Hot take: I chose the 3D scan over traditional excavation at the Trench 7 site

Everyone in my field team pushed for the old grid method, but I went with the structured light scanner for the Neolithic pit house in Exeter. It cost an extra 800 pounds and took 4 days to process, but we caught tool marks that trowels would have missed. The final report had way better context, and honestly I'd do it again. Has anyone else used photogrammetry over physical digging for a small site and regretted it?

1 comments

1 Comment

sarah81822d ago

Did the 3D scan happen to also find the lost will of whoever left the tool marks, or just the marks themselves? Because that's the only way I can see the extra 800 quid and 4 days paying off for a pit house. Look, I'm all for fancy tech, but my old professor used to say a trowel is just a scanner that you have to buy lunch for. If the report got better context and you're happy, then good for you, but I've seen a photogrammetry model that looked like a potato with a grid on it. I'll stick to my muddy boots and a good old string line, but I'll admit the tool marks thing is a nice flex.