Virtual Hadrian’s Villa Launch at Harvard Center

Virtual Hadrian’s Villa Launch at Harvard Center

IDIA Lab has designed a virtual simulation of the villa of the Roman Emperor Hadrian, which is a UNESCO World Heritage site located outside of Rome in Tivoli, Italy. This project has been produced in collaboration with the Virtual World Heritage Laboratory (VWHL) at Indiana University (IU), directed by Dr. Bernard Frischer and funded by the National Science Foundation. This large-scale recreation virtually interprets the entire villa complex in consultation with the world’s foremost Villa scholars. The project has been authored in the game engine of Unity as a live virtual multi-user online learning environment that allows students and visitors to immerse themselves in all aspects of the simulated villa. The project launched at the Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC on November 22, 2013. The webplayer versions of the Hadrian’s Villa project are funded through a grant from the Mellon Foundation.

The Launch of the Digital Hadrian’s Villa Project

The Center for Hellenic Studies, Ball State University, and Indiana University

Friday, November 22, 2013

Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies

Washington, DC

Speakers:
John Fillwalk, IDIA Lab, BSU
Bernard Frischer, VWHL, IU
Marina Sapelli Ragni

The presentations included previews of:
The Virtual World of Hadrian’s Villa
The Digital Hadrian’s Villa website

VirtualHadriansVilla_IDIALab_Login

The project not only recreates the villa buildings but also includes a complete Roman avatar system, non-player characters with artificial intelligence, furniture, appropriate vegetation, dynamic atmospheric system and sophisticated user interface. The interface provides learning, navigation, reporting and assessment opportunities and also allows users to change the position of the sun to any date in 130 AD using data from the Horizons database at JPL NASA – testing theses of astro-alignments of architectural features during solstices and equinoxes. Learning communities are briefed on the culture and history of the villa and learn the virtual environment prior to immersing themselves within it. The avatar system allows for visitors to enter the world selecting class and gender – already being aware of the customs and behavior of the Roman aristocracy, soldier, slave or politician.

Khan Academy Walkthrough of Virtual Hadrian’s Villa: http://youtu.be/Nu_6X04EGHk

Link to Virtual Hadrian’s Villa Walkthrough: http://youtu.be/tk7B012q7Eg

The Digital Hadrian’s Villa Project:

Virtual World Technology as an Aid to Finding Alignments between

Built and Celestial Features

Bernard Frischer1

John Fillwalk2

1Director, Virtual World Heritage Laboratory, University of Virginia

2Director, IDIA Lab, Ball State University

Hadrian’s Villa is the best known and best preserved of the imperial villas built in the hinterland of Rome by emperors such as Nero, Domitian, and Trajan during the first and second centuries CE. A World Heritage site, Hadrian’s Villa covers at least 120 hectares and consists of ca. 30 major building complexes. Hadrian built this government retreat about 20 miles east of Rome between 117, when he became emperor, and 138 CE, the year he died. The site has been explored since the 15th century and in recent decades has been the object of intense study, excavation, and conservation (for a survey of recent work, see Mari 2010).

From 2006 to 20011, with the generous support of the National Science Foundation[1]and a private sponsor, the Virtual World Heritage Laboratory created a 3D restoration model of the entire site authored in 3DS Max. From January to April 2012, Ball State University’s Institute for Digital Intermedia Arts (IDIA Lab) converted the 3D model to Unity 3D, a virtual world (VW) platform, so that it could be explored interactively, be populated by avatars of members of the imperial court, and could be published on the Internet along with a related 2D website that presents the documentation undergirding the 3D model.

The 3D restoration model and related VW were made in close collaboration with many of the scholars who have written the most recent studies on the villa.[2] Our goal was to ensure that all the main elements—from terrain, gardens, and buildings to furnishings and avatars—were evidence-based. Once finished, the was used in two research projects.

The first project was a NSF-sponsored study of the usefulness of VW technology in archaeological education and research. We used the virtual villa in undergraduate classes at Xavier University and the University of Virginia to investigate the thesis of two recent studies by project advisors Michael Ytterberg and Federica Chiappetta about how this enormous built space was used by six different groups of ancient Romans, ranging from the Emperor and Empress to normal citizens and slaves (Ytterberg 2005; Chiappetta 2008). Avatars representing these groups have been created and are being operated by undergraduate students as a Problem‐Based Learning (PBL) experience. They are observed by subject experts, who are using the data generated to test and, if necessary, refine the initial theses about how circulation through the villa was handled.  The results are still being evaluated. Preliminary indications are that the data show that the combination of VW used in a PBL educational context is very effective in taking advantage of the known connection between between the hippocampus and long-term learning, especially when the information to be mastered is spatial (Kandel 2007).

The second project involved use of the VW for some new archaeoastronomical studies. Most of our advisors’ publications, like the older work by archaeologists that preceded them, have concentrated on archaeological documentation, restoration, formal, and functional analysis. The latest research by advisor De Franceschini and her collaborator Veneziano (2011) combined formal and functional analysis: it considered the alignment of certain important parts of the villa in relation to the sun’s apparent path through the sky on significant dates such as the solstices. In their recent book they showed how two features of the villa are aligned with the solar solstices: the Temple of Apollo in the Accademia; and the Roccabruna. We used the VW to extend their research to other areas of the villa, taking advantage of 3D technology to restore the sun to the right place in the sky and also to restore the damage to the architecture of the villa, as De Franceschini and Veneziano had independently suggested be done before they learned about our digital model of the villa.

The work of De Franceschini and Veneziano is innovative. Archaeastronomy has become an accepted field of study in recent decades, and a considerable amount of work has been done in Old and New World archaeology. In Roman archaeology, however, this approach is still rarely encountered. Significantly, one of the few compelling studies concerns the most famous Hadrianic building: the Pantheon in Rome. Hannah and Magli 2009 and Hannah 2011 have shown a number of solar alignments in the building, of which the most notable are the sun’s illumination of the entrance doorway at noon on April 21; and the view of sunset silhouetting the statue of Hadrian as Sun god on a four-horse chariot atop the Mausoleum of Hadrian as viewed from the middle of the Pantheon’s plaza at sunset on the summer solstice. Like the summer solstice, April 21 is also a significant date: on it occurred the  annual festival in Rome known as the Parilia (re-named the Romaia by Hadrian),[3] which celebrated the founding of Rome.

De Franceschini and Veneziano pursued an observation of Mangurian and Ray (2008) to document an impressive example of solar alignment at Hadrian’s Villa involving the tower known as Roccabruna at the western end of the villa. Originally, a tower-like structure topped by a round temple, what remains today is the well-preserved, massive lower floor. The main entrance is located on the northwestern side to the right and gives access to a large circular hall covered by a dome. The dome is punctuated by an odd feature: five conduits that are wider on the outside than on the inside (figure 1).

What is the function of these unusual conduits? They have no known parallel in Roman architecture. After asking themselves this same question, on June 21st, 1988, the day of summer solstice, the American architects Robert Mangurian and Mary Ann Ray went to Roccabruna at sunset, and discovered the extraordinary light phenomena which occur there. At sunset the Sun enters through the main door illuminating the niche on the opposite side, something that happens during most of the summer days. But only in the days of the summer Solstice the Sun penetrates also into the conduit located above that door: its rays come out from the slot inside the dome projecting a rectangular light blade on the opposite side of the dome. In June 2009, De Franceschini verified the findings of Mangurian and Ray. However, they know that the apparent path of the Sun through the sky changes slightly each year, so that in the nearly 1880 years separating us from Hadrian, the precise effect of the alignment has been lost. As they noted, only a computer simulation can recreate the original experience of being in the lower sanctuary at Roccabruna at sunset on the summer solstice during the reign of Hadrian.

Once we had our 3D model of the site, we were able to obtain from NASA’s Horizons system[4] the correct azimuthal data for the year AD 130 and put the sun into the sky at sunset on the summer solstice. Following the lead of De Franceschini, who in the meantime had become a consultant to our project, we put into the niche one of the four statues of the Egyptian sky goddess Isis that were found at the Villa. De Franceschini chose Isis because first of all, there is no question there was a statue in this niche so we need to put something there; and the two flanking niches had candelabra, whose bases are preserved and are decorated with Isiac iconography. Moreover, Isis’ festival in Rome was on the summer solstice. So we scanned and digitally restored one of the several statues of Isis from the villa and put it into the central niche. Finally, for the dome, which we know from surviving paint was blue and therefore had the famous “dome of heaven” motif (Lehmann 1945), we followed De Franceschini in restoring a zodiac set up in such a way that the sign of Gemini is over the statue niche since the last day of Gemini is the summer solstice. Our zodiac is adapted from the great Sun God mosaic in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn, which kindly gave us permission to use it.

As can be seen in figure 2, when we restored the sun in the right position in the sky dome for sunset on the summer solstice (June 21) of 130 CE in our 3DS Max model of Roccabruna, the sunlight coming through the main doorway illuminated the statue of Isis in the statue niche, and the light entering through the conduit lit up the sign of Gemini painted on the cupola. So we were able to confirm the Mangurian-Ray thesis.

The approach we have taken in our Roccabruna project is deductive: Mangurian and Ray noted the strange feature of the conduits punctuating the cupola of Roccabruna; they hypothesized a solar alignment. De Franceschini and Veneziano agreed and for various reasons we don’t need to go into today, they put a statue of Isis into the statue niche. We set up the conditions in which these hypotheses could be tested and were able to verify them.

But surely, if there is one such alignment at the villa of the same emperor who was responsible for the Pantheon, there may be others. But the villa is very big—covering over 100 hectares—and has 30 major building complexes, most larger than Roccabruna. Moreover, such alignments could just as easily involve astrological features such as the Moon and the planets. Faced with this level of complexity, the best methodological way forward in searching for new alignments is clearly inductive and empirical. This is one reason why we asked the Institute for Digital Intermedia Arts (IDIA Lab) of Ball State University to create a multi-user virtual world based in Unity 3D from our 3DS Max model.

The project of virtually interpreting a simulation on the scope and scale of Hadrian’s Villa was a daunting one – engaging layers of scholarly, technical and pedagogical challenges. The technical challenges were many – foremost to leverage the game engine of Unity 3D to become an effective multi-user avatar-based virtual world. An important factor was to create an environment that was straightforward and accessible via standard web browsers on both Mac and Windows and selected Unity 3D as the starting point for developing the platorm. We required specific back-end administration tools to handle the accounts and server side aspects of the project – for this we relied on Smart Fox Server as it manages Unity 3D quite well. Our team took an approach that bridged and integrated disparate technologies, creating a robust virtual world platform to immersively augment both instructional and PBL processes. VW features available to the learning community included text based communication, a live map showing current visitor positions, map based teleportation, managed voice channel, user selected avatar gestures, online users, paradata, photographs of the extant site, plan views, and integrated web links.

Key to the project was a varied system of avatars representing the imperial court, freemen, senators, scholars, soldiers, and slaves to the emperor. The avatar system provided several important functions testing recent scholarly interpretations of circulation throughout the villa and the use of various spaces for typical court activities – meals, imperial audiences, bathing, worship, etc. Upon entering the simulation, the choice of avatar would predicate how one’s social standing within the role-play of the world.

A gesture system was created via motion capture providing each user with a unique set of actions and gestural responses to engage social interactions – including greetings, bowing and gestures specific to rank and class. Communication was also a critical element in the modes of problem based learning engaged by the participants in the simulation. Specific technologies provided varied abilities such as public chat, private instant messaging and live multi-user voice channels.

A companion website was co-developed and integrated into the VW environment providing learners with visual assets such as photographs and panoramas of the current site, site plans, elevations, and video interviews with Villa scholars. We also developed three-dimensional turntables of the interpreted and reconstructed models, overview information on each of the major Villa features, bibliography and an expansive database of art attributed to the Villa site. This information can be directly accessed by learners directly from within the virtual world. The development team integrated the notion of paradata, introduced by the London Charter – making instantly transparent the scholarship and all underlying elements of the 3D model (from terrain to buildings, furnishing, costumes, and human behavior).

In support of new research theme on celestial alignments by consultants De Franceschini and Veneziano, a major goal for the project was to develop an accurate simulation for the position of the sun. The solar tracking, or virtual heliodon that we created as a response to this research, was envisioned as a simulation that would a bridge between the virtual environment and coordinates from an external database calculating solar positions. After investigating existing tools we decided to employ the Horizons database that was created by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory as an on-line solar system data computation service – tracking celestial bodies in ephemerides from 9999 BCE to 9999 CE. In implementing solar tracking for the Villa project in instances were we where we wanted to investigate potential significant solar alignments, we entered the latitude, longitude and altitudes of specific buildings from the Tivoli site to poll the Horizons data for the year 130 CE. The user was able to change the date, time of day, and quickly play the sun from specific moments via the user interface. The system was co-related to both the Julian and Gregorian calendars and contained presets for the vernal and autumnal equinoxes as well at the summer and winter solstices.

These tools allowed for the rapid discovery of potential alignment that might bear further investigation. The solar feature allows one to proceed empirically, in effect turning the clock back to 130 CE and running experiments in which the days and hours of the year are sped up by orders of magnitude so that one can in a very short time find candidate alignments not yet hypothesized by scholars working in the traditional way of Mangurian-Ray.

As developers, our goal was to create the solar tool and let students and scholars use it to undertake their own empirical research. Our team was not intending to engage in this research ourselves, yet in the process of working within the environment daily we quickly began to notice curious solar phenomena. In a bit of empirical study of the very first component of the site we installed in the simulation, the Antinoeion – or newly-discovered Temple of the Divine Antinous, we noticed an alignment of potential interest. The most likely alignment seemed at first glance to be along the main axis running from the entrance, through the obelisk in the central plaza to the statue niche at the end of the axis. We ran the days and hours of the year and found that the sun and shadow of the obelisk align at sunrise on July 20. We consulted with our expert on the Egyptian calendar in the Roman period, Professor Christian Leitz of the University of Tuebingen–and he confirmed that this date has religious significance. It is, in fact, the date of the Egyptian New Year, as the Romans of Hadrian’s age clearly knew (cf. the Roman writer Censorinus, who states that the Egyptian New Year’s Day fell on July 20 in the Julian Calendar in 139 CE, which was a heliacal rising of Sirius in Egypt).

In the process of developing and subsequently utilizing the simulation tools we created for astro-archeological research, our conclusions have been that virtual world technologies can indeed take the inquiry for significant built-celestial alignments to a new level of insight.

Bibliography

Chiappetta, F. 2008. I percorsi antichi di Villa Adriana (Rome).

De Franceschini, M. and G. Veneziano, 2011. Villa Adriana. Architettura celeste. Gli secreti degli solstizi (Rome).

Hannah, R. 2008. Time in Antiquity (London).

Hannah, R. 2011. “The Role of the Sun in the Pantheon’s Design and Meaning,”Numen 58: 486-513.

Kandel, E. 2007. In Search of Memory: The Emergency of a New Science of Mind(W. W. Norton, New York). Kindler edition.

Lehmann, K. “The Dome of Heaven,” Art Bulletin 27: 1-27.

Lugli, G. 1940. “La Roccabruna di Villa Adriana,” Palladio, 4: 257-274

Mangurian, R. and M.A. Ray. 2008. “Re-drawing Hadrian’s Villa,” Yale Architectural Journal, 113-116.

Mari, Z. 2010. “Villa Adriana. Recenti scoperte e stato della ricerca,” Ephemeris Napocensis 20: 7-37.

Ytterberg, M. 2005. “The Perambulations of Hadrian. A Walk through Hadrian’s Villa,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Virtual Meridian of Augustus: Presentation at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Archeology

IDIA Lab virtual celestial simulator and 3D interpretation of the Meridian of August in ancient Rome. Project commissioned by the Virtual World Heritage Laboratory at Indiana University, directed by Bernard Frischer.

Findings presented at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Archeology in Rome

Thursday December 19th, 2013

A Digital Simulation of the Northern Campus Martius in the Age of Augustus. Preliminary Results of New Studies of the Relationship of the Obelisk, Meridian, and Ara Pacis of Augustus

 by

Bernard Frischer, Department of Informatics, Indiana University

John Fillwalk, Director, Institute for Digital Intermedia Arts, Ball State University

http://www.pont-ara.org/index.php?module=crpCalendar&func=display&eventid=54

Pontifical Academy of Archeology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Archaeology

Consultants:

Horology consultant: Paolo Alberi Auber, Italy
Archeoastronomy consultant: Prof. Robert Hannah, University of Walkato, New Zealand
Archeoastronomy consultant: David Dearborn, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, U

SA
Data courtesy of NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Solar Dynamics Group: Horizons System

A Digital Simulation of the Northern Campus Martius in the Age of Augustus. Preliminary Results of New Studies of the Relationship of the Obelisk, Meridian, and Ara Pacis of Augustus

Bernard Frischer, Department of Informatics, Indiana University

John Fillwalk, Director, Institute for Digital Intermedia Arts, Ball State University

  1. With generous support from the National Science Foundation (grant # IIS-1014956), we have recently been developing a digital simulation of the northern Campus Martius in the period 9 BCE to 40 CE. [1] Our motivation is to create a tool that makes it possible instantly to see the correct positions of the sun and its shadow at any time of day in this period of time so that the various controversies associated with the work of Edmund Buchner on the so-called “Horologium Augusti” can be approached in a new way. We have two main goals in creating the simulation. First, we want to see if Buchner’s and other scholars’ claims and interpretations about the relationship of the Augustan obelisk, the (hypothesized) horologium (which we now call the Meridian of Augustus, following the lead of Albèri Auber 2011-12), and the Ara Pacis can be verified or refuted. Secondly, we want to use the simulation as a support for an  empirical survey all over the area of interest to see if it might even be possible, by broadening the field of inquiry in terms of time and space, to arrive at any new insights and discoveries. We are grateful for the opportunity to report on our findings here, and we begin by noting that these are preliminary and can be expected to be revised as our simulation is subjected to further testing and refinement. We concentrate here on the first goal of verification and refutation, reserving a report on the second goal to future publications.
  1. We begin by observing that the use of digital simulations such as ours may still be novel in the field of Roman topography, but they have been used since the early 1950s in physics (Galison 1997:759) and then, increasingly, in other branches of physical and life science to model systems behavior, to speed up difficult computations, and reduce the opportunity for human error. The grounds for and limits of their validity have been usefully treated by Humphreys 2004; and their potential utility in archaeology was mooted by Frischer 2008. As Humphreys stated, “the enormous flexibility and precision of simulation methods provide an opportunity to implement Gedankenexperimente in contexts providing much greater precision than is possible with traditional mental implementations, and they are free from the psychological biases that can effect even simple thought experiments” (Humphreys 2004:115-116).
  1. Of course, precision and valid results always depend on the reliability of the data represented in a simulation. For the all-important apparent size[2] and position of the sun in the sky dome of the simulation, we have relied on NASA’s  Horizons System (http://science1.nasa.gov/planetary-science/planetary-science-data/horizons-system/). Among other things, this database takes into account the changes in the sun’s apparent course through the sky that arise from the earth’s wobble as it rotates, providing correct azimuthal information for any point on earth in any historical period, including the Augustan age.

We take as our point of departure the archaeological data and interpretation of the site given by Albèri Auber in this volume and in other publications, especially Albèri Auber 2011-12. We agree with him in the following essential points.

(a) The obelisk was used as the gnomon only for a meridian, not an horologium inscribed on a large pavement, for which no evidence has ever been found.  Its purpose was scientific: as Albèri Auber 2012: 484-489 shows, it helped insure that tracking of leap years was correctly done through the observatio umbrarum (Pliny NH 2.35)

(b) There is only one phase for the obelisk-meridian: the Augustan phase. Buchner’s Flavian phase is a phantom based first on his reliance on Guarducci’s dating of the letters of the inscriptions found at 48 via Campo di Marzio to the first century CE (Buchner 1980: 362), a dating later withdrawn without comment (Buchner 1983: 505); and then on the brief report in Rakob 1987: 693- 94 that La Torre dated the ceramic fragments found in Buchner’s excavation to the Flavian period. However, La Torre has never published the pottery, nor did Rakob ever publish the stratigraphy, quota levels, and a plan showing the exact find spots. Until this evidence is produced and interpreted, we must suspend judgment. Our consultant on Greek epigraphy, Mika Kajava, will be writing a report on the dating of the lettering. Here we may quote his personal communication of August 1, 2013: “Considering the meridian inscriptions, in my view, it would be difficult to suggest a precise dating on the basis of paleography: an Augustan monumental text set up in a public place could look very similar to a Claudian or even a Flavian one. This is also because monumental writing tends to be conservative, and occasionally it is even archaizing. In the present case, one may also wonder if the fact that the texts were presumably modelled upon Greek precedents had some (extra) influence on the letter style.”

(c) The sub-phases of the project are: (i) the idea to bring an Egyptian obelisk to Rome as a manubial donation: presumably in 30 BCE after Augustus’ victory over at Alexandria and his annexation of Egypt; (ii) the vow of the Ara Pacis on July 4, 13 BCE; (iii) the dedication of the obelisk in 10 BCE,[3] presumably in conjunction with the twentieth anniversary of the victory at Alexandria;[4] (iv) the dedication of the Ara Pacis on January 30, 9 BCE; (v) the addition of the meridian at an indeterminate date during the reign of Augustus.[5]

(d) The height of the obelisk (including plinth, the bar between the pyramidion and the sphere, and the sphere itself) was 100 Roman feet. Haselberger (personal communication, October, 2013) stresses that this dimension is based on evidence that permits a range of possible heights varying by 3 to 6 feet depending on such factors as how we convert the Roman foot to meters, the unknown dimensions of the distanziatori (in the unlikely event such actually existed[6]), the height of the pole attaching the sphere to the pyramidion, and the diameter of the sphere itself. Albèri Auber takes a different tack: as a practicing gnomonologist himself, he stresses the practical advantages to his ancient Roman counterpart of working with the round number of 100 Roman feet and the useless complications that result if the height differed fractionally from it. Alberi Auber thinks that if 100 Roman feet is within Haselberger’s possible range of heights (and it is), and if the alternatives force us to work with dimensions such as (to make up some random examples) 101.33 or 103.75 Roman feet which would greatly complicate the ancient gnomonologist’s calculations of the length and subdivision into 360 degrees of the meridian, then, faute de mieux, 100 Roman feet is the obvious solution.[7] We agree.
In a forthcoming publication, we give the GPS coordinates, dimensions, and bibliographical sources for our 3D models of the meridian, obelisk, and Ara Pacis (Frischer and Fillwalk 2013). In brief, we claim +/- 2 meter accuracy for the placement of the existing fragment of the meridian at via di Campo Marzio 48 and of the Ara Pacis. The position of the obelisk at piazza del Parlamento 3 was derived from its height and the shadow it cast in relation to the position of meridian fragment, as previous scholars have noted can be done (e.g., Heslin 2007:13). In the same publication, we also describe the technical specifications of the simulation. In brief, we authored the model in Maya and converted the 3D model of the northern Campus to the game engine Unity. We developed a plug-in which, as noted, utilizes azimuthal data from NASA’s Horizons System. In calculating where to position the sun and create a lighting solution for observations concerning the obelisk and its shadow, we used the geocoordinates of the obelisk; for those concerning the Ara Pacis, we used the geocoordinates of the Ara Pacis. Unity makes it possible to roam around the simulated landscape and to see the monuments from both freely chosen and preset points of view. For example when the “Ara Pacis View” is selected, movement is restricted to the hypothetical axial line from the center of the base of the obelisk to the Ara Pacis and beyond to the via Flaminia. The height of the camera is fixed at 1.58 m, the average height of the human eyes. In this way, in Ara Pacis View, it is not possible to deviate from a true axial position, and the sun (or its shadow) appears in a way that would have been visible to the ancient adult Roman.

  1. Everything stated in section 3 explains the default settings for our simulation. But we have made an effort to build a certain flexibility into the simulation so that it can support different interpretations of the archaeological situation. Thus, even though the default setting does not display Buchner’s hypothesized pavement and horologium, we have included a software switch that can be thrown to illustrate where Buchner thinks this would have been positioned. Similarly, we have a slider that can lower the height of the obelisk in units of 1 mm to a depth of 2 meters. Pending additional funding, we plan to make all major components of the simulation equally flexible, so that, for example, one can also raise the obelisk up to 2 meters higher in increments of 1 mm; and one can move the center of the Ara Pacis in any direction by 2 meters in the same increments. In this way, we hope to create a flexible tool that supports assumption-free scientific research, allows adjustments to be made to improve accuracy, and is not limited to one particular reading of the archaeological record. In our view, the simulation ought ideally to serve the needs of archaeologists without itself becoming a new topic of debate.
  2. On the basis of the default values, we have thus far addressed the following issues that bulked large in the articles published in JRA 2011: (1) Did the shadow of the obelisk travel all the way down the equinoctial line (whether real and inscribed, or purely hypothetical) to the center of the western façade of the Ara Pacis on September 23, Augustus’ birthday? (2) If the shadow hits the façade of the Ara Pacis, does it have salience? (3) Did the shadow of the obelisk point toward the Ara Pacis at some point every day of the year? (4) Is the Ara Pacis oriented, not toward the obelisk, but toward the rising sun on April 21 (Parilia)?
  3. Before answering the first question, we note that our formulation of it reflects the “strong” reading of Buchner’s thesis about the relationship between the obelisk and Ara Pacis.[8] Like several scholars before him, Haselberger 2011:64 interpreted Buchner to mean only that the shadow progressed along the line, implicitly pointing toward the center of the western façade of the Ara Pacis, but did not necessarily reach the façade.[9] We call this the “weak” interpretation of Buchner. Our simulation can address both interpretations. Here we note that we dispute the weak interpretation and think Buchner did indicate that the shadow hit the façade. Even if Buchner never states this expressis verbis—just as he never says expressis verbis what scholars holding to the weak interpretation think that he says–what Buchner did write, taken in relation to his illustrations, leaves little doubt about what he meant.  Buchner 1976: 347 does state, as Haselbeger relates, “am Geburtstag des Kaisers…wandert der Schatten von Morgen bis Abend etwa 150 m weit die schnur-gerade Aequinoktienline entlang genau zur Mitte der Ara Pacis….” The weak interpretation of these words is that Buchner knew that the shadow moved along the equinoctial line but did not reach the facade of the Ara Pacis; and therefore that Buchner’s phrase, “etwa 150 m,” referred simply to the inscribed equinoctial line on the (hypothesized) pavement of his horologium. Our view is that the scholars who think Buchner meant that the shadow hit the façade of the Ara Pacis are right because of the phrase “etwa 150 m.” What does this refer to? If one measures the equinoctial line of the horologium on Buchner’s figure 7 (p. 337), one finds[10] that 1 cm=20 m. One also finds that the length of the equinoctial line on the horologium (i.e., the solid line) is 7 cm=140 m. But Buchner said “etwa 150 m.” If one then measures his dotted line extending the solid equinoctial line to the middle of the facade of the Ara Pacis, one discovers the missing 10 m.  For the weak interpretation to be right, Buchner would have to have written “etwa 140 m.”  Moreover, advocates of the weak interpretation must also explain why Buchner accounts at p. 346 for a supposed architectural anomaly of the two entrances of the Ara Pacis by claiming that “die Aequinoktienlinie des Solarium geht durch die Ara hindurch, durchschneidet wie di Vorder- so auch die Rückfront….” And this, too, is clearly seen in his fig. 7 on p. 337. This latter point is, it seems to us, decisive evidence in favor of the strong interpretation. Buchner cannot simply mean that an imaginary equinoctial line can be extended from the end of the actual inscribed line through the west to the east entrance of the Ara Pacis. Such an imagined extension of a line would not require a physical entrance and exit point. Buchner must, rather, be loosely describing an actual physical event, namely the progress of the shadow along the (imagined) extension of the equinoctial line through the altar. Clearly it is the shadow that requires the two entrances, not the hypothetically extended line. At any rate, since the weak interpretation is often encountered in the scholarly literature,[11] we address it here as well as the strong interpretation.
  1. To answer the first question as understood by the strong interpretation, the simulation suggests that it is true, as Buchner always claimed, that on September 23 the shadow of the obelisk progresses more or less down the (in our view hypothetical) equinoctial line in the zone that would be paved and inscribed with the horologium Buchner imagines. Since September 23 is not the actual date of the fall equinox in the Augustan age (which fell on the 25th of the month on the Julian calendar), the shadow actually fails to hit the line at the beginning of the second hour of the day; but for most of the second hour and all the other hours indicated on Buchner’s diagram of the horologium, the shadow does move along the line. However, the simulation also shows that, just at the crucial moment, when the shadow leaves that zone and approaches to ca. five meters of the center of the façade of the Ara Pacis, it  veers off course (see figure 1).These are the facts, at least if the simulation is reliable. In our view the simulation refutes the strong interpretation of Buchner and also casts doubt on the validity of the weak interpretation. If, as Buchner thought, the whole point of the ensemble Obelisk-Ara Pacis is an alignment of the latter with the former precisely on Augustus’ birthday, then the fact that the shadow misses the mark just as it approaches closest to its alleged target (and in an area where they was probably pavement on which the shadow could clearly be seen,)[12] is an indication that Buchner’s thesis is wrong. The simulation shows that the shadow clips the lower south end of the façade of the Ara Pacis just before sunset, when it disappears. We also note here that both the strong and weak interpretations are also thrown into doubt if, as we assume from the absence of any archaeological support, Buchner’s hypothesized pavement with an inscribed equinoctial line never existed. Without such a line, the average observer unversed in the subtleties of astronomy and gnomonology would have had little reason to process the significance of what he was seeing. Buchner’s thesis requires that the observer who does realize what is happening as the shadow advances across the zone to the Ara Pacis have the patience to stand and watch for some, or, ideally, all of the nearly twelve hours of daylight on that date. This seems impractical and implausible. Another decisive point against Buchner’s thesis is the fact that the shadow from the obelisk does hit the center of the western façade of the Ara Pacis at sunset on several other dates of the year. At most, then, one can say that Buchner had the right idea but concentrated on the wrong date. After they have been independently verified, we will report in a separate publication on the dates when the shadow does fall on the center of the western façade at sunset. In this regard, we note Suetonius’ comment (Augustus 31) that Augustus named Sextilis and not his birth month September after himself when he became pontifex maximus “because in the former he had won his first consulship and his most brilliant victories.” Here we have a nice parallel for Augustus’ decision-making in conferring honors on himself: he was not unduly influenced by his birthday but took other factors into consideration. Apparently, the same thing was true of the design he commissioned for the alignment of the obelisk with the Ara Pacis. Finally, and this is the most decisive point against the Buchner thesis, the phasing outlined in section 3(c) makes purely coincidental any shadow effect involving the hypothesized horologium and the Ara Pacis since the Ara Pacis was designed and sited first, the obelisk second, and the horologium (or, as we would instead assert, following Albéri Auber, the meridian) was added as an afterthought.
  2. Pollini 2012:210-216 reports on and illustrates (see, especially, p. 215, figure V.7e) a computer simulation that appears to confirm the strong version of Buchner’s thesis. We were naturally concerned about this result, which contradicts our own. Pollini and his modeler, N. Cipolla, kindly answered questions about their methods and software. We learned that Cipolla used formZ as his modeling package and for the lighting solution showing the shadow of the obelisk hitting the center of the western façade of the altar at 4:31 pm on September 23. As noted above in section 3, correct azimuthal, temporal and geospatial data are needed if the results of a simulation can have validity. Cipolla (personal communication, April 16, 2013) wrote that in creating a lighting solution for the shadow of the obelisk cast at 4:31 pm toward the western façade of the Ara Pacis, he used the built-in geocoordinates for Rome furnished by formZ. We determined that these coordinates are: 41 degrees, 54 minutes N, 12 degrees 30 minutes E. If we put these coordinates in Google Maps, we find that they yield an address near Stazione at via Giovanni Amendola 14-40, 00185 Rome. This location is ca. 2 km from where the obelisk was erected in antiquity. The spatial error is compounded by a temporal error. Cipolla also used formZ’s built-in time setting in his lighting solution. However, as a personal communication (dated April 30, 2013) from Paul Helm of the formZ Technical Support team states, “the formZ Sun Position is designed for current years, and not intended for historical use.” The position of the sun in the sky is quite different today than it was in the period under discussion. Here, too, formZ’s built-in data have contributed to the different—and, we would claim, erroneous–results seen in the Pollini-Cipolla simulation.
  3. Heslin 2007:14 writes that “the shadow of the obelisk would have pointed at the Ara Pacis every single afternoon of the year…” Hannah 2011:94 notes that this is mistaken and that “in mid-winter, for example, it is not possible for the afternoon sun to cast a shadow that will fall from the obelisk towards anywhere near the direction of the altar.” The simulation, with its ability to instantly make complex calculations, allows us to confirm Hannah’s point and make it more precise. On the following dates, the shadow from the obelisk does not point at all toward the Ara Pacis: October 30 to February 11.
  1. Schütz 1990:450-453 questions whether the shadow of the sphere of the obelisk on the Ara Pacis would have had salience. Hannah 2011:91-93 disputes this on the basis of autopsy of the shadow cast by the cenotaph in Dunedin. The simulation also shows that Schütz’s concern was misplaced.
  2. Schütz 2011:85 claims that the Ara Pacis is not aligned with the shadow of the setting sun from the obelisk, but is oriented precisely away from the obelisk toward the rising sun to the east on April 21, the Parilia festival. The simulation shows that there is no precise alignment at sunrise on April 21 (figure 2), but there is such an alignment on May 6, a date with no festival on the religious calendar or other connection to Augustus, his family, or Roman history. It is therefore doubtless accidental—a coincidental result of another date (or dates) determining the design of the obelisk-Ara Pacis ensemble.
  3. Schütz’s attempt to orient the Ara Pacis toward the sun may, however, turn out to be another good idea which, like Buchner’s regarding the shadow, was simply misapplied. Let us recall the phasing of the project (section 3[c]): the design and construction of the Ara Pacis preceded the installation of the obelisk. When it was erected in Rome, the obelisk was rotated to be nearly parallel to the orientation of the Ara Pacis. This rotation has no impact on the obelisk’s functionality as a gnomon for the (still later) meridian: the obelisk’s shadow falls at the correct cross-hatchings on the meridian line whether or not the obelisk, like the meridian, is oriented N-S. But the obelisk’s rotation does have an important visual relevance for the relationship of the obelisk to the Ara Pacis: the obelisk, added after construction of the altar was already underway, was sited and disposed so as to be aesthetically compatible with the altar for someone viewing both on axis from the east (i.e., from the via Flaminia). Here, a different rotation of the obelisk would have been dysfunctional, i.e., aesthetically unpleasing. By looking eastward toward the sunrise from the eastern entrance of the Ara Pacis, Schütz ignores the (to us) indisputable visual and positional relationship between the obelisk and the altar.

The idea of seeing a relationship between the Ara Pacis and the sun—and not, as Buchner thought, the sun’s shadow—is quite interesting, and Schütz deserves credit for introducing it into the debate. All over the world, archaeoastronomers have found evidence of such built “solar markers” (cf., e.g., s.v. solstice markers in the Index of Kelly and Milone 2011: 606). Finding one at Rome would thus not be unprecedented. In this connection, we may note that the obelisk is expressly dedicated to the Sun god (see above n.2).  We are currently using the simulation to study this possibility and have identified three candidate pairs of dates. We note that given the nature of the analemma pattern traced by the sun in the sky each year, we will always find at least two dates (equidistant from the solstices) when any such alignment will occur. And, given the fact that when the observer moves along the axial line of the Ara Pacis imaginarily extended across the via Flaminia, the date of the alignment changes, we are likely to find more than one pair of candidate dates.

If arbitrary results are to be avoided in deciding which date (or, if this is another case of Augustan polysemy, dates; cf. Galinsky 1992) determined the positioning of the obelisk with respect to the altar, one needs rules of inquiry, and we state the rules we think reasonable to apply in the hope that they draw comment before our final report is published. First, there are the visual rules. What we are looking for must fulfill these visual criteria: the observer must be standing on the via Flaminia on axis with the eastern entrance to the Ara Pacis and with his gaze directed so that he can see the top of the obelisk in the distance; the disk of the sun must be more or less tangent to the top of the obelisk; and the disk must be (at least approximately) centered on the obelisk and, of course, on the axis of the Ara Pacis (figure 3). We think that the via Flaminia is the right place to use for observation because from here one had a good view of the entire façade of the Ara Pacis and the top part of the obelisk; and it was much more heavily trafficked than the adjacent area between the road and the eastern entrance to the altar. We assume that the effect we are looking for was exoteric, not esoteric: it was intended to be noticed by the mass of Romans passing through the Campus Martius and not simply by a select few. Then there is the cultural rule that a date is significant if and only if it corresponds to a well-attested religious festival, a personal event in the life of Augustus and his family, or an event of historic importance to the Roman state. We are, of course, aware of the fact when the requirements for a significant alignment are met for the observer stationed on the via Flaminia looking on axis from the east, then at the same time an observer positioned to the west on the imaginary axial line between the obelisk and the Ara Pacis would see the obelisk’s shadow projected onto the axis of the western entrance to the altar (figure 4). Our analysis, then, is in a sense an ironic (and, let us hope, irenic) compromise between the approaches of Buchner (=obelisk’s shadow centered on the western façade of the Ara Pacis) and of Schütz (=sun seen aligned to the main axis of the altar). However, to effect the compromise, we had to find better dates, and we had to turn Schütz ‘s ancient observer around so that she could see both the Ara Pacis and the obelisk, something possible only at sunset, not sunrise. We hasten to add that our results did not come from consciously working out such a compromise in advance and applying it to the simulation, but from using the simulation with no preconceptions as simply a device for virtual empirical survey and observation.[13]

We conclude by expressing the hope that our simulation does not itself become a new topic of the debate (which already includes more than enough controversies!). To reduce the chances that this will happen, before we will release any of our new findings along the lines of the compromise just described we will have the underlying calculations independently checked. And before we freely post the simulation itself on the Internet (as is our intention to do as a support for teaching and research), we want to modify it as suggested above in section 4 so that it is flexible enough to accommodate the complete range of expert views about the archaeological record.

Bibliography

Albèri Auber, Paolo, 2011-12. “L’obelisco di Augusto in Campo Marzio e la sua Linea Meridiana. Aggiornamenti e proposte,” Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 84:447-580.

Albèri Auber, Paolo, 2013a. “La Linea meridiana di Augusto,” Orologi Solari, n. 2, CGI Coordinamento Gnomonico Italiano,  August, 2013.

Albèri Auber, Paolo, 2013b. “The Obelisk of Augustus and its Meridian Line. Part 1,” The Compendium. Journal of the North American Sundial Society, September, 2013.

Buchner, E., 1976. “Solarium Augusti und Ara Pacis,” RömMitt 83, 3 19-65.

Buchner, E., 1980.  “Horologium Solarium Augusti. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1979/80,”

RömMitt 87, 355-73.

Buchner, E., 1982.   Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus (Mainz).

Buchner, E., 1982b.  “L’orologio solare di Augusto,” RendPontAcc  53-54 ( 1980-82) 331-45.

Buchner, E., 1983. “Horologium  Augusti.  Neue Ausgrabungen  in Rom,”  Gymnasium  90,

494-508.

Buchner, E., 1984. “Sonnenuhr des Augustus und römischer Fuß,” in Bauplanung und

Bautheorie der Antike (DiskAB 4) 215-19.

Buchner, E., 1988.  “Horologium solarium Augusti,” in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene

Republik (exh. Cat., Berlin) 240-45.

Buchner, E., 1994.  “Neues zur Sonnenuhr des Augustus,” Nürnberger Blätter zur

Archäologie 10 (1993-94) 77-84.

Buchner, E., 1996a. “Horologium Augusti,” in LTUR 3 (Rome) 35-37.

Buchner, E., 1996b. “Ein Kanal für Obelisken. Neues vom Mausoleum des Augustus in Rom,”

AntW 27, 161-68.

Buchner, E., 1999. “Horologium Augusti,” in Via del Corso. Una strada lunga 2000 anni

(exh. cat., Rome) 159-63.

.

Favro, D., 1996. The urban image of Augustan Rome (Cambridge).

Frischer, B., 2008. “From digital illustration to digital heuristics,” in Beyond Illustration: 2D and 3D Digital Technologies as Tools for Discovery in Archaeology, edited by Bernard Frischer and Anastasia Dakouri-Hild, BAR International Series 1805 (Oxford) v-xxiv.

Frischer, B.and J. Fillwalk, 2013. “ A Computer Simulation to Test the Buchner Thesis. The Relationship of the Ara Pacis and the Meridian in the Campus Martius, Rome,” Proceedings of Digital Heritage 2013, forthcoming.

Galinsky, K., 1992. “Venus, polysemy, and the Ara Pacis Augustae,” AJA 96, 457-75.

Galison, P., 1997. Image & logic. A material culture of microphysics (Chicago and London).

Grenier, J.-C., 1996.  LTUR 3 s.v. Obeliscus Augusti: Circus Maximus (Rome) 355-356

Hannah, R., 2009. Time in antiquity (London and New York).

Hannah, R., 2011. “The Horologium of Augustus as a sundial,” JRA 24, 87-95.

Haselberger, L., 2011. “A debate on the Horologium of Augustus: Controversy and clarifications,” JRA 24, 47-73.

Heslin, P. J., 2007. “Augustus, Domitian and the so-called Horologium Augusti,” JRS 97, 1-20.

Heslin, P. J., 2011. “The Augustus code: A response to L. Haselberger,” JRA 24,74-77.

Humphreys, P., 2004. Extending ourselves. Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method (Oxford and New York).

La Rocca, E., 1983. Ara Pacis Augstae in occasione del restauro della fronte orientale (Rome).

Liverani, P., 2006-7. “Templa duo nova Spei et Fortunae in Campo Marzio,” RendPontAcc 79, 291-314.

Rakob, F. 1987. “Die Urbanisierung des nördlichen Marsfeldes. Neue Forschungen im Areal  des Horologium Augusti,” in L’Urbs. Espace urbain et histoire (CollEFR 98)  687-712.

Rehak, P, 2006. Imperium and cosmos. Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius, edited by John G. Younger (The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison).

Rodríguez-Almeida, E., 1980. “Il Campo Marzio settentrionale: solarium e pomerium,” RendAccPont 51-52, 195-212.

Rossini, O., 2006. Ara Pacis (Milan).

Schütz, M., 1990. “Zur Sonnenuhr des Augustus auf dem Marsfeld,” Gymnasium 97, 432-457.

Schütz, M., 2011. “The Horologium on the Campus Martius Reconsidered,” JRA 24, 78-86.

Torellli, M., 1992.  “Topografia e iconologia. Arco di Portogallo, Ara Pacis, Ara Providentiae, Templum Solis,” Ostraka 1: 105-131.

Torelli, M., 1999. “Pax Augusta, Ara,” in LTUR 4 (Rome) 70-74.

Zanker, P., 1988. The Power of images in the age of Augustus (Ann Arbor).

Figures and Captions

Figure 1. At sunset on September 23, 1 CE, the shadow of the obelisk does not hit the middle of the western façade of the Ara Pacis as required by Buchner’s thesis but, as seen in this illustration, it only grazes the lower right side of the façade before continuing to the right (south) beyond the altar and soon disappearing after sunset. Source: Frischer-Fillwalk simulation.

Figure 2. Sunrise on April 21 (Parilia) of 1 CE seen from the eastern doorway of the Ara Pacis. According to Schütz 2011, 85 the Ara Pacis is oriented in such a way as to be on axis with the rising sun on this date. The doted red line gives the vertical axis and shows that Schütz’s theory is not confirmed by the simulation. Source: Frischer-Fillwalk simulation.

Figure 3.  The Ara Pacis and upper part of the obelisk seen in “Ara Pacis View” from the via Flaminia in the Frischer-Fillwalk simulation. This striking effect appears to have occurred on several days of the year. Before releasing the dates and discussing their possible significance, we are having them independently verified. Source: Frischer-Fillwalk simulation.

Figure 4. The shadow of the obelisk projected onto the vertical axis of the western façade of the  Ara Pacis seen in “Ara Pacis View” from a position along the axial line from the base of the obelisk to the center of the Ara Pacis, as seen in the Frischer-Fillwalk simulation. The dotted red line indicates the vertical axis, on which the shadow appears to be precisely centered. The date and time are the same as in figure 3. Source: Frischer-Fillwalk simulation.


[1] We are honored that Lothar Haselberger has invited us to contribute to this volume. We thank the National Science Foundation for the funding that made the Digital Meridian Project possible. We also thank Paolo Albèri Auber and Robert Hannah for their constant responsiveness to requests for information, help and collaboration. We are grateful to Nicholas Cipolla, David Dearborn, Karl Galinsky, Mika Kajava, Ann-Marie Lewis, Paolo Liverani, John Miller, John  ollini, and Michael Schütz for answering questions and providing the information we requested. Franco Sgariglia kindly arranged our several visits to study the remains of the meridian found by E. Buchner under via di Campo Marzio 48. Needless to say, we are solely responsible for the data and interpretations presented in this report. Bernard Frischer wrote this report, was the principal investigator of the NSF grant, and is responsible for the archaeology behind the simulation; John Fillwalk edited the text of this report and is responsible for the creation of the digital simulation and related solar tracker plug-in.

[2] Ca. 1.0 degree at sunrise and sunset and 0 .5 degrees at other times of the day.

[3] The date is given by mention in the dedicatory inscription of Augustus’ holding of tribunician power for the fourteenth time (CIL VI.701 and 702; ILS 91).

[4] So J.-C. Grenier, LTUR 3 s.v. Obeliscus Augusti: Circus Maximus (Rome 1996) 355-356 at p. 356.

[5] In his contribution to the present volume, Albèri Auber rightly stresses that  in NH 36.72 Pliny uses the word “addidit” twice in connection with the meridian and related sphere atop the obelisk: Ei, qui est in campo, divus Augustus addidit mirabilem usum ad deprendendas solis umbras dierumque ac noctium ita magnitudines, strato lapide ad longitudinem obelisci, cui par fieret umbra brumae confectae die sexta hora paulatimque per regulas, quae sunt ex aere inclusae, singulis diebus decresceret ac rursus augeresceret, digna cognitu res, ingenio Facundi Novi mathematici.  is apici auratam pilam addidit, cuius vertice umbra colligeretur in se ipsam, alias enormiter iaculante apice, ratione, ut ferunt, a capite hominis intellecta. The meridian was a genial afterthought to a project already complete when the obelisk had been installed in the Campus Martius. On the basis of the fact that the obelisk is rotated by 15 degrees from N, the same point was made as early as 1750 by J. Stuart apud Bandini 1750: letter XIII, p. LXXIV.

[6] Schütz 1990:438 cogently notes in this connection that distanziatori are not seen on the relief of Antoninus and Faustina illustrating the obelisk.

[7] Albèri Auber 2011-12:467. Schütz 1990:442 may be right that for Buchner the choice of 100 Roman feet stemmed solely from “a fascination from round numbers,” but for Albèri Auber the decision was made for purely hard-headed, practical reasons. Moreover, Schütz does not reckon with the fact that there was a single, Augustan phase and that, according to Albèri Auber, the meridian was elevated by 60 cm on an embankment off the virgin soil (Buchner’s Flavian phase). So, in a sense, both Schütz and Albèri Auber can be right: the obelisk, including its base was higher off the virgin soil than 100 Roman feet; but since the meridian was also raised off the virgin soil—in Albèri Auber’s view, to offer some protection against the flooding of the Tiber (but, we would note, possibly because the quota level of the virgin soil was lower at the obelisk end of the meridian than at its northern limit; cf. Rodriguez-Almeida 1982:208) —then the effective height of the sphere of the obelisk off the pavement of the meridian was still 100 Roman feet.

[8] See, for example: Schütz 1990: 451; Favro 1996:130; Rehak 2006:83; Hannah and Magli 2011:506. In a rare lapsus memoriae, Torelli 1999:70, writes that the “shadow of the obelisk-gnomon touched the figure of Augustus represented on the frieze around the altar” (cf. also Torelli 1992:107).  Torelli has rotated the Ara Pacis by 90 degrees. Correcting that error, we can add Torelli to the list of scholars holding to the strong interpretation of Buchner.

[9]Haselberger writes: “Buchner never speaks of the actual shadow reaching the Ara Pacis, but of the connection between Ara and Horlogium established through the equinoctial line.”

[10] At least on my photocopy, which may not be a perfect 1:1 reproduction; but the scale issue is irrelevant since it affects Buchner’s scale as well as his plan.

[11] E.g., La Rocca 1983:57, Zanker 1988:144, Rossini 2006:12.

[12] Pavement survives only on the south side of the Ara Pacis. See Haselberger 2011, 55.

[13] To confess the truth, the first author must admit to starting this project with the working assumption that Buchner’s thesis was more or less correct, as several generations of the students who have attended his lecture courses on Roman Topography at UCLA and the University of Virginia can attest.

History Channel’s The Universe Features Virtual Stonehenge

IDIA Lab has developed a simulation of Stonehenge in Unity 3D which illustrates the various stages of construction and celestial alignments in an interactive virtual simulator. The project incorporates IDIA Lab’s CelestialEngine which uses NASA JPL data to accurately position the sun, moon and visible planets – correcting for changes in time in the Earth’s rotation and other forces – allowing for accurate observations of the night sky as they would have appeared thousands of years ago at Stonehenge.

The History Channel’s television series The Universe recently shot segments of an upcoming Stonehenge episode at Ball State University’s IDIA Lab and will feature the use of our simulator and rendered animations throughout the hour long episode. http://www.history.com/shows/the-universe/episodes

Press release: https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=63067

Simulator video feature walkthrough:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNK-cCIog1E&list=UUtQrLF1JPprEvP4AO-iSNvw&feature=share&index=2

The History Channel’s The Universe, Ancient Mysteries Solved: Stonehenge

Perhaps the most mysterious structure on Earth, Stonehenge has stood on a plain in Southern England for 5000 years. Why is it there? In this episode we explore the possibility that this was a prehistoric astronomical observatory. Here ancient astronomer priests may have divined the complex movements of the Sun and Moon, recognizing patterns that would not be discovered elsewhere for thousands of years. The primitive Shamans may have also been the first astronomers to predict eclipses.

Stonehenge

Introduction

Stonehenge is one of the most famous prehistoric sites in the world – consisting of a ring of standing stones set within large earthworks. It is in the middle of the most dense complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in England, including several hundred burial mounds.

Archaeologists believe the earliest phases were built approximately around 3000 BC with radiocarbon dating in 2008 suggesting that the first Sarsen stones were raised between 2400 and 2200 BC and that the bluestones may have been raised at the site as early as 3000 BC.

The site and its surroundings were added to the UNESCO‘s list of World Heritage Sites in 1986 in a co-listing with Avebury Henge. It is a national legally protected Scheduled Ancient Monument. Stonehenge is owned by the Crown and managed by English Heritage, while the surrounding land is owned by the National Trust.

Archaeological evidence found by the Stonehenge Riverside Project in 2008 indicates that Stonehenge could have been a burial ground from its earliest beginnings. The dating of cremated remains found on the site indicates that deposits contain human bone from as early as 3000 BC, when the ditch and bank were first constructed.

PHASES

Phase One 3000-2920 BC

The first monument was essentially an earthwork, consisted of a circular bank and ditch enclosure measuring about 110 meters (360 ft.) in diameter, with a large entrance to the northeast and a smaller one to the south. It stood in open grassland on a slightly sloping spot. Within the outer edge of the enclosed bank is a circle of 56 holes each about a meter in diameter, known as the Aubrey holes after John Aubrey, a 17th-century antiquarian who was thought to have first identified them. Current thinking is that the Aubrey holes contained 56 bluestones during this phase of construction. There are suspected to be three heel stones during this era.

Phase Two 2620-2480 BC

Archaeological excavation has indicated that around 2600 BC, the builders reimagined the monument entirely – and began a massive phase of construction. During this period the sarsen ring with horizontal lintels was erected, the “U” shaped cluster of 5 central trilithons. These huge stones, ten uprights and five lintels, weigh up to 50 tons each. They were linked using complex jointing transferred from knowledge of woodworking. Also during this phase an inner ring of bluestones was constructed – most likely from the removal and relocation of the 56 Aubrey hole bluestones.

The earthwork was altered to create two barrows containing the addition of two of the station stones, with the remaining two outside the barrows, forming a rectangle. These station stones have both solar and lunar alignments. The heel stones were reduced to one – which stands somewhat angled today.

Phase Three 2480-2280 BC

In stage three the Avenue was constructed, a long roadway leading to the river Avon and leading to other settlements and monuments. A bluestone circle is constructed inside the ring of trilithons. This phase also noted the appearance of three slaughter stones.

Phase Four 2280-2020 BC

The main alteration of the monument during this period was the reconstruction of the bluestone configuration within the sarsen ring. They were reworked into two distinct patterns, one a central inner oval of 23 stones inside the trilithon ring – the other a circle of 59 stones between the trilithons and the sarsen ring. The remnants of both patterns are visible today. Also, the slaughter stones were reduced to one – which remains in a fallen state.

Phase Five  1680-1520 BC

The site is essentially unchanged with the exception of the construction of the X and Y holes. There are 30 Y holes and 29 Z holes – these are suspected to perhaps have significance in the tracking of the lunar month. The Y and Z Holes are the last known construction at Stonehenge, built about 1600 BC.

Present Day (1600 BC on)

Roman coins and medieval artifacts have all been found in or around the monument but it is unknown if the monument was in continuous use throughout British prehistory and beyond, or exactly how it would have been used. The Romans are believed to have removed 4 of the 23 inner bluestones from the oval, leaving the remaining 19 stones and holes forming the horseshoe we see today. The site was known to scholars during the Middle Ages and since then it has been studied and adopted by numerous groups.

Throughout the 20th century, Stonehenge began to be revived as a place of religious significance, by adherents of Neopagan and New Age beliefs, particularly the Neo-druids.

In the late 1920s a nation-wide appeal was launched to save Stonehenge from the encroachment of the modern buildings that had begun to rise around it. By 1928 the land around the monument had been purchased with the appeal donations, and given to the National Trust to preserve. The buildings were removed (although the roads were not), and the land returned to agriculture. More recently the land has been part of a grassland reversion scheme, successfully returning the surrounding fields to native chalk grassland.

Celestial Alignments

Many astronomical alignments have been attributed to Stonehenge, a complex of megaliths and earthworks in the Salisbury Plain of England. The most famous of these is the midsummer alignment, where the Sun rises over the Heel Stone.

As well as solar alignments, there are proposed lunar alignments. The four station stones mark out a rectangle. The short sides point towards the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset. The long sides if viewed towards the southeast, face the most southerly rising of the moon.

Gerald Hawkins, a professor and chair of the astronomy department at Boston University in the United States, published an analysis of Stonehenge in 1965 in which he proposed its purpose as an ancient astronomical observatory predicting movements of sun and stars. Archaeologists and other scholars have since demonstrated such sophisticated, complex planning and construction at other prehistoric earthwork sites across the globe.

Function and Construction

Stonehenge was produced by a culture that left no written records. Many aspects of Stonehenge remain subject to debate. There is little or no direct evidence for the construction techniques used by the Stonehenge builders. Proposed functions for the site include usage as an astronomical observatory or as a religious site.

Professor Michael Parker Pearson of Sheffield University has suggested that Stonehenge was part of a ritual landscape and was joined to Durrington Walls by their corresponding avenues and the River Avon. He suggests that the area around Durrington Walls Henge was a place of the living, whilst Stonehenge was a domain of the dead. A journey along the Avon to reach Stonehenge was part of a ritual passage from life to death, to celebrate past ancestors and the recently deceased. Whatever religious, mystical or spiritual elements were central to Stonehenge, its design includes a celestial observatory function, which might have allowed prediction of eclipse, solstice, equinox and other celestial events important to a contemporary religion.

IDIA Lab Virtual Stonehenge Simulator

IDIA Lab has developed a simulation of Stonehenge that illustrates the various stages of construction and celestial alignments in an interactive virtual simulator. The project incorporates IDIA Lab’s Celestial SimEngine which uses NASA JPL data to accurately position the sun, moon and visible planets – correcting for changes in time in the earths rotation and other forces – allowing for accurate observations of the night sky as they would have appeared thousands of years ago at Stonehenge.  https://idialab.org/virtual-stonehenge/

________________________________________

BBC The Sky at Night Episode

This past summer, BBC’s program, The Sky at Night also included IDIA Lab’s Stonehenge simulation and animation in an episode about Stonehenge and the summer solstice. The Sky at Night is a 50 year running program on astronomy which airs on BBC One, Two, Three and Four.

BBC Sky at Night Programme website:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036r5nj

Stonehenge pan preview: Stonehenge Sunset Pan

Launch of Virtual Companion iOS app by IDIA Lab

Learn how modern technology can shape our understanding of the past during a special program at Mounds State Park on Saturday, Nov. 14.

Visitors to the 1 p.m. program will join park naturalist Kelley Morgan to learn about modern technologies that help archaeologists and historians bring the past to life. During the second half, director John Fillwalk and animator Neil Zehr of the Institute for Digital Intermedia Arts Laboratory at Ball State University will demonstrate how they use archaeological data to interpret the past to the public.

BSU’s IDIA Lab is premiering Virtual Companion – their custom augmented reality app employing LocusEngine, a geolocative process developed by IDIA Lab. Visitors to the park use the app to aid in learning and discovery while exploring the park’s Adena-Hopewell mounds. Using GPS data, the user’s position is geolocated in reference to the historical sites, allowing the app to display relevant content as a dynamic guide. This approach can be applied in cultural heritage, archeology, the sciences and the arts.

Interactive features, as well as the user’s current location in the park, are marked on a series of map options designed to provide multiple layers of locative information throughout the park. A GPS-driven trail map is available, allowing the user to track their movement through the trails and important features. When an interactive feature is selected on the map, an augmented reality view using gyroscope and compass data is loaded, portraying native people’s and habitats from the Adena-Hopewell era. Archaeologists have proposed that the enclosures were used to track celestial alignments. Using solar data from NASA’s JPL Horizons database, the movements of the sun on the equinoxes and solstices during the Adena-Hopewell era can be viewed and tracked to search for important alignments.

Standard park entry fees of $5 per in-state vehicle apply. Mounds State Park (stateparks.IN.gov/2977.htm) is at 4306 Mounds Road, Anderson, 46017.

Demonstration videos:

Download app here: http://bit.ly/VC_Mounds

Wonders of Oz

Experience App for The Wizard of Oz
0c357a0c-dab1-41ac-8ac6-0463e262cdc9

Experience Moonlight Movies: The Wizard of Oz in a whole new way! On Saturday, July 11th, you can watch the film in DWNTWN at Canan Commons with an enhanced 3D experience using a new app on your phone designed locally just for this event.

Flying monkeys, the witch on her burning broom, Dorothy’s falling house, cows, chickens, rowboats, bicycles and rainbows all appear on cue! You can use your device to explore the skies as they appear around you during the film. The app is synched to the timing of the movie with visual and sound effects to provide you with an immersive viewing experience.

Special thanks to the Ball State University Institute for Digital Intermedia Arts for developing this app here locally for DWNTWN.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road to the DWNTWN land of Oz! Beginning at 7:00pm, come dressed as your favorite Oz character, get your picture taken with the characters from the Spirit of Oz touring group, enjoy live stage performances, Auntie Em’s Kansas Petting Zoo, and Kids Sing-along. The Wizard himself will be there with an actual hot air balloon!

There is a Toto Look-alike Contest with the winning Toto receive a free dog carrier from Midwest Homes for Pets, Emerson Dog Park Membership from the Muncie Animal Shelter, and a t-shirt and a free membership to the Bark Park from ARF.

Canan Commons is located in the 500 block of south Walnut Street near the roundabout. Family pre-show activities begin at 7:00pm, with the movie starting at dusk. Guests are encouraged to bring a blanket or lawn chairs and bug spray. Vendors will be on site with light snacks.

Visit www.downtownmuncie.org/moonlight-movies for all the details.

 

951ca5f3-1448-406b-8c43-238e6368642f fae61a65-3f7f-4f4d-a655-69328d3f1cd6

IDIA Lab’s SIMviolin to be auctioned off for fundraiser

IDIA Lab Staff Chris Harrison, Dan Eisinger, Blake Boucher, Trevor Danehy and Andy Hesick worked with Director John Fillwalk in designing and building a 3D scanned and laser printed violin – playable by gesture using custom, self-contained electronics. Bid here: https://qtego.net/qlink/emens.php

 

Bx26bN2CYAAAFUJMUNCIE – For anybody who has ever dreamed of playing the violin, but found themselves stymied by one slight problem — namely, they don’t know how — John Fillwalk has just the fiddle for you.

What’s more, he’ll be selling it Sept. 27.

In fact, Fillwalk’s will be one of 14 artistically rendered violins sold in a silent auction and dinner that night, ending a year-long observance of Emens Auditorium’s 50th anniversary.

“We’ve had some wonderful guest artists who’ve joined us for performances at Emens over the past year, helping us commemorate this milestone anniversary,” said Charles Sursa, who chaired the Emens 50th anniversary steering committee. “Now, with this dinner and auction, we look forward to bringing our celebration to a close with these exciting culminating events.”

Designs of the violins run from a metal bug to a Garfield-inspired piece to one made entirely of glass. The one made by Fillwalk, who is director of Ball State University’s Idea Lab, was rendered with lots of assistance from his colleagues at the Institute for Digital Intermedia Arts (IDIA) Lab, and seems a particular mind-blower.

“Basically, we wanted to apply our digital processes to the fund-raising event,” he said, noting how they first scanned a violin with a 3-D laser.

“You basically paint it with a laser light,” Fillwalk said, explaining how it was not unlike a grocery store’s laser scanner. The 3-D recreation was then made with resin via a 3-D printer and fitted with sophisticated electronic, um, gizmos, including three sensors. All of that was then mated with a recorded violin concerto performed by a violin major.

After that? Voila!

“We chopped it up into smaller samples,” Fillwalk said, adding that the violin’s three sensors allow the most musically-impaired of users to play the samples, plus control their pitch and volume.

Pretty unique, too, we observed.

“Yeah, it’s a little different,” Fillwalk conceded.

Stories behind other violins are no less interesting. Painting with oils, Ann Johnson put two entwined swans on hers, the neck of one trailing up the neck of the violin. It is the recreation of a sight she saw on the White River through a window of her home, then went to tell her longtime husband, Jack, who was ailing from cancer.

“I went over to his bed to tell him what I saw and he was gone,” she recalled, adding that music from “Swan Lake” was played at his funeral. “I never before had a particular attraction to swans, but I guess I do now.”

By the way, when an aging Bette Graham agreed to decorate a violin, she asked Johnson to touch it up if needed. When Graham died, Johnson examined the cat-decorated fiddle and barely touched it.

“That (violin) was the last thing Bette did,” Johnson said.

Other artists who contributed decorated violins to the auction include Susie Burns, Cassandra Copenhaver, Jennifer Halvorson, Nate Harmon, Tom Howard, Patricia Kreigh, Alfredo Marin, Jean McCauley, Pat Nelson and Aurora Robson. The university also commissioned Julie Borden, a nationally recognized instrument modifier, to paint a violin that has featured prominently in the promotion of the anniversary season.

Ball State will be auctioning off these artist rendition violins for Emens Auditorium’s 50th anniversary.

Tickets for the Sept. 27 dinner are $75. It is open to the public but limited seating is available; to inquire, contact Breanne Talbott at btalbott@bsu.edu. Bidding for the violins is through an online auction site, www.qtego.net/auc/emens. Visitors to the site must enter their mobile phone numbers and payment information to bid via their phone.

The auction is part of a university-sponsored fundraising effort to pay for future renovations. The violins will be set for public viewing in the main lobby of Minnetrista through Sept. 25.

Another unique one is BSU art professor Lynette Whitesell’s, a work she titled “Bariolage,” which is a special effect “obtained by playing in rapid alternation upon open and stopped strings.” A mixed-media specialist, she put a girl with a redwing blackbird on her shoulder — the bird standing for music — on the top and a girl wearing a blindfold on the back. The blindfold emphasizes the importance of hearing, Whitesell said.

“It’s a little ‘collage-y,'” the artist explained, describing what sounded like a complicated artistic process. What wasn’t complicated was her enthusiasm for both the project and Emens Auditorium.

Contributing to a place that has had such an impact on our community was also fulfilling. Recalling taking her little boy, Logan, to shows there, she noted that only the day before she had said goodbye to her now 18-year-old as he flew off to Marine Corps boot camp.

For many of us, she hinted, Emens is a place of magic memories.

Contact John Carlson at (765) 213-5824.

Temple of Artemis: Wonder of the Ancient World

IDIA Lab was contracted by digital humanities scholars at UCLA to design and build a virtual simulation of the Temple of Artemis, one of the Wonders of the Ancient World, This massive Greek temple, four times the size of the Parthenon lies in ruin in present-day Turkey. This simulation incorporates our CelestialEngine with accurately positions both the sun and moon using a site’s latitude, longitude, altitude and year via NASA JPL data. This particular simulation studies whether an opening in the temple’s portico allowed moonlight to illuminate the statue of Artemis on her feast day.

Izapa Group F Ballcourt Solar Simulation

Mayan Solar Simulator
Izapa Group F Ballcourt

IDIA_IzapaSimulator1stPerson

We have applied our Virtual Solar Simulator to a simple white model build of the pre-Columbian ballcourt in Group F at the Izapa site in Chiapas, Mexico. Izapa is considered to be the birthplace of the Mayan Long Count, which ends its cycle today on December 21st, 2012 – the winter solstice. Viewed today, the site is oriented on an axis where it is aligned generally but not precisely to sunrise on the winter solstice and to sunset on summer solstice. In direct observation today, the alignment along the axis of the ballcourt from the throne #2 to the stela #60 is off-axis by approximately two degrees.

The simulator can be visited here:

https://projects.idialab.org/izapasolarsimulator.html

* The simulation requires Internet Explorer and the Unity plugin.

IDIA_IzapaSimulatorPlanView

The solar simulator developed by IDIA Lab at Ball State University polls data from the NASA / JPL Horizons database (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi) calculates celestial objects position (sun, moon, planets, comets, etc). The database takes into account for the Chandler Wobble – a periodic deviation in the rotation of the Earth’s axis. Archeo-astronomical alignments that are viewed today at Izapa appear to be off-axis, however when compensated for changes in time, rotation, position and Chandler effect via this simulation method, the solstice events come back into their original orientation for the era of their construction and can be observed to be in actual alignment.

A b’ak’tun is 144,000 days in length – almost 400 years. In the Mayan Long Count it took 13 b’ak’tuns to progress throughout a full cycle of creation. Dec. 21, 2012, marks the end of the 13th b’ak’tun of this Mayan calendar and after today’s solstice, the next Long Count cycle begins again – another 5128.8 years.

Happy New Mayan Long Count!
– John
December 21st, 2012

Simulator:

https://projects.idialab.org/izapasolarsimulator.html

* The simulation requires Internet Explorer and the Unity plugin.

It requires the Unity plugin http://unity3d.com/webplayer/

Note on display time and date

Dates are in the year 300 BCE/BC.
Time is represented in Universal Time (UT1/UTC/GMT).
To obtain local time for the Izapa site, subtract 6 hours from the UT time displayed in the simulator.
Next release will provide solstice and equinox preset for the year 2012 for comparison.

Camera control

To switch cameras press the 1 for 1st person camera view, 2 is for bird’s eye view and 3 is for top down view.
To pan use the WASD keys and to zoom use the middle mouse button. To rotate camera use CTRL-Click or Right Mouse Button.

Background

The model is geolocated and accurately referenced in 3D space by latitude, longitude, orientation and elevation. The Horizons database is then scraped using these coordinates as well as the year of interest – in this case we chose 300 BCE/BC as an apogee in the range in which the Izapa site was inhabited.

IDIA Lab has developed the celestial simulation – which can also track the moon and planets, etc – to work on various Cultural Heritage and archeo-astronomy projects in collaboration with international scholars. Other projects utilizing the Celestial Simulator include simulations of Hadrian’s Villa, the Roman Pantheon, the Solarium Augusti in Rome (the largest sun calendar of the ancient world), the Temple of Artemis in modern Turkey (one of the ancient wonders) and Stonehenge.