Next Article in Journal
HBIM and Information Management for Knowledge and Conservation of Architectural Heritage: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Soil Erosion Risk in Cultural Heritage Sites: A Bibliometric Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Earth to Interface: Towards a 3D Semantic Virtual Stratigraphy of the Funerary Ara of Ofilius Ianuarius from the Via Appia Antica 39 Burial Complex

by
Matteo Lombardi
1,* and
Rachele Dubbini
2
1
Independent Researcher, 00100 Rome, Italy
2
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, 44100 Ferrara, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2025, 8(8), 305; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8080305
Submission received: 10 July 2025 / Revised: 28 July 2025 / Accepted: 29 July 2025 / Published: 30 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Digital Heritage)

Abstract

This paper presents the integrated study of the funerary ara of Ofilius Ianuarius, discovered within the burial complex of Via Appia Antica 39, and explores its digital stratigraphic recontextualisation through two 3D semantic workflows. The research aims to evaluate the potential of stratigraphic 3D modelling as a tool for post-excavation analysis and transparent archaeological interpretation. Starting from a set of georeferenced photogrammetric models acquired between 2023 and 2025, the study tests two workflows: (1) an EMF-based approach using the Extended Matrix, Blender, and EMviq for stratigraphic relationship modelling and online visualisation; (2) a semantic integration method using the .gltf format and the CRMArcheo Annotation Tool developed in Blender, exported to the ATON platform. While both workflows enable accurate 3D documentation, they differ in their capacity for structured semantic enrichment and interoperability. The results highlight the value of combining reality-based models with semantically linked stratigraphic proxies and suggest future directions for linking archaeological datasets, ontologies, and interactive digital platforms. This work contributes to the ongoing effort to foster transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility in virtual archaeological reconstruction.

1. Introduction

The archaeological excavation at the site of Via Appia Antica 39 in Rome started in 2022, under a three-year concession from the Italian Ministry of Culture, and has brought to light the portion of a burial complex from the middle of the 2nd century AD1.
The site is located just outside the Aurelian Walls between the first and second miles of the consular road, in the heart of the Almo valley, next to the river (Figure 1). The burial complex refers to the already well-known typology of funerary areas that, at this time, were arranged along the major traffic routes outside Roman cities. Indeed, consular roads were selected for their prestige, giving honour and distinction to the deceased and their families: here the tombs were aligned along the roads according to a principle of visibility, arranged in several rows and forming networks of paths secondary to the main one [2]. Eight funerary buildings, an enclosure, and a platform, arranged in several rows and located along the ridge of the slope that sloped down from the Appian Way towards the Almo river, were brought to light. The buildings stood without interruption, literally leaning against each other, with a north–south alignment, identical to that of the Appian Way. The structures closest to the via Appia probably opened in the direction of the consular road, while the others had their entrances on the north side, except for Building 6: this opens westwards onto a secondary walkway, which is roughly perpendicular to the two main paths with an east–west orientation. Unfortunately, it has not yet been possible to define the relationship between the road and the tombs closest to it, as the ancient consular road runs substantially under the present-day road, at a depth that is unknown but can be reconstructed—based on a comparison with a section of the Appian Way discovered a few metres further south—at a relative elevation of approximately m -1.27 above the contemporary road level [3] 2 (Figure 2). In the southern area of the excavation trench, an imposing wall in opus quadratum of tufa blocks, decorated with a smooth band on the northern side, delimited an open area with respect to the space of the plot where the funerary buildings were built. This wall is probably a funerary enclosure of exceptional dimensions, which defined an open space, perhaps a garden with a funerary monument in the centre, located south of our excavation area. If this interpretation is correct, the dating of the block wall should not go beyond the beginning of the imperial period [4]3. Anyway, the block wall constitutes the terminus post quem for the construction of the burial plot. The funerary buildings leaned against the northern side of the wall without any space of respect, while on the opposite side an essentially open area was used to accommodate, probably after the abandonment of the funerary patterns of the Imperial time, burials simply dug into the earth and mostly covered by tiles (cappuccina) or fragments of broken amphorae. The presence of the Almo river is fundamental to the history of the site: a slow and inexorable rise in the water level led to a crucial issue, probably as early as the end of the 3rd century A.D. Between the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., the situation must by then have been unsustainable, so much so that it led to the abandonment of the monuments and a unified obliteration of the structures carried out with considerable filling in, mostly consisting of materials allochthonous to the funerary context, which was thus literally sealed and therefore protected4. Traces of later frequentation are faint, consisting only of the haphazard re-use of old structures; a number of earthen tombs datable to the 7th century A.D. have been identified next to the existing buildings, while on the northern limit of the excavation area, on the levelled edges of Buildings 2, 6, and 7, a glareata road diverging from the orientation of the Appian Way was set up, probably in Medieval times, which must have connected the consular road to an unknown context close to the Almo river. The central area of the excavation had been affected by a spoliation activity in the 16th century. A dense network of cuts related to a canalisation system for the drainage of water towards the Almo river, datable to the 17th century, has been recognised throughout the excavation area. A wall with a south-west–north-east direction, consisting of re-used material, dates to a more recent period, as does the open paved area that this wall bordered to the east, which was probably a clearing on the Appian Way. Other faint traces probably pertain to simple constructions that were most likely demolished in the 1930s. The funerary buildings of the Imperial burial plot seem to have been constructed according to a pre-established plan in the same chronological context: they have the same orientation—on an axis with the Appian Way—and are of the same type with a rectangular plan and mixed burial rite (i.e., inhumation and cremation rites), with arcosolia opening onto the floor above the formae and several orders of niches to house pairs of ollae5. The variable dimensions of the buildings and the non-alignment of the façades with respect to the internal paths suggest that the owners of the tombs had a certain freedom in the design of their monument in relation to the space available within the plot. The framing of the first construction activity (a framing that is still generic at the moment, considering the progress of the investigations) in the middle of the 2nd century AD is supported not only by the presence of a mixed burial rite, but above all by the chosen architectural model, which was widespread in Rome and the surrounding territory in this period: a medium-sized funerary chamber with a quadrangular plan, with outer walls in accurate opus latericium left exposed, and, generally, windows on either side of the central epitaph. The roof was probably characterised by a barrel vault or a terraced floor [5]6.

2. Materials and Methods

In such a socially and archaeologically rich and complex context, further complicated by the presence of the river’s water table, the rationale behind digital documentation processes become even more fundamental. For this reason, an integrated documentation system was adopted during the excavation campaigns, combining a geodatabase system with extensive 3D data acquisition. This article focuses on the analysis of the finds recovered within Building 4 and, more importantly, on exploiting the vast amount of 3D data recorded alongside the excavation activities. Thus, this section presents the methodological framework adopted to document, analyse, and digitally reconstruct the stratigraphic context of the funerary ara of Ofilius Ianuarius, discovered in Building 4 of the Via Appia Antica 39 excavation site. After introducing the archaeological setting of the monument and the discovery of its lid, the section focuses on the challenges and opportunities of publishing excavation data online. In particular, it explores two parallel digital workflows aimed at reconstructing the stratigraphy via semantic 3D visualisations: one based on the Extended Matrix Framework (EMF), integrating semantic graphs and virtual reconstructions; and one based on semantic enrichment through the glTF format and the CRMArcheo ontology.

2.1. Building 4 and the Funerary Ara of Ofilius Ianuarius

During June 2023, the excavation activities focused on Building 4, located in the south-west corner of the excavation area (Figure 2). The building has been identified as a funerary monument featuring a mixed burial rite, equipped with arcosolia for inhumation burials at floor level and niches containing urns for cremation. The monument is rectangular in plan, measuring approximately 4.5 m in width and 4 m in length. Its outer facing is constructed in brick, while the internal core consists of a composite masonry technique, alternating one course of bricks and one of rectangular tuff blocks. The internal layout of the space reveals the presence of at least three arcosolia along the walls, alongside three well-preserved niches containing urns, which remain visible (cf.). The monument’s state of preservation has been significantly compromised, likely due to levelling interventions carried out in the modern era and to spoliation activities that took place in antiquity. The first tier of urns and arcosolia is preserved to a reasonable extent up to a height of approximately 1 m; the remainder of the structure has been entirely lost. Furthermore, the east wall of the monument has been destroyed, presumably as a result of spoliation aimed at recovering construction materials. The south wall, constructed abutting the earlier block wall, is also heavily damaged. Both this wall and the western wall have yielded sections of fresco decoration in a good state of preservation. The structure, whose phase of obliteration is still under investigation, appears to date to the same chronological horizon as the main phase of the funerary complex (2nd century CE), based on construction techniques, brick stamps, and the presence of both niches and arcosolia. During the June–July 2023 excavation campaign, the upper surface of a funerary ara, still in situ, was uncovered. The exceptional condition of the find, which appeared well preserved despite the absence of a visible lid, necessitated an emergency intervention to secure the artefact7. The ara, carved from white marble, is in excellent condition and has a parallelepiped form, with a framed front face. It stands 76 cm high, 59.5 cm wide, and 38 cm deep. The upper surface features a circular opening with a diameter of 24 cm, intended to contain the ashes of the deceased. This cavity, approximately 30 cm deep, has a truncated conical shape, widening at the base to a diameter of 29 cm (Figure 3).
The lower portion of the ara is adorned with a moulding that runs along three of its sides, excluding the rear. The moulding consists of a 10 cm high base plinth, followed by a slight step (approx. 0.5 cm), and a sequence of torus, fillet, reversed cavetto (kyma reverso), ending with another fillet. The rear face, entirely smooth, exhibits clear chisel marks, particularly visible along its bordering edges. This specimen exemplifies a well-attested typology of funerary altars widespread during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, characterised by the simplicity of the ara’s body, distinguished mainly by its base moulding, and typically surmounted by more elaborately decorated lids. The inscription field measures 39 cm × 47 cm and is framed by a double moulding. The epigraphic text reads as follows (Figure 4):
D(is) M(anibus)
C(aius) Ofilius Ianuari/
us se vivus fec(it)
sibi et suis et
5 libert(is) liberta/
busque poste/
risque
eorum
Figure 4. The front side of the ara. On the left text enhancement via Lambertian randiace scaling filter in Meshlab.
Figure 4. The front side of the ara. On the left text enhancement via Lambertian randiace scaling filter in Meshlab.
Heritage 08 00305 g004
Caius Ofilius Ianuarius made for himself still alive, the freedoms, the freedmen, and their children”. The presence of a hedera distinguens as punctuation mark at the seventh line of the inscription is noteworthy. This element, together with the contracted form used in the dedication to the Dis Manes, appears to further support the proposed dating [7]. The attestation of the nomen/gentilicium Ofilius shows a moderate distribution in Rome, particularly between the mid-2nd and 3rd centuries CE. A funerary inscription from the Via Ostiense, discovered in the former Vigna Villani, mentions an Ofilius Ianuarius who constructed a funerary monument for himself and his freedmen and freedwomen. Although the exact dating of this inscription remains uncertain (cf. CIL 06, 23391(1); see p. 3529(2); CLE 1587(3)), the funerary context is generally dated to the same period of the Appia Antica 39 site. The finds may represent either a simple case of homonymy or, considering that both inscriptions feature the term vivus, they could reveal the action of a single individual who acquired multiple burial plots well in advance. Also of interest is a sarcophagus inscription, dated between the mid-2nd and 3rd centuries CE and now housed at the Istituto Massimo in Rome. It is dedicated to Ofilia Marciana, daughter of Gaius, by Gaius Ofilius Hemetianus, also son of Gaius (CIL 06, 23397(1); cf. Ocnus 4, 1996, p. 233). Similarly datable to the mid-2nd century CE is an honorary inscription referring to Gaius Ofilius Euhelpistus, a freedman of Gaius (CIL 06, 00975(1); cf. pp. 3070(2), 3777(3), 4312(4), 4340(5); CIL 06, 31218(6); ILS 6073(7)). The cognomen Ianuarius unfortunately offers limited value for precise identification, as it is among the most frequently attested in the Roman world, particularly widespread in North Africa, where it is often associated with the auspicious timing of a birth at the beginning of the year [8]8. From a morphological standpoint, the ara finds numerous parallels among other altars from across the Italian peninsula. Several close comparanda are housed at the Museo Nazionale Romano, such as the funerary ara of Minicia Marcella (dated to the early 2nd century CE) and that of Tiberius Claudius Sextinus, assignable to the Claudian or Tiberian period [9,10]. Additional parallels include two funerary arae from the Sepolcro dei Pisoni (inv. 78163; 78167), also at the Museo Nazionale Romano and dated to the mid-2nd century CE [9,10], as well as an example from the Via Appia, recovered in the Columbarium of Livia’s Freedmen (CIL 06, 04228(1)) and now preserved in the Musei Capitolini. Another ara in the same collection, though bearing a completely eroded inscription, offers a particularly close comparison both in form and in the structure of the lid [11]. The ara was found without its lid, aligned with the entrance of the room, positioned along the southern wall directly in contact with the mosaic floor on which it was discovered. This wall contains a partially preserved arcosolium and was constructed against an earlier large tuff block wall, consisting of blocks laid end to end and on edge, with the upper surface concave, commonly referred to as the “dorso di mulo” technique, predating the room itself. The axial alignment between the ara and the entrance suggests the deceased’s interest in immediate visual identification. This choice contrasts with the social and cultural logic underlying the architectural model of the classic columbarium tomb type, which instead emphasised uniformity. Instead, the positioning of the ara aligns with the later transformation undergone by columbaria between the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, which turned them into a different funerary monument in term of style and audience. During this transitional phase, a renewed desire for individual recognition and personal cult expression prompted new formal choices, diverging from the architectural and commemorative uniformity typical of standard columbaria. This transformation began gradually, often marked by exceptional internal modifications to existing structures. A notable example is Columbarium I of Vigna Codini, where adaptations of certain niches (e.g., those of Aponia Chia and Aponius Nicia) between the 1st and 2nd centuries CE reflect a broader trend toward increased visual differentiation [12]. This process ultimately led to a profound architectural shift: over the course of the 1st century CE, subterranean and semi-subterranean columbaria were increasingly replaced by aboveground monuments (e.g., Monuments C and L on the Esquiline) [12]. The shift began with changes in the internal hierarchy of visibility; as early as the Tiberian period, marble cinerary urns placed on shelves gained favour over traditional terracotta urns. This change disrupted the symmetrical and axial layout typical of earlier columbaria, privileging instead the wall directly facing the entrance, as observed in the Columbarium of Pomponius Hylas, located between the Via Appia and Via Latina [12,13]. The new aboveground structures were also smaller in scale; for instance, a columbarium on the Via Nomentana could accommodate no more than 28 burials. During this transitional period, inhumation gradually supplanted cremation. Large-scale columbaria such as those built for the freedmen of Augustus and Livia along the Via Appia gave way to smaller monuments designed for mixed-use burials, combining arcosolia for inhumation with classic niches for cremated remains [12,14,15]. It is precisely within this moment of profound transition—marking the shift from cremation to inhumation—that the cultural context of the necropolis discovered at Via Appia Antica 39 is situated [16]. Investigations conducted within the opening at the top of the ara revealed multiple stratigraphic layers inside. These were treated as distinct stratigraphic units (SUs) and examined through targeted micro-excavation techniques carried out by the anthropologist Dr J. Mongillo. Three stratigraphic units were identified within the cavity (Figure 5). Of particular interest is SU 202, consisting of a set of ceramic fragments arranged in a way that initially suggested the possibility of a secondary burial or reuse. The diagnostic fragments (Figure 6) were preliminarily identified as one handle of a Late Roman Amphora III and two handles of Keay XXV (or Africana 3A), dating to the 4th–5th centuries CE and attributable to North African production or local imitations thereof. The removal of these fragments enabled the examination of the underlying layer (SU 203), which, however, yielded no skeletal remains or associated materials that could confirm the hypothesis of a later reuse for burial purposes. At present, the hypothesis of intentional reuse appears unlikely. Rather, the deposition of the materials seems more plausibly interpreted as an incidental fill or the results of activities related to the abandonment phases of the monument. Indeed, the internal stratigraphy of the structure has yielded large deposits of material, currently under study, which seems to be originating from allochthonous contexts (possibly nearby domestic/private structures) and used to fill the interior of the building after its abandonment9.

2.2. The Discovery of the Lid

In April 2025, during the fifth excavation campaign, the mosaic floor level of Building 4 was reached. Unexpectedly, at just over 70 cm from the location where the funerary ara was discovered, the lid that sealed the ash deposit opening was found (Figure 7). The lid (Figure 7 and Figure 8), also made of white marble, is distinguished by a rounded pediment with four acroteria placed at the corners. It has a maximum width of 58 cm and a height of 26 cm. Of the four acroteria, only the two at the front are decorated with palmettes, while the two at the rear are plain. The upper surface features a shallow circular depression resembling a small cup (Figure 8), within which three slightly elongated holes are present, designed for pouring libations [17]. Within the pedimented field is carved a wreath with fluttering vittae that extend to touch the palmettes of the front acroteria. Below this, a stylised incised spiral motif is visible, likely evoking a floral pattern. The laurel wreath is a widely attested motif in Roman funerary iconography. It symbolises the deceased’s triumph over death and is chronologically characterised by enduring popularity [18]. Stylistically, the piece can be placed between the Flavian and Trajanic periods, with a tendency toward the late first and early second centuries CE [19]. Several comparisons can be drawn from both an iconographic and stylistic standpoint. Particularly noteworthy are the arae discovered in the Orti Giustiniani [11], and various analogous examples found in the Vatican Autoparco necropolis [20]. In April 2025, the ara and its lid were reunited and are now on display in the museum of Santa Maria Nova (Figure 9).

2.3. Publishing 3D Excavation Data Online

The widespread adoption of digital tools has led to a profound transformation in the daily practices surrounding the production of archaeological documentation in the field. However, this transformation is still far from being fully realised. The methodological innovations introduced at Çatalhöyük have become a model and have paved the way for three-dimensional stratigraphic documentation via ArcGIS Pro [21,22,23]. While the use of photogrammetry to record stratigraphic units has become common practice, it is often confined to the production of two-dimensional outputs, such as orthophotos and orthomosaics, leaving the full potential of 3D recorded data largely underexploited. In more recent times, the need to establish a stronger connection between 3D models and the fieldwork data has become increasingly evident, a challenge that has been addressed in several ways [24,25,26,27]. Among these, a major implementation has been established by the Archaeological Interactive Report platform [27], which introduced a more structured solution to link 3D models with excavation finds, reports, and media. The system further allows for the description of information through ontological classes structured according to the CIDOC CRM framework and its extensions (i.e., CRM-archeo), thus appearing as a very promising solution. Given the vast potential of this sector, it is unsurprising that it intersects with the growing body of research dedicated to semantic annotations on 3D heritage models [28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. This area represents a hybrid and dynamic field of research, which offers several interesting solutions to create a connection between data and 3D models. Such solutions represent a promising future capable of enabling a more stable diffusion and archiving system of archaeological field-data together and fostering a broader system of feedback from the scientific community. In fact, the theme is strictly intertwined also to wider and major issues, such as transparency of sources, data, and interpretation. These issues have been at the centre of academic debate for over two decades [35,36,37,38,39,40]. The debate led to the dissemination of principles and recommendations, as established in the London and Seville Charters [41,42], with the aim of providing a roadmap for future developments in the field of virtual reconstructions.
Among the processes developed in recent years to respond to the “call for transparency”, the one implemented by the Extended Matrix Framework (EMF) has emerged as the one that, in a more extensive manner, has addressed the problems raised so far [43,44,45]. The system allows for the structuring of a process based on open-source tools, and therefore easily integrable, covering the entire chain of the reconstructive process from the collection of sources to the online publication of reconstructive models, their reliability, and the reasoning that generated them. The approach implemented through this framework encourages considering the reconstructive process as if it were an archaeological excavation virtually conducted in reverse. Focusing on the compilation of a Matrix, the reconstructive process proceeds from the collection of sources to the construction of relationships between hypotheses and 3D-reconstructible elements through a series of reasoning that finds a visual space to be articulated. The process, schematic-deductive and linear, precisely reflect the stratigraphic, almost investigative, analysis that an archaeologist is called to carry out in the field. For these reasons, this paper approaches the usage of the EMF to publish excavation data online. The case study presented here offers a challenging context in which to test these methodological reflections and current possibilities. The excavation of the ara, removed under emergency circumstances, together with the micro-excavation within its central opening, the discovery of the lid, and the excavation of the surrounding context, clearly illustrate the need for an approach that allows for greater reversibility in field documentation.

2.4. Re-Constructing the Stratigraphic Context in 3D

The decision to use the EMF stems from the desire to highlight the role of 3D data. If produced according to proper quality standards, this type of data can provide a solid foundation to reanalyse excavation processes and choices ex post. The main criteria for stratigraphic analysis in the field are summarised within the 3 Cs: Colour, Composition, and Consistence. While for the latter there is still no virtual alternative available, colour and composition are two elements that can be digitally re-structured by paying particular attention to texture resolution and quality. The process is certainly not straightforward and contains various pitfalls. Foremost among them is interpretation, whether intentional or not, which underpins our actions and, consequently, also influences digitisation activities. It is, in fact, unrealistic to plan to 3D document all the SUs present in an excavation, and this clearly involves a selection between what is 3D documentable and what is not. However, by combining photogrammetry and 3D modelling, new solutions make it possible to make the selection/interpretation processes as revisable as possible. For this reason, the research began by reviewing the use of tools provided by the EM framework. The framework, created in response to the principles outlined in the London and Sevilla charters, is aimed at achieving transparency in virtual reconstruction processes. Thus, it allows documenting sources, choices, and reasoning by fostering the connection between a graph DB and a 3D modelling software. In fact, EM tools10 is an open-source plugin for an open-source 3D modelling software (Blender)11. The plugin itself works as a connector between the 3D modelling software and the Extended Matrix, a formal node-based language that reflects the stratigraphic approach distinctive of archaeology as a discipline: the Harris Matrix. This language is expressed via semantic graphs through the open-source software yEd12. Thanks to this framework, each geometry acquires its set of data and characteristics and a chronological relationship with the other geometries as expressed in the graph. This system allows for full exploitation of data granularity. It is possible to visually interact with data geometric representations, such as the proxies, and/or directly consult sources and information at different levels of detail. While the main use of these tools is designed for documenting virtual reconstructions, they are empowered with semantic modelling capabilities. In fact, the link with Pyarchinit13, an open-source plugin for QGIS14 specifically intended for archaeological excavation [46], enables a new level of connection between excavation data and 3D models.

2.5. Methodology

The 3D photogrammetric fieldwork acquisitions were aimed at maintaining consistency in quality and materials across the years. Two types of acquisitions were conducted:
  • A drone-based survey prior to the start of the excavation, primarily intended to document the condition of the site and to produce key 2D orthoimages for use during excavation activities.
  • Integrated surveys, both terrestrial and drone-based, conducted during the excavation, with a complete site acquisition performed at the end of the excavation period. These surveys aimed to document the subjects at higher resolution, enabling the creation of reusable 3D models.
The datasets were processed using Agisoft Metashape 2.0 software, employing a system of Ground Control Points (GCPs) and Checkpoints established via survey spikes measured with a total station, in order to ensure accurate scaling and, afterwards, georeferencing. Two possible workflows were tested to achieve a solution to (a) virtually reconstruct the stratigraphy and make it accessible online and (b) generate semantic 3D models. The starting point, common to both processes, was to organise in Blender the photogrammetric models related to Building 4 produced from 2023 onwards using different sensors via drone and/or terrestrial photogrammetry (Table 1). The models produced in the field, except for the ara and the lid, were all georeferenced in Monte Mario/Italy zone 2 (EPSG:3004). They were therefore imported into Blender using 3D Survey Collection (3DSC)15, another plugin part of the EMF, that allows importing 3D georeferenced models in .obj format using an assigned shift value. Thus, 3D proxy geometries were modelled representing the SUs investigated in the area.

2.5.1. Option 1. Stratigraphic Modelling with EM Tools and EMviq

A Matrix was structured in yEd, using the EM palette 1.4, and the archaeological records were used to populate each node with information (Figure 10). For the purpose of the research, the stratigraphic units were distributed chronologically according to the dates they were excavated. Using Blender 4.3.2 and Em tools 1.4.3, each node with its data was connected with the corresponding proxy geometry created to represent the virtual SUs, while the photogrammetric models were assigned to their corresponding capturing date. In this way, it was possible to achieve a direct link between 3D recorded elements and 3D SU reconstructed surfaces. This option required a first readaptation: it was necessary to graphically separate the direct stratigraphic relationship between SU 201 (the funerary ara) and the SUs excavated in the following years that covered it. However, even though the stratigraphic relationship was forcibly adapted in the Matrix, it was kept visually unchanged among the models and it was openly expressed in the data section. Once the connection between data, chronologies, and geometries was completed, the dataset was ready to be exported online. The solution implemented in the first experiment was EMviq16. EMviq is an app built on top of the ATON platform [47]. The latter is an open-source tool, developed by the CNR-ISPC, widely used for the online visualisation of 3D models [48]. The platform itself supports the upload of models in various formats, ranging from .obj to .gltf, as well as tiled models. These capabilities are essential for the visualisation of high-resolution models, both in terms of texture and geometry, without compromising the overall navigability of the web environment. EMviq is essentially built to make it possible to visualise and interact with 3D models, their sources, and their relationships as marked with their corresponding Matrix within yEd. While the visualisation on a local computer using a localhost address worked smoothly, the online publication needed some tweaking. The final product allowed for smooth visualisation of the excavation activities as chronologically subdivided (Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13), with direct access to the archaeological records and the stratigraphic relationships between the SUs. However, the level of actual semantisation achieved through this process is fairly delicate. The data visualised are preserved inside the graph DB, but are unstructured. Thus, while it is a powerful visualisation solution, it is not as powerful in terms of data accessibility and interconnectivity. Currently, the app does not yet support some of the features offered by the main app ATON, such as handmade semantic annotations.

2.5.2. Option 2. Ontological Modelling, CRMArcheo Annotation Tool and ATON

This pipeline investigated the possibility to create a first but stronger semantic integration directly inside Blender. In this case, yEd and the graph DB system were not used. Instead, the elastic potential offered by the .gltf data format was exploited. The .gltf data format, in fact, supports an “extras” section in which it is possible to insert custom information. This flexibility is the reason why the format is gaining so much traction at an industry level. It allows forms of 3D model authoring written directly into the 3D file. Thus, it is easily readable by a viewer and creates a profound bond between 3D data and textual information. Inside Blender, it is possible to access this section directly via the object properties menu under the custom properties panel. The real challenge is, in fact, to not abuse the great flexibility of this option but to try and structure a more solid solution based on ontologies, classes, and properties that are a standard shared by the scientific community. Thus, an initial version of a plugin designed for the semantic annotation of geometries was created, thanks to the support of ChatGPT both in scripting and debugging, and tested in this specific context. The plugin CRMArcheo Annotation Tool allows writing and reading in the “extras” section of the data schema of each individual .gltf model using a selection of classes and properties defined by the CRM-Archaeo17 (Figure 14). The plugin shows a promising potential that could foster ontology embedding directly in the 3D model. However, it will need to be further developed to encompass the vast variety of ontological models that describe heritage-related objects and activities, such as CRMba, CRMdig, and CRMsci [49].
In this way, the scene in Blender is populated with Reality Based (RB) models, obtained via 3D recording, and the 3D modelled volumes of SUs with their basic semantic class and property encoded within the file. The RB models are exported individually, imported into Metashape, and then turned into tiled models. This step allows generating multi-resolution models that ensure excellent online visualisation performance. This model type allows achieving very high texture resolution zooming on restricted areas or details while keeping the model navigability smooth and manageable. For online visualisation, the ATON platform was used directly. All models, RB models in multi-resolution format and the SUs as .gltf, are uploaded on separate layers, thus creating a freely destructurable scene with no defined chronological order (Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17). This makes the connection between geometries and excavation activities less immediate, but it is guaranteed by the information in the archaeological record and by the spatial relationship between proxy geometries and RB models. A topic deserving further attention is the one related to semantics, which, following this process, operates on two levels. The first is the information coded directly inside the gltf file. ATON, similarly to Sketchfab, allows reading the information contained in the extras section related to the model copyright, but not custom parameters as in this case. However, integrating this functionality is a realistically imaginable future possibility. The second level concerns unstructured semantisation via annotation. The annotation system in ATON, which offers various possibilities, has shown limited performance when using a sequence of overlapping convex-shaped annotations. These made it difficult both to draw and to select shapes. Spherical annotations were therefore chosen. Positioned in intersection with the SU they refer to, these proved easier to place. The annotations are stored in a single layer, called “semantic annotations”. While this solution is certainly very convenient, in a stratigraphic context it may prove less intuitive. The scene structure is therefore divided into as many layers as there are uploaded models, regardless of their chronological-stratigraphic relationships, with the addition of one layer containing the semantic annotations (Figure 15). In a post-Sketchfab era, the landscape of web platforms for 3D model visualisation is currently broad and rapidly expanding [50]. In the case at hand, the focus has been placed exclusively on ATON. The choice of ATON was driven by two main factors. The first concerns the flexibility and potential of the platform. The tool is currently undergoing a major transformation phase that will introduce several new features. Among these is the expected implementation of a sectioning tool that will allow for cutting and cross-sectioning of the models, which represents an important advancement, particularly from the perspective of archaeological data analysis. The second factor relates to EMviq and the opportunity to test semantic integration through the EMF.

3. Results

The two processes tested here allow achieving different outcomes that, although preliminary, open up interesting ideas and possibilities for the short-term future. Both solutions enable solid dissemination of scientific hypotheses supported by raw excavation data. In particular, the proposed systems make the process of sharing excavation data significantly quicker and more intelligible, allowing for connections between artefacts, contexts, and interpretations. Moreover, the true strength of the EMF lies precisely in the visualisation of reconstructive processes. Even if in this case reconstructions were not the main focus of the experiment, they can easily be integrated into the process. Another added potential is offered by the ability to create hyperlinks via ATON. A striking example is the ceramic fragments found in SU 202. It is possible to create a direct link between the interpretation of form, typology, and chronology of the fragments and the Archaeology Data Service database18 (accessed on 14 March 2025) used as the main reference for fragment identification and dating. It is clear that the use of unstructured annotations represents the main limitation of both proposed solutions. However, at the same time, the flexibility of the system, based entirely on open-source solutions, allows for enormous development margins in the short term.

4. Conclusions

The excavation of the necropolis located at Via Appia Antica 39 is yielding a substantial body of data concerning funerary customs and practices in Rome, dating back at least to the second century CE. The long chronological span of the site provides a valuable opportunity to closely examine social and cultural transformations, facilitated by the excellent state of preservation of both the funerary monuments and the materials recovered within them. Among these, the funerary ara of Ofilius Ianuarius stands out due to its state of conservation and the circumstances of the discovery of its lid. The context in which the ara was placed serves as a veritable repository of information related to a historical moment in which a transition is attested in Rome from a funerary tradition centred on cremation in urns kept in “private” spaces to inhumation within architecturally distinct structures. These structures, although still reserved for selected groups of individuals, are increasingly monumental and oriented towards the individual. In this data-rich and logistically complex excavation context, 3D documentation plays a pivotal role. In the case under examination, the ability to virtually reconstruct stratigraphic sequences, investigated through multiple excavation campaigns, is fundamental to enabling in-depth contextual analysis. The selected case study proves particularly well-suited to testing a data-sharing approach focused on the more extensive use of three-dimensional data. The structured system also enables the preliminary sharing of hypotheses and interpretations through the dissemination of high-resolution 3D documentation. Multi-user access to the documentation, achieved more rapidly than standard archaeological excavation timelines allow, supports continuous updates to the records through progressive annotations. This enables various specialists to integrate data subsequently produced in laboratory settings. Another key element is the potential for external peer review of hypotheses and interpretations. Multi-resolution 3D models enable the visualisation of high-resolution textures, which, when combined with proxy geometries and/or annotations, effectively support qualitative assessment and scientific discussion of field operations by third parties, thereby contributing meaningfully to broader academic discourse. Although it is not currently possible to directly import annotations, an open-source workaround exists that utilises PyArchInit, Extended Matrix (EM), and EMviq. There is also the potential to integrate the presented information and data with the results of subsequent analyses. A clear example is the case of the urns, in which both grave goods and cremated bones have been recovered. The specialist studies to which these materials will be subjected will allow the retrieval of a substantial quantity of new information, which could be visualised, filtered, and compared in a manner that remains easily accessible online. The selected case study, a necropolis in Rome, also offers a particularly informative cross-section. In this context, the heterogeneity of the data collected in the field is remarkable, encompassing epigraphic, osteological, archaeological, botanical, and other categories. Furthermore, the category of site, namely necropoleis, has historically suffered from spoliation and looting by antiquarians and treasure hunters. Consequently, it is rare to encounter contexts that can be analysed stratigraphically. Such contexts can provide crucial elements that also support the re-interpretation of sites excavated in earlier periods. The ability to access comparative data is therefore essential. At present, the ATON platform is undergoing a significant process of renewal. In particular, some of its extensions, such as the EMviq application, are undergoing substantial enhancements. Thus, envisioning an extension of EMviq’s functionalities to allow visualisation of excavation database data associated with geometries is not an unattainable goal. On the contrary, the tools currently available (and especially those under development) make this prospect increasingly realistic. The field of semantic annotation on 3D models is an evolving domain that, in recent years, has undergone significant transformations. The limitations of the system presented here are evident: current annotations function as tags on the model without an underlying ontology-based structure such as CIDOC (e.g., CRM-dig or CRM-Archaeo), and are therefore essentially unstructured data. Nevertheless, the process described enables the construction, through open-source tools, of a direct link between 2D and 3D field documentation and the online visualisation of high-resolution 3D models, envisioning the possibility to encode ontologies directly in the 3D model. This is potentially a macroscopic revolution that could change how field data are recorded, stored, managed, and finally shared. A well-known quote by Sir Mortimer Wheeler reads:
At the best, excavation is destruction and destruction unmitigated by all the resources of contemporary knowledge and accumulated experience cannot be too rigorously impugned [51]
We are still far from achieving true virtual replicability of the destructive processes inherent to archaeological fieldwork. However, existing tools already allow for the conception of solutions that are increasingly within reach for the wider archaeological community. These tools have the potential to fundamentally transform the ways in which archaeological fieldwork is conducted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L.; methodology M.L.; data curation, M.L.; writing—original paragraphs, materials and methods, results, conclusions, M.L.; writing—original paragraphs, introduction, R.D.; writing—review & editing, M.L. and R.D.; project administration, R.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Appia Antica 39 project was funded by the foundation Patrum Lumen Sustine and the Metropolitan City of Rome.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Patrum Lumen Sustine Foundation and the Metropolitan City of Rome for their support. We also extend our thanks to the institutions responsible for this section of the Appian Way, namely the Appia Antica Archaeological Park, the Appia Antica Regional Park, and the Municipality of Rome, particularly the Department of Environmental Protection and the Capitoline Superintendency, for their active collaboration. A special thanks goes to S. Quilici, Director of the Appia Antica Archaeological Park, and to S. Roascio, the Heritage Officer of the Italian Ministry of Culture responsible for the area. We are deeply grateful to F. Turchetta, excavation field director, and the entire Appia Antica 39 team for their dedication and contributions, which played a crucial role in shaping this research. Special thanks are due to C. La Rocca for generously sharing new stratigraphic data and insights, and to S. Pastor for his valuable epigraphic advice. We also warmly thank F.R. Fiano and C. Panella for their support in the analysis of the ceramic fragments, B. Bramanti. and J. Mongillo for the anthropological data, and S. Berto for the testing support on EMviq. Sincere thanks to the reviewers for helping improve the structure of this paper. During the preparation of this article, the authors used the support of ChatGPT-4o for the first draft of the Blender plugin CRMArcheo Annotation Tool.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Notes

1
ABAP DD 679,31/05/2022. “Appia Antica 39” is an interdisciplinary project directed by Prof. Rachele Dubbini for the University of Ferrara. The archaeological excavation has been directed by Dr. Fabio Turchetta, “Ditta ARCHEO, Archeologia e tecnologie”. For more information on the project see [1], also https://linktr.ee/appiantica39, accessed on 15 June 2025.
2
The closest funerary monument to the Appian Way, Building 3, is located at a distance of 6.44 m from it.
3
From the second half of the 2nd century B.C. until at least the early Augustan age, a fairly constant presence of funerary enclosures associated with monumenta of the most varied architectural ranges is documented in many Roman cities [4].
4
The stratigraphic analysis of the buildings, as well as the study of the materials that emerged from the excavation, is still to be considered at an entirely embryonic stage. The dating proposed for the abandonment of the funerary buildings is based on a preliminary analysis of the materials found in the obliterations of the buildings. We refer to a more advanced phase of the study of the finds to provide more detailed archaeological, stratigraphic and bibliographical references.
5
Both inhumation and cremation rites are present, and each displays notable integrity, offering valuable insights into the cultural and ritual dynamics of the site. The study of the anthropological findings was entrusted to Dr. Jessica Mongillo of the University of Ferrara’s “AnthropoLab”, directed by Prof. Barbara Bramanti, and is still ongoing.
6
This dating is further confirmed by a brick stamp from Building 1, which is still in situ and can be dated to AD 123 [6]. The study of the brick stamps and inscriptions from the excavation was entrusted to Prof. Giulia De Palma of the Université Paris Nanterre, and is still ongoing.
7
The find was promptly handed over to the authorities of the Parco Archeologico dell’Appia Antica and is currently on display at the museum of Santa Maria Nova.
8
A more in depth epigraphic analysis will be the subject of a future publication dedicated to the whole epigraphic material coming from the site and entrusted to Prof. G. De Palma.
9
Since both stratigraphies and materials are currently under study, they will be discussed in depth in specific publications.
10
11
https://www.blender.org/, accessed on 10 June 2025.
12
13
https://github.com/pyarchinit/pyarchinit, accessed on 10 June 2025.
14
https://qgis.org/, accessed on 10 June 2025.
15
16
17
The plugin is still in an embryonic stage, and the one proposed is an experimental version. However, once a more stable version is reached, the plugin will be released on Zenodo.
18

References

  1. Dubbini, R.; Clementi, J.; Fiano, F.; Lombardi, M.; Rizzo, E.; Turchetta, F. Laboratorio Archeologico Via Appia Antica 39. Un Paesaggio Di Confine Tra La Città E Il Suburbio Di Roma. Boll. Archeol. Online 2023, 14, 305–331. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hesberg, H.v.; Zanker, P. Römische Gräberstraßen: Selbstdarstellung, Status, Standard. In Römische Gräberstraßen; Hesberg, H.v., Zanker, P., Eds.; Verlag Philipp von Zabern: Mainz, Germany, 1987; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dubbini, R. Il paesaggio della via Appia ai confini dell’Urbs. La valle dell’Almone in età antica; Edipuglia: Bari, Italy, 2015; Volume 38. [Google Scholar]
  4. Giatti, C. La delimitazione dello spazio funerario: Funzioni e sviluppo dei recinti a Roma. In I Confini di Roma nell’Antichità. Giornate di Studio; Dally, O., Fless, F., Eds.; Reichert Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2023; pp. 111–154. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hesberg, H.V. Römische Grabbauten; Wissenschaft Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt, Germany, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  6. Eck, W.; Pangerl, A. Neue Diplome mit den Namen von Konsuln und Statthaltern. Z. Papyrol. Epigr. 2013, 187, 273–294. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruun, C.; Edmondson, J. The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kajanto, I.; Rosenfeld, H.F.; Kiparsky, V.; Hemmer, R. Latin Cognomina; Helsingfors: Rome, Italy, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  9. Candida, B. Altari e cippi nel Museo Nazionale Romano; Bretschneider Giorgio: Rome, Italy, 1979; Volume 47. [Google Scholar]
  10. Friggeri, R. La Collezione Epigrafica del Museo Nazionale Romano alle Terme di Diocleziano; Electa: Milan, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  11. Panciera, S. La Collezione Epigrafica dei Musei Capitolini: Inediti, Revisioni, Contributi al Riordino; Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura: Rome, Italy, 1987; Volume 6, n.133. [Google Scholar]
  12. Borbonus, D. Columbarium Tombs and Collective Identity in Augustan Rome; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hope, V. Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook; Routledge: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  14. Huskinson, J.; Hope, V. Memory and Mourning: Studies on Roman Death; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  15. Borbonus, D. Economic Strategies in the Collective Tombs of Imperial Rome. In Archaeology and Economy in the Ancient World; Propylaeum: Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dubbini, R.; Turchetta, F.; Clementi, J.; De Angelis, L. I primi rivestimenti parietali dallo scavo di via Appia Antica 39 a Roma. In Atti del XXX Colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico: Venafro, 28 Febbraio–2 Marzo 2024; Angelelli, C., Ed.; Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico: Roma, Italy; Edizioni Quasar: Roma, Italy, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  17. Altmann, W. Die Romischen Grabaltare Der Kaiserzeit; Weidmann: Berlin, Germany, 1905. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cumont, F. Recherches sur le Symbolisme Funéraire des Romains; P. Geuthner: Paris, France, 1942. [Google Scholar]
  19. Boschung, D. Antike Grabaltäre aus den Nekropolen Roms; Stämpfli: Bern, Switzerland, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  20. Väänänen, V. Le Iscrizioni della Necropoli dell’Autoparco Vaticano; G. Bardi: Rome, Italy, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  21. Forte, M.; Dell’Unto, N.; Issavi, J.; Onsurez, L.; Lercari, N. 3D Archaeology at Çatalhöyük. Int. J. Herit. Digit. Era 2012, 1, 351–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Forte, M. 3D Archaeology: New Perspectives and Challenges—The Example of Çatalhöyük. J. East. Mediterr. Archaeol. Herit. Stud. 2014, 2, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dell’Unto, N.; Landeschi, G. Archaeological 3D Gis; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  24. Faniel, I.; Kansa, E.; Whitcher Kansa, S.; Barrera-Gomez, J.; Yakel, E. The challenges of digging data: A study of context in archaeological data reuse. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 22–26 July 2013; pp. 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Opitz, R. Publishing Archaeological Excavations at the Digital Turn. J. Field Archaeol. 2018, 43, S68–S82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Richards, J.D. Archiving archaeological data in the United Kingdom. Internet Archaeol. 2021, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Derudas, P.; Nurra, F.; Svensson, A. New AIR for the Archaeological Process? The Use of 3D Web Semantic for Publishing Archaeological Reports. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2023, 16, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. De Luca, L. 3D Modelling and Semantic Enrichment in Cultural Heritage. In Proceedings of the Photogrammetric Week ’13, Stuttgard, Germany, 9–13 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yu, C.H.; Groza, T.; Hunter, J. Reasoning on Crowd-Sourced Semantic Annotations to Facilitate Cataloguing of 3D Artefacts in the Cultural Heritage Domain. In Proceedings of the Semantic Web–ISWC 2013, Sydney, Australia, 21–25 October 2013; Alani, H., Kagal, L., Fokoue, A., Groth, P., Biemann, C., Parreira, J.X., Aroyo, L., Noy, N., Welty, C., Janowicz, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 228–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Luca, L. Towards the semantic-aware 3D digitisation of architectural heritage: The “Notre-Dame de Paris” digital twin project. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Structuring and Understanding of Multimedia heritAge Contents, Online, 12–16 October 2020; pp. 3–4. [Google Scholar]
  31. Catalano, C.E.; Vassallo, V.; Hermon, S.; Spagnuolo, M. Representing quantitative documentation of 3D cultural heritage artefacts with CIDOC CRMdig. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 2020, 21, 359–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Croce, V.; Caroti, G.; De Luca, L.; Piemonte, A.; Veron, P. Semantic annotations on heritage models: 2D/3D approaches and future research challenges. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020, 43, 829–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Berto, S.; Carraro, F.; Morabito, D.; Bonetto, J.; Salemi, G. The Photogrammetric Survey of the Phoenician and Punic Necropolis of Nora and Three-Dimensional Rendering Tools for Sharing Data. In Proceedings of the ArcheoFOSS XIII Workshop—Open Software, Hardware, Processes, Data and Formats in Archaeological Research, Padova, Italy, 20–22 February 2019; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2021; p. 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abergel, V.; Manuel, A.; Pamart, A.; Cao, I.; De Luca, L. Aïoli: A reality-based 3D annotation cloud platform for the collaborative documentation of cultural heritage artefacts. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2023, 30, e00285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Barceló, J.A.; Forte, M.; Sanders, D.H. Virtual Reality in Archaeology; Archaeopress Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  36. Frischer, B.; Niccolucci, F.; Ryan, N.S.; Barceló, J.A. From CVR to CVRO: The Past, Present, and Future of Cultural Virtual Reality; BAR International Series; Tempus Reparatsm: Oxford, UK, 2002; Volume 1075, pp. 7–18. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hermon, S.; Niccolucci, F.; D’Andrea, A. Some evaluations on the potential impact of virtual reality on the archaeological scientific research. In Proceedings of the VSMM 2005, Ghent, Belgium, 3–7 October 2005; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  38. Frischer, B. From digital illustration to digital heuristics. Beyond Illustration: 2d and 3d Digital Technologies as Tools for Discovery in Archaeology; Archaeopress Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2008; Volume 1805. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hermon, S.; Niccolucci, F.; Di Giuseppantonio, P.; Di Franco, F.; Vassallo, V. Digital authenticity and the London Charter. In Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions; McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 37–47. [Google Scholar]
  40. Muenster, S. Digital 3D technologies for humanities research and education: An overview. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Beacham, R.; Denard, H.; Niccolucci, F. An introduction to the London Charter; Archeolingua: Budapest, Hungary, 2006; Available online: https://www.academia.edu/1229183/An_introduction_to_the_london_charter?auto=citations&from=cover_page (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  42. Bendicho, V.M.L.M. International guidelines for virtual archaeology: The Seville principles. In Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics: Non-Invasive Survey of Complex Archaeological Sites; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 269–283. [Google Scholar]
  43. Demetrescu, E. Archaeological stratigraphy as a formal language for virtual reconstruction. Theory and practice. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2015, 57, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Demetrescu, E. Virtual Reconstruction as a Scientific Tool. In Digital Research and Education in Architectural Heritage; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 102–116. [Google Scholar]
  45. Demetrescu, E.; Ferdani, D. From Field Archaeology to Virtual Reconstruction: A Five Steps Method Using the Extended Matrix. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mandolesi, L.; Montagnetti, R.; Pickel, D.G. Come nasce una base GIS per l’archeologia opensource, sviluppata da archeologi per gli archeologi: Lo scavo di Poggio Gramignano, Lugnano in Teverina (TR). Archeol. Calc. 2022, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Demetrescu, E.; Fanini, B.; Cocca, E. An Online Dissemination Workflow for the Scientific Process in CH through Semantic 3D: EMtools and EMviq Open Source Tools. Heritage 2023, 6, 1264–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fanini, B.; Ferdani, D.; Demetrescu, E.; Berto, S.; d’Annibale, E. ATON: An Open-Source Framework for Creating Immersive, Collaborative and Liquid Web-Apps for Cultural Heritage. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Amico, N.; Felicetti, A. Ontological Entities for Planning and Describing Cultural Heritage 3D Models Creation. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2106.07277. Version Number: 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Papadopoulos, C.; Gillikin Schoueri, K.; Schreibman, S. And Now What? Three-Dimensional Scholarship and Infrastructures in the Post-Sketchfab Era. Heritage 2025, 8, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wheeler, M. Archaeology from the Earth; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1954. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Location of the excavation area on the cadastral map (elaboration by M. Lombardi).
Figure 1. Location of the excavation area on the cadastral map (elaboration by M. Lombardi).
Heritage 08 00305 g001
Figure 2. Orthomosaic of the excavation site (late 2024) with numbered funerary buildings; Building 4 is shown in red, while Building 8 is absent, as it was uncovered in 2025 (elaboration by M. Lombardi).
Figure 2. Orthomosaic of the excavation site (late 2024) with numbered funerary buildings; Building 4 is shown in red, while Building 8 is absent, as it was uncovered in 2025 (elaboration by M. Lombardi).
Heritage 08 00305 g002
Figure 3. The ara visualised via X-ray filter in Meshlab.
Figure 3. The ara visualised via X-ray filter in Meshlab.
Heritage 08 00305 g003
Figure 5. Section of the ara with the reconstructed SUs.
Figure 5. Section of the ara with the reconstructed SUs.
Heritage 08 00305 g005
Figure 6. The diagnostic fragments from SU 202.
Figure 6. The diagnostic fragments from SU 202.
Heritage 08 00305 g006
Figure 7. A 3D reposition of the ara and its lid.
Figure 7. A 3D reposition of the ara and its lid.
Heritage 08 00305 g007
Figure 8. The ara’s lid.
Figure 8. The ara’s lid.
Heritage 08 00305 g008
Figure 9. The ara finally recomposed in 3D.
Figure 9. The ara finally recomposed in 3D.
Heritage 08 00305 g009
Figure 10. The Extended Matrix graphdb adapted to the case study.
Figure 10. The Extended Matrix graphdb adapted to the case study.
Heritage 08 00305 g010
Figure 11. Example of SU query in the scene generated via EMviq.
Figure 11. Example of SU query in the scene generated via EMviq.
Heritage 08 00305 g011
Figure 12. Section view of the layered stratigraphy in EMviq.
Figure 12. Section view of the layered stratigraphy in EMviq.
Heritage 08 00305 g012
Figure 13. SU query in EMviq.
Figure 13. SU query in EMviq.
Heritage 08 00305 g013
Figure 14. CRMArcheo Annotation Tool plugin interface. 1 The plugin panel, 2 the custom properties panel.
Figure 14. CRMArcheo Annotation Tool plugin interface. 1 The plugin panel, 2 the custom properties panel.
Heritage 08 00305 g014
Figure 15. The layer panel from the ATON scene.
Figure 15. The layer panel from the ATON scene.
Heritage 08 00305 g015
Figure 16. Side view with one SU model active and selected.
Figure 16. Side view with one SU model active and selected.
Heritage 08 00305 g016
Figure 17. Spherical annotations without the SUs layers active.
Figure 17. Spherical annotations without the SUs layers active.
Heritage 08 00305 g017
Table 1. Sensors used for photogrammetry on field during the 3D recording campaigns at the Appia Antica 39 archaeological site.
Table 1. Sensors used for photogrammetry on field during the 3D recording campaigns at the Appia Antica 39 archaeological site.
RB Models NameSurvey TechniqueCapture SystemSensorsFocal LengthSensor’s Pixel Size
23-06-2023drone photogrammetryDJI mini 3 Pro1/1.3″CMOS24 mm2.4 μm
03-07-2023terrestrial photogrammetrySony A6000APS-C (23.5 × 15.6 mm)16 mm3.91 μm
11-10-2024drone and terrestrial photogrammetryDJI mini 3 Pro, Sony A60001/1.3″CMOS, APS-C (23.5 × 15.6 mm)24mm, 16 mm2.4 μm, 3.91 μm
11-04-2025terrestrial photogrammetryCanon R8Fullframe CMOS (36 × 24 mm)24 mm5.98 μm
Araterrestrial photogrammetrySony A6000, Oneplus 8 ProAPS-C (23.5 × 15.6 mm), 1/1.43″16 mm3.91 μm, 2.24 μm
Lidterrestrial photogrammetryCanon R8Fullframe CMOS (36 × 24 mm)24 mm5.98 μm
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lombardi, M.; Dubbini, R. From Earth to Interface: Towards a 3D Semantic Virtual Stratigraphy of the Funerary Ara of Ofilius Ianuarius from the Via Appia Antica 39 Burial Complex. Heritage 2025, 8, 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8080305

AMA Style

Lombardi M, Dubbini R. From Earth to Interface: Towards a 3D Semantic Virtual Stratigraphy of the Funerary Ara of Ofilius Ianuarius from the Via Appia Antica 39 Burial Complex. Heritage. 2025; 8(8):305. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8080305

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lombardi, Matteo, and Rachele Dubbini. 2025. "From Earth to Interface: Towards a 3D Semantic Virtual Stratigraphy of the Funerary Ara of Ofilius Ianuarius from the Via Appia Antica 39 Burial Complex" Heritage 8, no. 8: 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8080305

APA Style

Lombardi, M., & Dubbini, R. (2025). From Earth to Interface: Towards a 3D Semantic Virtual Stratigraphy of the Funerary Ara of Ofilius Ianuarius from the Via Appia Antica 39 Burial Complex. Heritage, 8(8), 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8080305

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop