become the most popular term in archaeology to
become effective tools for coastal, intertidal and even shal- refer to this specific approach, because other types of photo-
low water ­survey for maritime archaeology (see Benjamin grammetry are now far less commonly used by practicioners.
et al. Chap. 14 for a more detailed discussion). Due to a lack of consensus at present, the editors of this vol-
A brief note on terminology for photogrammetry is neces- ume have deliberately not attempted to standardize use of the
sary as it is a broad term. Defined by the Oxford English term across the chapters. In contrast, the use of the form ‘3D’
Dictionary (2018) as ‘the use of photography in surveying has been adopted over alternatives such as ‘3-D’ or ‘three
and mapping to ascertain measurements between objects’ dimensional’ throughout, following the argument by Woods
photogrammetry has been in use as a mapping technique (2013).
since the mid-nineteenth century, primarily from airborne
cameras. The modern convergence of different technologies
and workflows from various disciplines utilising photogram- 1.4 Beyond Survey
metry at close range has created confusion in terminology
within maritime archaeological publications (McCarthy and Contributors to this volume have demonstrated meaningful
Benjamin 2014, 96). The rise of highly automated and inte- results using both simple approaches, from use of 3D scan
grated software packages such as Visual SfM, Photoscan/ data to undertake volumetric calculations, through to com-
Metashape, Reality Capture, PhotoModeler, Pix4D and plex approaches such as use of machine learning. In addition
Autodesk’s ReCap software, although built on the same prin- to enhanced levels of prospection and survey, there are an
ciples as ‘traditional photogrammetry’ are far more auto- increasing variety of new possibilities opening up as a result
mated and produce a high-resolution 3D model with little or of advances in 3D analysis for ship and aviation wrecks. In
no operator intervention. As a result, they have a much greater part, this is driven by general rise in available computing
impact on the discipline of archaeology and related sciences. power and an ongoing convergence between technologies
It is necessary to differentiate these types of workflow from such as Geographic Information Systems and 3D modelling
previous techniques, but several competing terms have been software. This has encouraged use of 3D software in a gen-
used in parallel, even by the same researchers. The term eral way. Tanner (2012) provides a good example of this
‘automated photogrammetry’ (Mahiddine et  al. 2012) has through the use of 3D scans to calculate hydrostatic perfor-
been used by some, in recognition of the much higher degree mance of vessels.
of automation in these workflows. Unfortunately, this can be Some authors have demonstrated simple and effective
confusing as there have been many incremental steps toward analytical applications for 3D data. Semaan et al. (Chap. 5)
automation of photogrammetry prior to the appearance of demonstrate use of photogrammetric surveys of stone
these software packages. One of the most widely used terms anchors to make more accurate assessments of their volume,
at present is ‘computer vision’ (Van Damme 2015a; Yamafune offering insights into vessel size. A particularly interesting
2016), the most detailed defence of which in the field of mari- application of photogrammetry for maritime archaeology is
time archaeology is provided by Van Damme (2015b, 4–13). the use of legacy photogrammetry data; using old photo-
Computer vision and photogrammetry are converging tech- graphs to generate 3D data. While there has been at least one
nologies—the subtle difference, however, is that photogram- example of this in terrestrial archaeology (Discamps et  al.
metry has a greater emphasis on the geometric integrity of the 2016), suitable photographic datasets are hard to find in the
3D model. Others have used ‘multi-image photogrammetry’ archives as there are rarely enough photographs of archaeo-
(Balletti et al. 2015; McCarthy 2014; McCarthy and Benjamin logical subjects with sufficient coverage and overlap to pro-
2014; Yamafune et al. 2016) as earlier applications of photo- cess in this way. Maritime archaeologists, however, have
grammetry have been mainly based on use of stereo pairs. relied heavily on orthomosaic photography since the first
Another popular term appearing with increasing frequency in surveys of underwater wrecks in the 1960s. Even as a manu-
the literature is Structure from Motion (SfM). Remondino ally overlapped patchwork of separate prints, photos pro-
et al. (2017, 594) define SfM as a two-step process ‘a prelimi- vided important additional details once the archaeologist
nary phase where 2D features are automatically detected and was back on dry land. As a result, there are likely to be many
matched among images and then a bundle adjustment (BA) opportunities to revisit these datasets. Green has done just
procedure to iteratively estimate all camera parameters and this (Chap. 3), reprocessing vertical photos from two ship-
3D coordinates of 2D features.’ While this definition covers wreck excavations undertaken in 1969 and 1970. The quality
the core of the process used within these software packages of the results suggests an enormous future potential for simi-
and has a strong analogy to traditional photogrammetry, SfM lar work and for new insights based on this recovered 3D
does not necessarily cover the process of meshing or textur- data. Hunter et al., in their contribution (Chap. 6), consider
ing commonly applied at the end of the workflow. whether a similar approach might be useable for single
1  The Rise of 3D in Maritime Archaeology 5

images. In their chapter, several historical photos of a ship ‘the interpretive process an archaeologist undergoes whilst
taken throughout the course of its lifetime are used to generate creating a reconstruction using procedural modelling is
a 3D model of the changing ship through a semi-automated recorded and made explicit.’ In other words, every interpre-
process that provides new insights into the life of a historical tation and assumption made by the archaeologist is codified
shipwreck. as a rule in the procedure used to generate the final model,
Public dissemination represents a major opportunity for and may in theory, be deconstructed or modified in light of
3D technologies to enhance maritime archaeology. The shar- new evidence. Suarez et  al.’s chapter is one of the most
ing of 3D survey data and of reconstructions in 3D has a developed attempts to apply procedural modelling in the
particular appeal for maritime archaeology, as the majority field of archaeology to date and demonstrates the enormous
of the public are not divers. Many sections of society cannot potential for this approach to change the way we approach
experience shipwrecks in person, for many reasons including historical ship reconstruction (Chap. 8).
opportunity, physical capacity and financial factors. The For submerged landscape applications, working in 3D
potential of ‘virtual museums’ for maritime archaeology was offers major benefits. ‘To create a useful maritime archaeo-
first discussed by Kenderdine (1998) but the first substantial logical landscape formation model, archaeological space and
projects did not begin until around 2004 (Adams 2013, time must be analysed in three dimensions, including the
93–94) and interest continues to grow (Alvik et  al. 2014; surface and water column in addition to the sea floor’
Chapman et al. 2010; Drap et al. 2007; Haydar et al. 2008; (Caporaso 2017, 17). After all, the study of submerged pre-
Sanders 2011). The iMareCulture (2018) project is amongst history is reliant on landscape change over time, sea-level
the most substantial current developments; the EU-funded change, geomorphology and sediment modelling. There, it is
collaboration between 11 partners in 8 countries, integrates necessary to understand site formation processes when pros-
archaeological data into virtual reality and further advances pecting for submerged archaeological sites. This has been
the practice by gamifying the experience (Bruno et al. 2016, demonstrated in the Southern North Sea (Gaffney et  al.
2017; Liarokapis et  al. 2017; Philbin-Briscoe et  al. 2017; 2007) where 3D deep seismic survey gathered by the oil
Skarlatos et  al. 2016). Woods et  al. provide an excellent industry was used to model a vast submerged landscape
example of virtual reality for maritime archaeology in this which would have been occupied by Mesolithic Europeans.
volume (Chap. 13), with one of the most comprehensively In researching a submerged archaeological site, the modern
captured maritime landscapes yet released. Crucially, this sea level imposes a division of the landscape that can inter-
project demonstrates impact via its wide dissemination to the fere with the archaeologist’s interpretation of that site.
public through a variety of interactive and virtual reality plat- Through an integrated suite of 3D technologies, this division
forms. Another emerging 3D dissemination strategy is the can effectively be erased. This has been amply demonstrated
use of online 3D model sharing platforms (Galeazzi et  al. by the work undertaken at the submerged Greek settlement
2016). Both Europeana (2018), the EU digital platform for of Pavlopetri (Henderson et  al. 2013; Johnson-Roberson
cultural heritage, and the popular Sketchfab (2018) website, et  al. 2017; Mahon et  al. 2011) where detailed reconstruc-
began their 3D model hosting services in 2012. While tions of the city have been extrapolated from wide-area 3D
Sketchfab does not conform to archaeological digital photogrammetric survey. In this volume, the chapter by
archiving standards, it has proven popular and hosts 3D Benjamin et al. (Chap. 14) also demonstrates this through a
models of hundreds of professional and avocational mari- series of case studies, culminating in a submerged Mesolithic
time archaeological sites and objects. Firth et al. (Chap. 12) landscape captured in 3D across and beyond the intertidal
volume demonstrate the potential power of simple tools like zone. This chapter addresses the critical issue of theory in the
Sketchfab have when combined with professional archaeo- discipline and asks how these new tools are influencing the
logical input, in this case combining scans of a builder’s way we engage with Maritime Cultural Landscapes, provid-
scale model with high resolution multibeam survey of the ing a much-needed balance to a volume that is necessarily
wreckage of the same First World War ship—an outlet that centred on technology.
has so far achieved over 20,000 views. As well as facilitating long-term accurate monitoring of
Given the widespread use of superficially realistic pseudo-­ maritime archaeological sites over time, 3D geophysical
historical animations and simulations in popular culture, par- techniques offer far more detailed non-destructive surveys of
ticularly in film and television (Gately and Benjamin 2018), shallow-buried archaeological material. Article 2 of the 2001
it is critical that genuinely researched outputs, based on UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater
archaeological data and created for educational purposes, Cultural Heritage prioritizes in situ preservation. Although
have transparent and scientifically grounded authenticity. still not widely available, there have been a few projects that
The chapter by Suarez et al. (Chap. 8) on procedural model- have demonstrated sub-seabed surveys in estuarine and
ling for nautical archaeology offers one potential solution in coastal locations in high resolution 3D without the need for
this regard for, as noted by Frankland and Earl (2012, 66), excavation. Perhaps the earliest example is by Quinn et al.
6 J. McCarthy et al.

(1997) who published the geophysical evidence for paleo-­ multiple fine-scale 3D bathymetric models can be used in
scour marks at the Mary Rose site. Subsequent technical evo- time lapse sequence and Quinn and Smyth (2017) showed
lution of 3D sub-bottom profiling systems, include a  3D how 3D ship models can be incorporated into sediment
Chirp reconstruction of the wreck of Grace Dieu (Plets et al. scour analyses. The cost of high quality 3D survey is now
2008, 2009) and Missiaen et al’s (2018) parametric 3D imag- at the point that it is likely that states will begin to develop
ing of submerged complex peat exploitation patterns. Two 3D versions of their national inventories of maritime
further ground-breaking studies on this subject appear in this archaeological sites. Radić Rossi et al. in this volume pres-
volume. Winton’s chapter on James Matthews also uses a ent ground-breaking work on a sixteenth-century wreck in
parametric sub-bottom profiler to build up a detailed model Croatia (Chap. 4), where 3D survey has been used to gen-
of a previously excavated and reburied wreck, allowing a erate 2D plans, site condition has been monitored in 3D
quantitative assessment of data quality (Chap. 10). In a simi- over multiple field seasons and the archaeological remains
lar way, the chapter by Simyrdanis et al. (Chap. 11) demon- have been fitted to a 3D reconstruction of the vessel.
strates a new technology using Electrical Resistivity In his consideration of the future of photogrammetry for
Tomography to recover the shape of a buried vessel in a riv- underwater archaeology, Drap et  al. (2013) highlighted a
erine context. These chapters clearly demonstrate the future number of future applications of the technology, including
importance of this approach. It is also telling that both chap- the merging of data from optic and acoustic sensors and has
ters have been able to incorporate use of 3D reconstructions stated that once the technical challenge of high resolution
of their vessels. and accurate survey was overcome, the ‘main problem now
is to add semantic to this survey and offering dynamic link
between geometry and knowledge’ and at that stage sug-
1.5 Future Directions gested that pattern recognition and the development of ontol-
ogies would be key steps (Drap et  al. 2013, 389). In a
A comprehensive review of all 3D technologies likely to wide-ranging contribution to this volume, Drap et al. develop
become part of maritime archaeology is beyond the scope of these ideas further, including use of virtual reality, the appli-
this chapter, though some of the techniques with significant cation of machine learning to the recognition of archaeologi-
potential are highlighted. In the concluding section of the cal objects visible in the 3D survey data and experimentation
Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology, Martin (2011, with 3D reconstruction from single images.
1094) considers the trajectory of maritime archaeology and
asked whether the role of the diver was threatened by
advances in remote sensing. In another chapter of the hand- 1.6 Standards
book, Sanders (2011) speculated that we might soon be
wearing ‘location-aware wearable computers linked to a The wave of technological innovation has occurred in such a
3D-based semantic Internet with the capability of projection-­ short space of time that knowledge sharing through publica-
holographic imagery of distant, hard-to-access, or lost mari- tion has often proved inadequate, with many practitioners
time sites.’ Since those words were written they have already developing workflows in relative isolation from their peers.
come partly true through the rise of the internet-linked GPS-­ While this has led to a flowering of experimentation and
enabled smartphones and portable virtual and augmented innovation and is part of the natural process of technological
reality headsets. Indeed, augmented reality has enormous change, it has also caused duplication, wasted effort and a
potential for maritime archaeology through the use of aug- general sense of a discipline working in unconnected silos. A
mented displays for scientific divers (Morales et al. 2009). greater problem is that the adoption of these new workflows
It is easy to see the potential benefits of overlaying risks seducing the discipline away from the rigorous stan-
sonar and photogrammetric models of underwater archae- dards using traditional recording techniques, which have
ological sites on the diver’s vision, particularly in low vis- developed over many decades.
ibility. Augmented and virtual reality systems may also To some extent the approach toward standardization will
help to give the non-diving public an immersive experi- vary by technique and will depend on whether maritime
ence of exploring underwater sites, perhaps even while in archaeologists work with technical specialists or whether an
a swimming pool (Yamashita et al. 2016). Management of attempt is made to make a technique part of their own work-
maritime archaeological sites will certainly be facilitated flow. This echoes the early debate on whether archaeologists
by these new technologies. Effective in situ management should train as divers or vice versa (Muckelroy 1978, 30–32).
requires a priori 3D information to identify lateral extent, Some techniques such as bathymetric lidar survey are likely to
height and/or depth of burial of archaeological material on remain within the hands of highly specialized technicians,
the site, their material type and state of deterioration. In while the simple nature and low cost of photogrammetry
terms of more accurately understanding site formation means that many archaeologists have taken it entirely into
processes, Quinn and Boland (2010) demonstrated how their own hands. This technique, however, has many hidden
1  The Rise of 3D in Maritime Archaeology 7

complexities and Huggett (2017) has highlighted the potential technical forms into accessible tools with wide appeal. After
danger of blind reliance on technologies that processes and several decades of relatively incremental refinement of man-
transform data in ways not generally understood by the user. ual and low-resolution survey methods, and highly abstracted
As Remondino et al. (2017, 591) state ‘nowadays many and symbolized 2D modes of analysis and dissemination, a
conferences are filled with screenshots of photogrammetric watershed has been reached in the last decade whereby mari-
models and cameras floating over a dense point cloud. time archaeology has rapidly added 3D digital practices to its
Nonetheless object distortions and deformations, scaling core toolbox. The need for enhancements of these survey
problems and non-metric products are very commonly pre- techniques (as well as research into new technologies) con-
sented but not understood or investigated.’ A small number tinues, however, high-resolution data capture in 3D is now
of guidance documents have begun to appear for photogram- possible across submerged, terrestrial and coastal, marine
metry. Perhaps the most detailed in the English language for and freshwater environments both shallow and deep.
capture using current techniques is that by Historic England, Practitioners are developing a fluency in 3D working prac-
which includes case studies for maritime archaeology tices to deal with these datasets and this has led to a flower-
(Historic England 2017, 102–106). This guidance includes ing of different analytical approaches that were not possible
important sections on the use and configuration of control in the past. The review of changes in the past decades sug-
networks, calculation of accuracy as well as formats and gests that it would be foolhardy to predict the future direc-
standards for archiving of digital data. tion of technologies but it is clear that changes will continue.
Austin et  al. (2009) have written guidance for marine If anything, advances are likely to accelerate. It is more
remote sensing and photogrammetry, focused mainly on important than ever that practitioners defend the discipline’s
data management and archiving, although this is already scientific status, through the maintenance of standards as
quite dated after less than a decade. At the time of writing, they relate to recording, analysis, interpretation, dissemina-
there is no detailed formal guidance focused on underwater tion and archiving of archaeology in 3D.
photogrammetry. While most of the important information
is available in journal publications, such sources tend to
present case studies with specific workflows which are still References
experimental in many ways. Shortis, who has been heavily
involved in the development of photogrammetry for scien- Adams JR (2013) Experiencing shipwrecks and the primacy of vision.
In: Adams JR, Ronnby J (eds) Interpreting shipwrecks: maritime
tific recording, has provided a chapter for this volume that archaeological approaches. The Highfield Press, Southampton, pp
discusses these issues (Chap. 2). Numerous authors have 85–96
also highlighted the risks of disruption of archiving stan- Alvik R, Hautsalo V, Klemelä U, Leinonen A, Matikka H, Tikkanen S,
dards in this period of rapid transition to digital technolo- Vakkari E (2014) The Vrouw Maria underwater project 2009–2012
final report. National Board of Antiquities, vol 2. National Board of
gies (Austin et  al. 2009; Jeffrey 2012). One possible Antiquities, Helsinki
solution to this challenge is the publication of supplemen- Austin BT, Bateman J, Jeffrey S, Mitcham J, Niven K (2009) Marine
tary digital data alongside academic papers (Castro and remote sensing and photogrammetry: a guide to good practice.
Drap 2017, 46) and the International Journal of Nautical VENUS Virtual Exploration of Underwater Site. Information
Society Technologies http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/
Archaeology has taken the first step in this direction by g2gp.pdf?page=VENUS_Toc&xsl=test.xsl&ext=.pdf. Accessed 5
publishing an online 3D model alongside an article (Cooper Aug 2018
et al. 2018). A similar facility has also been offered to the Balletti C, Beltrame C, Costa E, Guerra F, Vernier P (2015)
authors of the current volume. While not a complete solu- Photogrammetry in maritime and underwater archaeology: two
marble wrecks from Sicily. In: Pezzati L, Targowski P (eds)
tion equivalent to a national infrastructure for comprehen- Proceedings SPIE 9527: optics for arts, architecture, and archaeol-
sive digital archiving, this approach does provide an ogy V, 95270M (30 June 2015). SPIE Optical Metrology, Munich,
improved record of digital archaeological investigations pp 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2184802
compared to a 2D publication and this will facilitate further Bass GF (1966) Archaeology under water. Praeger, New York
Bass GF, Throckmorton P, Taylor JP, Hennessy JB, Shulman AR,
reuse and reinterpretation of data. Buchholz H-G (1967) Cape Gelidonya: a Bronze Age shipwreck.
Trans Am Philos Soc 57(8):1–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/1005978
Bates CR, Lawrence M, Dean M, Robertson P (2011) Geophysical
1.7 Conclusions methods for wreck-site monitoring: the Rapid Archaeological Site
Surveying and Evaluation (RASSE) programme. Int J Naut Archaeol
40(2):404–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2010.00298.x
The timing of the great leap in interest in 3D seen in IJNA Bruno F, Lagudi A, Barbieri L, Muzzupappa M, Ritacco G, Cozza A,
articles from 2009 onwards can be correlated with the intro- Cozza M, Peluso R, Lupia M, Cario G (2016) Virtual and augmented
duction or maturation of several different 3D survey tech- reality tools to improve the exploitation of underwater archaeologi-
cal sites by diver and non-diver tourists. In: Ioannides M, Fink E,
niques and 3D dissemination tools. Some of these had a long Moropoulou A, Hagedorn-Saupe M, Fresa A, Liestøl G, Rajcic V,
history, such as photogrammetry, but had evolved from niche
8 J. McCarthy et al.

Grussenmeyer P (eds) Digital heritage. Progress in cultural heri- Frankland T, Earl G (2012) Authority and authenticity in future archae-
tage: documentation, preservation, and protection, EuroMed 2016. ological visualisation. In: Hohl M (ed) Making visible the invis-
Lecture notes in computer science, vol 10058. Springer, Cham, ible: art, design and science in data visualisation. University of
pp 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_22 Huddersfield, Huddersfield, pp 62–68
Bruno F, Lagudi A, Ritacco G, Philpin-Briscoe O, Poullis C, Mudur S, Gaffney VL, Thomson K, Fitch S (eds) (2007) Mapping Doggerland:
Simon B (2017) Development and integration of digital technolo- the Mesolithic landscapes of the Southern North Sea. Archaeopress,
gies addressed to raise awareness and access to European underwa- Oxford
ter cultural heritage: an overview of the H2020 i-MARECULTURE Galeazzi F, Callieri M, Dellepiane M, Charno M, Richards J, Scopigno
project. Oceans. 2017 – Aberdeen. Aberdeen: 1–10. https://doi. R (2016) Web-based visualization for 3D data in archaeology: the
org/10.1109/OCEANSE.2017.8084984?src=document ADS 3D viewer. J  Archaeol Sci 9:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Calder BR, Forbes B, Mallace D (2007) Marine heritage monitoring jasrep.2016.06.045
with high-resolution survey tools: Scapa flow 2001–2006. In: US Gately I, Benjamin J  (2018) Archaeology hijacked: addressing the
hydrographic conference, pp 1–23 historical misappropriations of maritime and underwater archae-
Campana S (2014) 3D modeling in archaeology and cultural heri- ology. J  Marit Archaeol 13(1):15–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/
tage—theory and best practice. In: Campana S, Remondino F (eds) s11457-017-9177-8
3D recording and modelling in archaeology and cultural heritage. Green J (2004) Maritime archaeology: a technical handbook, 2nd edn.
BAR International Series 2598. British Archaeological Reports, Elsevier, London
pp 7–12 Gutowski M, Malgorn J, Vardy M (2015) 3D sub-bottom profiling—
Campana S (2017) Drones in archaeology: state-of-the-art and future high resolution 3D imaging of shallow subsurface structures and
perspectives. Archaeol Prospect 24(4):275–296. https://doi. buried objects. In: Proceedings of MTS/IEEE OCEANS 2015.
org/10.1002/arp.1569 Genova, Discovering Sustainable Ocean Energy for a New World,
Caporaso A (2017) A dynamic processual maritime archaeological pp 1–7
landscape formation model. In: Caporaso A (ed) Formation pro- Harzing AW (2007) Publish or Perish. https://harzing.com/resources/
cesses of maritime archaeological landscapes, When the land meets publish-or-perish. Accessed 7 Aug 2018
the sea book series (ACUA). Springer, Cham, pp 7–31. https://doi. Haydar M, Maidi M, Roussel D, Drap P, Bale K, Chapman P (2008)
org/10.1007/978-3-319-48787-8 ‘Virtual exploration of underwater archaeological sites: visualiza-
Castro F, Drap P (2017) A arqueologia marítima e o futuro—mari- tion and interaction in mixed reality environments. In: Ashley M,
time archaeology and the future. Revista Latino-Americana de Hermon S, Proenca A, Rodriguez-Echavarria K (eds) Proceedings
Arqueologia. For Hist 11:40–55 of VAST: international symposium on virtual reality, archaeology
Chapman P, Bale K, Drap P (2010) We all live in a virtual submarine. and intelligent cultural heritage. The Eurographics Association,
IEEE Comput Graph Appl 30(1):85–89. https://doi.org/10.1109/ pp 141–148. https://doi.org/10.2312/VAST/VAST08/141-148
MCG.2010.20 Henderson JC, Pizarro O, Johnson-Roberson M, Mahon I (2013)
Cooper JP, Wetherelt A, Eyre M (2018) From boatyard to museum: Mapping submerged archaeological sites using stereo-vision pho-
3D laser scanning and digital modelling of the Qatar Museums togrammetry. Int J  Naut Archaeol 42(2):243–256. https://doi.
watercraft collection. Int J  Naut Archaeol 47(2):1–24. https://doi. org/10.1111/1095-9270.12016
org/10.1111/1095-9270.12298 Historic England (2017) Photogrammetric applications for cultural
Discamps E, Muth X, Gravina B, Lacrampe-Cuyaubère F, Chadelle JP, heritage: guidance for good practice. Swindon
Faivre JP, Maureille B (2016) Photogrammetry as a tool for inte- Huggett J  (2017) The apparatus of digital archaeology. Internet
grating archival data in archaeological fieldwork: examples from Archaeol (44). https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.7
the Middle Palaeolithic sites of Combe-Grenal, Le Moustier, and iMareCulture (2018) http://imareculture.weebly.com. Accessed 1 Aug
Regourdou. J  Archaeol Sci 8:268–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 2018
jasrep.2016.06.004 Jeffrey S (2012) A new digital dark age? collaborative web tools, social
Doneus M, Doneus N, Briese C, Pregesbauer M, Mandlburger G, media and long-term preservation. World Archaeol 44(4):553–570.
Verhoeven GJ (2013) Airborne laser bathymetry—detecting and https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.737579
recording submerged archaeological sites from the air. J Archaeol Johnson-Roberson M, Bryson M, Friedman A, Pizarro O, Troni G,
Sci 40(4):2136–2151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.021 Ozog P, Henderson JC (2017) High-resolution underwater robotic
Doneus M, Miholjek I, Mandlburger G, Doneus N, Verhoeven GJ, vision-based mapping and three-dimensional reconstruction for
Briese C, Pregesbauer M (2015) Airborne laser bathymetry for archaeology. J  Field Robot 34:625–643. https://doi.org/10.1002/
documentation of submerged archaeological sites in shallow water. rob.21658
Int Arch Photogramm, Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci Arch 40(5W5):99– Kenderdine S (1998) Sailing on the silicon sea: the design of a virtual
107. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W5-99-2015 maritime museum. Arch Mus Inform 12(1):17–38
Drap P, Seinturier J, Scaradozzi D, Gambogi P, Long L, Gauch F (2007) Liarokapis F, Kouřil P, Agrafiotis P, Demesticha S, Chmelík J, Skarlatos
Photogrammetry for virtual exploration of underwater archaeologi- D (2017) 3D Modelling and mapping for virtual exploration of
cal sites. Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium of CIPA, underwater archaeology assets. Int Arch Photogramm, Remote
Athens, Greece, 1–6 October 2007, 6 pp Sens Spat Inf Sci Arch XLII-2/W3(March):425–431. https://doi.
Drap P, Merad DD, Mahiddine A, Seinturier J, Peloso D, Boï J-M, org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W3-425-2017
Chemisky B, Long L (2013) Underwater photogrammetry for Lin SS (2003) Lading of the Late Bronze Age ship at Uluburun. MA
archaeology: what will be the next step? Int J  Herit Digit Era thesis, Texas A&M University
2(3):375–394. https://doi.org/10.1260/2047-4970.2.3.375 Mahiddine A, Seinturier J, Peloso D, Boï J-M, Drap P, Merad D D,
Eriksson N, Rönnby J (2017) Mars (1564): the initial archaeological Long L (2012) Underwater image preprocessing for automated
investigations of a great 16th-century Swedish warship. Int J Naut photogrammetry in high turbidity water: an application on the
Archaeol 46(1):92–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/1095-9270.12210 Arles-Rhone XIII Roman wreck in the Rhodano river, France. In:
Europeana (2018) https://www.europeana.eu. Accessed 23 July 2018 Proceedings of the 18th international conference on virtual systems
Flatman J (2007) The origins and ethics of maritime archaeology part and multimedia (VSMM 2012), Milan, Italy, 2–5 September 2012.
I.  Public Archaeol 6(2):77–97. https://doi.org/10.1179/1753553 Virtual Systems in the Information Society, pp 189–194. https://doi.
07X230739 org/10.1109/VSMM.2012.6365924
1  The Rise of 3D in Maritime Archaeology 9

Mahon I, Pizarro O, Johnson-Roberson M, Friedman A, Williams Quinn R, Smyth TAG (2017) Processes and patterns of flow, ero-
SB, Henderson JC (2011) Reconstructing Pavlopetri: mapping the sion, and deposition at shipwreck sites: a computational fluid
world’s oldest submerged town using stereo-vision. In: Proceedings dynamic simulation. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 2017:11. https://doi.
of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automa- org/10.1007/s12520-017-0468-7
tion, 9–13 May 2011. IEEE, Shanghai, pp 2315–2321. https://doi. Quinn R, Bull JM, Dix JK, Adams JR (1997) The Mary Rose site—
org/10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980536 geophysical evidence for palaeo-scour marks. Int J Naut Archaeol
Martin P (2011) Conclusion: future directions. In: Catsambis A, Ford 26(1):3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-9270.1997.tb01309.x
B, Hamilton DL (eds) The Oxford handbook of maritime archaeol- Ranieri G, Loddo F, Godio A, Stocco S, Cosentino PL, Capizzi
ogy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp  1085–1101. https://doi. P, Messina P, Savini A, Bruno V, Cau MA, Orfila M (2010)
org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336005.001.0001 Reconstruction of archaeological features in a Mediterranean
McCarthy J (2014) Multi-image photogrammetry as a practical tool for coastal environment using non-invasive techniques. In: Making
cultural heritage survey and community engagement. J Archaeol Sci history interactive: computer applications and quantitative meth-
43:175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.01.010 ods in archaeology: proceedings of the 37th international confer-
McCarthy JK, Benjamin J  (2014) Multi-image photogrammetry for ence, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA, 22–26 March. CAA2009. BAR
underwater archaeological site recording: an accessible, diver-based International Series S2079. 19(2000), pp 330–337
approach. J  Marit Archaeol 9(1):95–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Remondino F, Nocerino E, Toschi I, Menna F (2017) A critical review
s11457-014-9127-7 of automated photogrammetric processing of large datasets. Int
Menna F, Agrafiotis P, Georgopoulos A (2018) State of the art and Arch Photogramm, Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-2/W5:591–599.
applications in archaeological underwater 3D recording and https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-591-2017
mapping. J  Cult Herit 2017:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Rowland C, Hyttinen K (2017) Photogrammetry in depth: reveal-
culher.2018.02.017 ing HMS Hampshire. In: Bowen JP, Diprose G, Lambert N (eds)
Micheletti N, Chandler JH, Lane SN (2015) Structure from motion Proceedings of electronic visualisation and the arts (EVA 2017),
(SfM) photogrammetry. British Society for Geomorphology. London, UK, 11–13 July 2017. EVA, London, pp 358–364. https://
Geomorphol Tech 2(2):12 doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVA2017.72
Missiaen T, Evangelinos D, Claerhout C, De Clercq M, Pieters M, Rule N (1989) The Direct Survey Method (DSM) of underwater survey,
Demerre I (2018) Archaeological prospection of the nearshore and its application underwater. Int J Naut Archaeol 18(2):157–162.
and intertidal area using ultra-high resolution marine acous- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-9270.1989.tb00187.x
tic techniques: results from a test study on the Belgian coast at Sanders DH (2011) Virtual reconstruction of maritime sites and
Ostend-Raversijde. Geoarchaeology 33(3):386–400. https://doi. artifacts. In: Catsambis A, Ford B, Hamilton DL (eds) The
org/10.1002/gea.21656 Oxford handbook of maritime archaeology. Oxford University
Morales R, Keitler P, Maier P, Klinker G (2009) An underwater aug- Press, Oxford, pp  305–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfor
mented reality system for commercial diving operations. Oceans dhb/9780199336005.001.0001
2009(1–3):794–801 Simyrdanis K, Papadopoulos N, Kim J-H, Tsourlos P, Moffat I (2015)
Morgan C, Wright H (2018) Pencils and pixels: drawing and digital Archaeological investigations in the shallow seawater environ-
media in archaeological field recording. J Field Archaeol 43(2):1– ment with electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surf Geophys
16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488 13(6):601–611. https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2015045
Muckelroy K (1978) Maritime archaeology. Cambridge University Simyrdanis K, Papadopoulos N, Cantoro G (2016) Shallow off-shore
Press, Cambridge archaeological prospection with 3-D electrical resistivity tomogra-
Oxford English Dictionary (2018) Oxford Dictionaries. https://www. phy: the case of Olous (Modern Elounda), Greece. Remote Sens
oxforddictionaries.com/. Accessed 23 July 2018 8(11):897. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8110897
Pacheco-Ruiz R, Adams J, Pedrotti F (2018) 4D modelling of low Simyrdanis K, Moffat I, Papadopoulos N, Kowlessar J, Bailey M
visibility underwater archaeological excavations using multi- (2018) 3D mapping of the submerged Crowie barge using elec-
source photogrammetry in the Bulgarian Black Sea. J Archaeol Sci trical resistivity tomography. Int J  Geophys:1–11. https://doi.
100:120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.10.005 org/10.1155/2018/6480565
Passaro S, Budillon F, Ruggieri S, Bilotti G, Cipriani M, Di Maio R, Skarlatos D, Agrafiotis P, Balogh T, Bruno F, Castro F, Petriaggi BD,
D’Isanto C, Giordano F, Leggieri C, Marsella E, Soldovieri MG Demesticha S, Doulamis A, Drap P, Georgopoulos A, Kikillos
(2009) Integrated geophysical investigation applied to the defini- F, Kyriakidis P, Liarokapis F, Poullis C, Rizvic S (2016) Project
tion of buried and outcropping targets of archaeological relevance iMARECULTURE: advanced VR, iMmersive serious games
in very shallow water. Il Quaternario (Ital J Quat Sci) 22(1):33–38 and augmented REality as tools to raise awareness and access to
Philbin-Briscoe O, Simon B, Mudur S, Poullis C, Rizvic S, Boskovic European underwater CULTURal heritagE.  In: Ioannides M et  al
D, Katsouri I, Demesticha S, Skarlatos D (2017) A serious game (eds) Digital heritage: progress in cultural heritage: documentation,
for understanding ancient seafaring in the Mediterranean Sea. In: preservation, and protection, EuroMed 2016. Lecture notes in com-
Proceedings of the 2017 9th international conference on virtual puter science, vol 10058. Springer, Cham, pp 805–813. https://doi.
worlds and games for serious applications, Athens, 6–8 September org/10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_64
2017, pp 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2017.8055804 Sketchfab (2018) https://sketchfab.com. Accessed 23 July 2018
Plets RMK, Dix JK, Best AI (2008) Mapping of the buried Tanner P (2012) The application of 3D laser scanning for recording
Yarmouth roads wreck, Isle of Wight, UK, using a chirp sub- vessels in the field. Naut Archaeol Soc Newsl: 1–4
bottom profiler. Int J Naut Archaeol 37(2):360–373. https://doi. The Thistlegorm Project (2018) The Thistlegorm project: an archaeo-
org/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2007.00176.x logical survey of the SS Thistlegorm, Red Sea, Egypt. http://thethis-
Plets RMK, Dix JK, Adams JR, Bull JM, Henstock TJ, Gutowski M, tlegormproject.com. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Best AI (2009) The use of a high-resolution 3D Chirp sub-bottom The UNITWIN Network (2018) http://www.underwaterarchaeology.
profiler for the reconstruction of the shallow water archaeological net. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
site of the Grace Dieu (1439), River Hamble, UK. J Archaeol Sci Van Damme T (2015a) Computer vision photogrammetry for underwa-
36(2):408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.026 ter archaeological site recording: a critical assessment. MA thesis,
Quinn R, Boland D (2010) The role of time-lapse bathymetric surveys University of Southern Denmark
in assessing morphological change at shipwreck sites. J  Archaeol Van Damme T (2015b) Computer vision photogrammetry for under-
Sci 37(11):2938–2946 water archaeological site recording in a low-visibility environment.
10 J. McCarthy et al.

Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XL-5/W5:231–238. Yamafune K (2016) Using computer vision photogrammetry (Agisoft
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W5-231-2015 Photoscan) to record and analyze underwater shipwreck sites. PhD
Vardy ME, Dix JK, Henstock TJ, Bull JM, Gutowski M (2008) dissertation, Texas A&M University
Decimeter-resolution 3D seismic volume in shallow water: a case Yamafune K, Torres R, Castro F (2016) Multi-image photogram-
study in small-object detection. Geophysics 73(2):B33–B40 metry to record and reconstruct underwater shipwreck sites. J
Warren D, Wu C-W, Church RA, Westrick R (2010) Utilization of Archaeol Method Theory 24(3):703–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/
multibeam bathymetry and backscatter for documenting and plan- s10816-016-9283-1
ning detailed investigations of deepwater archaeological sites. Yamashita S, Zhang X, Rekimoto J  (2016) AquaCAVE: augmented
In: Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, 3–6 May, swimming environment with immersive surround-screen vir-
Houston, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4043/20853-MS tual reality. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual symposium on
Woods A (2013) 3D or 3-D: a study of terminology, usage and style. user interface software and technology, pp  183–184. https://doi.
Eur Sci Editing 39(3):59–62 org/10.1145/2984751.2984760

Open Access  This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in
a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statu-
tory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.