(PDF) DEPLOYING LEGACY DATA THROUGH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING HISTORY OF HOUSE B AT THESSALONI

Big Data in Archaeology Proceedings of the 4thConference of the Greek Chapter of the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA-GR) 21-22 October 2021 Edited by Anno Hein Big Data in Archaeology Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the Greek Chapter of the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA-GR) 21-22 October 2021 Edited by Anno Hein Institute for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology – N.C.S.R. “Demokritos” Greek Chapter of the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA-GR) Table of Contents Preface ……………………………………………………………………………………………… i Field Survey of a Cold-War Landscape in Southeast Bulgaria …………………………………1 T. Valchev, A. Sobotkova, P. Hermankova and B. Weissova GIS and 3D digital modelling for tracing and figuring out urban cultural components: Ioannina city case study ………………………………………………………..…………………13 A. Chroni and A. Georgopoulos Deploying legacy data through digital technologies for the reconstruction of the building history of House B at Thessaloniki Toumba ……………..………………………...……………21 K. Efkleidou, M. Karantoni, S. Triantaphyllou, S. Andreou, D. Kaimaris, Μ. Tassopoulou, A. Stamna and N. Kouidis Προσεγγίσεις Ανοικτής Επιστήμης στην Ψηφιακή Αρχαιολογική Έρευνα .…………………33 M. Katsianis and D. Tsiafaki Exploring Neanderthal Handedness. The Contribution of Digital Applications …………..…47 S. Ligkovanlis, A. Aidonis, N. Galanidou and C. Papageorgopoulou Using digital approaches to reveal the history of a rare portable mosaic icon - Creation, use, alterations, interventions ……………..………………………...……………………………...…56 D. Makris, S. Chlouveraki and S. Akpek Rural Economy and Society in Early Modern Cyprus (RURAL-CY): An Introduction to Project Objectives and Technological Infrastructures .…………………………………...……70 C. Paraskeva, P.Hadjittofi , E. Rizopoulou-Egoumenidou and A. Vionis Measures of population divergence for binary data: improvements via simulations ……...…86 E. Nikita and P. Nikitas Considering Social Network Analysis: A Black Sea Case Study investigating trade dynamics in the Ancient Greek World …………………………………………………………….……..…96 H. Bartlet Balicki and J. Rempel Categorization of archaeological ceramics based on their elemental composition using self organizing maps (SOM) ……………..………………………...……………………………...…116 A. Hein and V. Kilikoglou i Training AlexNet to classify Ground Penetrating Radar images featuring buried structures …………………………………………………………………………………………………….123 M. Manataki, A. Vafidis , A. Sarris and N. Papadopoulos Augmenting existing food image datasets with Greek dishes ……………………………...…132 V. Sevetlidis, C. Kiourt, C. Tzouvara, G. Tastzoglou and G. Pavlidis ii 4th CAA GR Conference Athens, Greece 2021 DEPLOYING LEGACY DATA THROUGH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING HISTORY OF HOUSE B AT THESSALONIKI TOUMBA K. EFKLEIDOU1, M. KARANTONI1, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU1, S. ANDREOU1, D. KAIMARIS1, Μ. TASSOPOULOU1, A. STAMNAS1 AND N. KOUIDIS81 1 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

,

,

,

,

,

,

2 Infodim, 21 25th Martiou Str., 54645 Thessaloniki, Greece,

Abstract Thessaloniki Toumba is a multi-period mound settlement in Central Macedonia, Greece, founded during the Bronze Age and inhabited until the Hellenistic period. Continued re-building, occasional clearance episodes, and, finally, the establishment of a burial ground on the top during the Byzantine era resulted in a highly complex stratigraphy. In the context of a project aimed at presenting the site effectively to the public, different episodes of the history of House B were reconstructed and presented in 3D based exclusively on legacy data compiled over 25 years of excavations. The need for more extensive use of legacy data in archaeology, especially in cases of presenting old excavations to the public, has been repeatedly highlighted because of the huge amounts of information amassing underexploited in archaeological archives since the early days of scientific excavations. The issue persists primarily because of the variable quality of the data in terms of extent and accuracy and of the obsolete form they are preserved in. This paper presents the workflow implemented for the operationalization of the legacy data collection available from the excavations conducted at the site of Thessaloniki Toumba between 1988 and 2013 with the aim to reconstruct and present to the public the biography of House B. Keywords: Thessaloniki Toumba, Late Bronze Age, Central Macedonia Greece, 3D representation, excavation documentation 1. Introduction Rendering archaeological sites and artifacts in 3D has become a trend in public archaeology nowadays because they offer the public more detailed and immersive visualisations of past material culture. With the rapid growth of technologies (such as laser scanners and photogrammetry) and 3D modelling software, the production of 3D models has become a quick, efficient and low-cost method for rendering effectively anything from excavated sites to heritage monuments and individual objects (Figure 1). The procedure is straightforward when it involves capturing data still standing or visible in the field during excavation. It is not, however, straightforward for the bulk of archaeological sites whose investigation has already been concluded and which, for various reasons, were not intended to be made accessible to the public or the scientific community. These sites are commonly backfilled, some have degraded, or have even been destroyed leaving no room for experts and general public to visit. Similar problems are presented by multi-phase sites, where remains of different occupation levels are found in close spatial association and/or deposits and architectural features are overlayed in deep stratigraphic sequences requiring the selective removal of deposits, artifacts and structures before proceeding to the excavation of deeper deposits. These sites could be made accessible to the public not only through the publication of textual descriptions, images of their excavation and finds, or architectural plans, but also by rendering them in 3D. 3D models allow archaeologists and the public to directly encounter and actively engage with an excavated space irrespective of physical accessibility. This procedure would involve, however, the incorporation of legacy data, meaning documentation data produced, collected or captured without the technologies that are available EFKLEIDOU et al. 21 4th CAA GR Conference nowadays and outside the scopes of contemporary excavation methods and means of dissemination (Allison, 2008). As a result, these data may often be insufficient in terms of accuracy or completeness, and, in 2D form, which do not “translate” well into 3D. This paper presents the workflow regarding the operationalization and use of legacy data in effectively disseminating the archaeological remains of past excavation sites. In our case study, we used the legacy data (reports, drawings, 2D plans, and photographs) collected between 1988 and 2013 during the excavation of House B, a multi-phase building complex excavated Athens, Greece 2021 at the archaeological site of Thessaloniki Toumba. Due to the fragile state of the architectural remains unearthed, this archaeological site is closed to the public and remains largely unknown to the wider audiences in the city. The dissemination of the biography of House B followed two phases: the reconstruction of the building’s history based on the study of the stratigraphic and architectural data collected during its excavation; and the visual rendering of this house’s history through a sequence of 2D plans and 3D models, whereby each plan or model presents the excavated remains associated with a different phase in the house’s history. Figure 1. A 3D model of the excavated area using structure-from-motion photogrammetry produced during the 2021 field season at Thessaloniki Toumba (Model by SmartEye Project, ©Thessaloniki Toumba Excavation Archive & SmartEye Project). 2. The archaeological site of Thessaloniki Toumba The site of Thessaloniki Toumba lies at the northeastern part of the modern-day city of Thessaloniki, in Northern Greece (Figure 2). The site is a mound-settlement, formed over hundreds of years of continuous habitation on the same restricted area of what originally was a low natural hill. Habitation at the site was probably established at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA, 2050-1650 B.C), but the best preserved and most extensively investigated occupation levels belong to the Late Bronze Age (1650-1050 B.C.). The excavated remains on the top of the mound belong to several multi-room free-standing buildings, which were separated by narrow streets. Most of the buildings have only been partially investigated, but the remains and archaeological deposits of three (Houses A, B, and E) provide us with important information on the size, architecture, building practices and activities that took place in their interior (Figure 3). Houses were built with mudbricks on stone socles with wooden supports. The floors were predominantly earthen, and the roofs made of clay and reeds. Over the course of the settlement’s history, houses were repeatedly repaired and rebuilt on top of their predecessors’ remains after the latter had been EFKLEIDOU et al. 22 4th CAA GR Conference partially or entirely backfilled. This practice resulted in a highly complex stratigraphic sequence both at the scale of the settlement and at the scale of individual Athens, Greece 2021 buildings (Andreou et al., 2022, Andreou, 2009, Andreou and Kotsakis, 1997). Figure 2. Aerial view of the archaeological site of Thessaloniki Toumba (view from west) (Photo by K. Kotsakis ©Thessaloniki Toumba Excavation Archive). House B, which forms our case study, is a building complex that was partially exposed over an area of ca. 80 m2 and at a depth of almost 3m. Preliminary study of the stratigraphic sequence and architecture of the building (Efkleidou et al., 2018) revealed that the building was entirely rebuilt at least four times over a period of more than 200 years (1210-950 B.C.). Inbetween these rebuilding events, the building saw multiple episodes of minor (renewals of earthen floors and internal furnishings) and major (reconstruction of individual walls) repairs. The evidence for Iron Age and Archaic period habitation at this part of the excavation has been heavily disturbed or destroyed. However, during the Classical period a large building with strong foundations was built above the remains of the Bronze Age House B. The settlement was probably abandoned during the synoecism that led to the foundation of the Hellenistic town of Thessaloniki in 315 B.C. by King Cassander of Macedon. However, during the Middle Byzantine period the area above House B was transformed into a burial ground (Kotsakis and Andreou, 1989, Andreou et al., 2022). The opening of several of these Byzantine period graves caused the destruction of Prehistoric and Classical period deposits and architectural features of House B. 3. The data and their limitations The excavation of House B took place between 1988 and 2013 and the remains extend over an area of ca. 110 m2. Excavation at the site follows the single context recording system which respects the integrity of the stratigraphic context and adheres to a depositremoval strategy that follows from the reverse the deposition sequence and life-history of the building (Kotsakis et al., 1995). The documentation procedures were rigid: each context was drawn at 1:50 scale, contexts considered complicated or important for their finds or attributes were also sketched in the excavation diary and in sequenced plans at 1:20 scale; multiple EFKLEIDOU et al. 23 4th CAA GR Conference contexts of interest were also drawn in top plans at 1:20 scale. Single or groups of contexts and their associations were routinely photographed. Finally, stratigraphic sections of at least two sides of each trench were drawn at 1:10 scale. The collection, thus, of documentary data from House B includes 72 top plans, several sketches drawn mostly without scale, 11 stratigraphic sections, and 1532 photographs. Added to these, there are handwritten excavation diaries, catalogues of features, finds etc. and reports from each excavation trench for every field season. Athens, Greece 2021 degrees: problems related to the documentation protocols; to the technical equipment used, and to human error. One of the most important problems arising from the documentation protocols followed at Thessaloniki Toumba lies with the decision to draw top plans of the excavated space whenever a context of interest appeared. Such a context would involve the detection of a structure or an artifact or a group of artifacts (i.e., a hearth, a pit, a wall, a group of pottery sherds etc.). These top plans depicted only the context of interest, in an effort to limit any unintentional association of contexts that might have belonged to non-associated events. Such associations were to be considered and determined during the post-excavation study of the stratigraphy, after which the top plans would be combined. While this protocol intended to remove the pressure of interpreting complex stratigraphic and contextual associations from the excavator’s shoulders while in the field, it often resulted in decontextualizing the documented features and artifacts. This practice impeded the post-excavation process of conceptualizing or reconstructing the excavated space both mentally and in 3D. Furthermore, a limitation arose by the number of elevations recorded in the plans. While the interpretation of a feature and its contextual associations can be achieved even with a small number of measurements, it was soon highlighted that the number of elevations noted in the plans was too small to allow the accurate reconstruction in 3D of the 2D features in the top plans. Figure 3. Simplified plan of the Late Bronze Age settlement at the top of Thessaloniki Toumba (Map by K. Efkleidou, ©Thessaloniki Toumba Excavation Archive). While the documentation strategy at Thessaloniki Toumba excavation (initiated in the 1980s) followed pioneering protocols for its time, the accumulated data, particularly from the earlier periods of the excavation, present limitations which constrain the detail of the final publication of the archaeological remains. These limitations became further pronounced in the face of our intention to produce 3D models of the excavated space as part of our ongoing commitment to make the site accessible and effectively engage the public with its historic environment (see Kotsakis et al., 1995 for early attempts to reconstruct the site in 3D). These constrains are linked to three types of problems affecting the usability of the legacy data at variable Photographic documentation was also focused on capturing the subtleties of archaeological features and artifacts as they were exposed in the field, but the process involved both close-ups and trench overviews that allow one to gain an understanding of the wider context of the features or artifacts documented. The process also involved photographing from different angles and directions to limit the effect of shadows or distortions. Still the limited number, angles, and quality of photographs taken on any occasion, although probably sufficient for an archaeological publication, have proved insufficient for the reconstruction of the excavated context as a 3D model with the use of photogrammetric software, such as Agisoft Metashape. Issues pertaining to the technical equipment used over the years affected the accuracy of the measurement data recorded in the top plans, sections, and the diaries. Until the end of the 1990s and before the time of highaccuracy total stations in archaeological excavations, EFKLEIDOU et al. 24 4th CAA GR Conference depths were measured with a water level and for a brief period with a dumpy level from temporary benchmarks. The coordinates of contexts, features and artifacts were measured in the field with tape measures from the sides of each trench within the established site grid and subsequently transformed into the site’s local reference system. As a result of the technical equipment available and on-site problems that commonly occur in the fieldwork (i.e., contraction of trench limits as excavation proceeds) some accuracy loss was observed both on the horizontal and on the vertical plain. Substantial limitations, however, were also brought about by human error. Under the pressure of time or due to the training character of the fieldwork campaigns involving archaeology students, the guidelines regarding the symbology used in the top plans or the accuracy of the measurements noted were not rigidly followed. Athens, Greece 2021 4. The workflow for the operationalization of the legacy data The first step taken was to scan all legacy data and translate them into digital images. Diaries and reports were scanned into PDF files, whereas all plans and sketches were digitized in high-resolution grayscale TIFF files (600dpi) (Figure 4, left). A GIS system was setup in which all plans were imported and georeferenced. These plans were ordered by date produced to create sequenced planar snapshots of the excavation procedure. The sequences of overlayed plans allowed us to determine: features that were present in multiple plans (a preliminary indication of the close spatial association of permanently standing features with deposits and structures of more than one occupational phase); features whose morphology, attributes, or interpretation evolved as excavation progressed; and deposits or features at different levels that were removed as excavation proceeded. Figure 4. Left: top plan of features in trench 261 produced in the field. Right: the same plan digitized in Autocad (Original plan by M. Dosi (1990), digitized plan by G. Vlahodimos (2000-2001) and M. Karantoni (2020), ©Thessaloniki Toumba Excavation Archive). Digitization of the top-plans could not be automated as they were drawn on millimeter paper, the grid of which created a very dense web of lines that impaired the distinction of individual features on the plans. A headsup manual digitization method was followed instead, which was carried out in Autodesk Autocad software (Figure 4, right). Even though the digitization process is a technical job, an increased level of interpretation was involved in those cases where the symbology did not conform to standards and feature type, material or even shape could not be directly recognized from the drawing. During this process, the classification of features in the plans became standardized, so that all digital plans would share a common set of layers and pen attributes. The layers followed a classification system for features based on type (“Architecture”, “Structures”, and “Portable finds”), function (e.g., Architecture was subdivided into socle, wall, surface), and material (e.g., stone, mudbrick, clay, gravel, etc.) (Table 1). Once the digitization of the plans had finished, a systematic effort was made to address the issue of the small number of elevations noted in the plans. The missing information was retrieved from the descriptions and measurements noted in the excavation diaries. Where such information could not be found in the diaries, it was reconstructed from the photographs. EFKLEIDOU et al. 25 4th CAA GR Conference Athens, Greece 2021 The diary descriptions and photographs of features were also scrutinized in those cases where mistakes were observed in the shape or size of the features drawn. In many cases, this involved the orthorectification of photographs of features to ascertain the correct location or size of the features. The final step before the production of the 3D models of House B involved the production of phase plans. The phase plans of a building or a wider archaeological site combine all the structures, deposits, and other features that are interpreted as contemporary or as falling within the timespan of the same occupation period. In cases of multi-period sites, such as Thessaloniki Toumba, where houses were repeatedly rebuilt, several phase plans are expected to be produced. TYPE The stratigraphic analysis of the deposits with the use of the well-known Harris-Matrices (Figure 5) and the 3D modelling of the excavation units (following Tsipidis et al., 2011, Katsianis et al., 2015) (Figure 6) allowed us to determine more than 100 different events in the life of House B. These events involved rebuildings of the house, repairs in walls or interior furnishings, multiple floor layings and repairs, destructions, infilling episodes, burials, insertions or removals of pithoi or other features, and, finally, the usages of the spaces of the house itself. The sequence of events in mound settlements in general, and at Thessaloniki Toumba in particular, followed a roughly cyclical order: construction, use, destruction/ abandonment, infilling, and rebuilding. Each time the house was rebuilt, a new cycle and a new occupation phase begun. FUNCTION WALL A (ARCHITECTURE) FLOOR S (STRUCTURE) STONE MUDBRICK CLAY GRAVEL EARTH HEARTH OVEN PIT BASKET POST-HOLE PLATFORM POTTERY F (PORTABLE FINDS) MATERIAL SEASHELLS STONES GRAVEL SKELETAL (REMAINS) OTHER ARTIFACTS PITHOS OTHER HUMAN ANIMAL STONE CLAY BONE Table 1. The organization and naming conventions of the layers used in the digitized top plans. EFKLEIDOU et al. 26 4th CAA GR Conference Athens, Greece 2021 Figure 5. Part of the Harris matrix produced during the stratigraphic analysis of the deposits of House B (Figure by K. Efkleidou). Figure 6. The 3D modelled excavation units from House B at Thessaloniki Toumba classified by occupation phase in the ESRI ArcScene environment (Model by M. Karantoni). As part of the stratigraphic sequencing procedure, the archaeological deposits were associated with built-in features (i.e., walls, platforms, hearths etc), and most importantly with the floors or living horizons of each occupation phase of the building. Portable artifacts (i.e., pottery, stone tools etc.) are depicted on the phase plans only when they have been found lying on these floors or on built-in features and structures. Seven occupation phases which chronologically extend from prehistory (Bronze Age) to the Classical/ Hellenistic period, were, thus, distinguished in the history of House B at Thessaloniki Toumba. The final phase of occupation involved the conversion of this part of the settlement into a Christian burial ground dating to the Byzantine times. The respective phase plans presenting the excavated remains of each occupation phase were finally modelled into 3D with the use of appropriate software, such as Autocad 3D and 3DS max (Figure 7). EFKLEIDOU et al. 27 4th CAA GR Conference Athens, Greece 2021 Figure 7. The (aggregate) top plan (left) and the 3D model (right) of the excavated remains of phase 2B at Thessaloniki Toumba House B (Plan by K. Efkleidou and M. Karantoni, model by SmartEye Project, © Thessaloniki Toumba Excavation Archive & SmartEye Project). ca. 6th-12th c. AD Thessaloniki Toumba House B Occupation Phases 1A Relative Chronology Southern Mainland Greece Byzantine Period 500 - 316 B.C. 1B Classical & Hellenistic period 1070/1040-1030/1000 BC 2A Early Protogeometric 1110/1100-1070/1040 BC 1140/1130-1110/1100 BC 2B 3 1210-1140/1130 BC 4 Late Helladic IIIC LATE Late Helladic IIIC ADVANCED Late Helladic IIIC DEVELOPED Late Helladic IIIC EARLY Absolute Chronology Table 2. The dating of the occupation phases identified in the area of House B at Thessaloniki Toumba. 5. Results: the biography of House B The history of House B clearly demonstrates the conscious efforts of the respective household to maintain the external form of the house identical for a period of over 200 hundred years (Efkleidou et al., 2022) (Table 2).1 The earliest excavated remains are of 1 The occupation phases of House B have been stratigraphically correlated with the settlement-wide phases at Thessaloniki Toumba, the absolute chronology of which is based on a series of radiocarbon dating samples discussed in Andreou (2009; see also discussion in Jung et al. 2009; Jung and Wenninger 2002; 2004). limited spatial extent but are securely dated on relative stratigraphic basis to settlement phase 4 (1210-1130 B.C.) (Figure 8). The remains were covered by a destruction/fill deposit that preserved them in considerably good condition. In fact, at the west side of the investigated room, a low clay-plated platform was found with charred and fossilized organic food remains preserved inside a clay bowl and on the surface of a stone grinder. At a small distance, the partial remains of a thermal feature, probably a domed oven, testify to the use of this space as primarily a food preparation and cooking area (Efkleidou et al., 2018, Andreou et al., 2022). During subsequent occupation phases, EFKLEIDOU et al. 28 4th CAA GR Conference however, the functions of the different spaces in the house changed. Figure 8. View of the excavated remains of occupation phase 4 (©Thessaloniki Toumba Excavation Archive). During phase 3, when the house was rebuilt by replicating the exact same plan that it had during the earlier occupation phase, two large storerooms were functioning on either side of a space that was partly used as a purple-dye production workshop. The storerooms contained pithoi, numerous large and medium-sized jars, as well as very large woven baskets with a capacity of ca. 600 liters or more, that could be used as granaries. One of the rooms in the northeast corner was infilled with a particular type of red clay soil and then abandoned (Efkleidou et al., 2018, Andreou et al., 2022) (Figure 9). After another violent destruction, the house was rebuilt (occupation phase 2B). Once again, it replicated the plan already familiar to the household. During this period, house floors were repeatedly repaired, as they were worn out by everyday use. One space, however, presents increased interest as it was transformed into a semi-public courtyard space open to the street. The area was used for routine activities, such as spinning or the production of household equipment (tools), and the consumption of meals. However, it is particularly interesting that this space, together with the area of the street right outside this part of the house, was also Athens, Greece 2021 considered the designated area for the burial of four individuals (three children and a male adult) (Andreou et al., 2014). After each burial event, the area was restored to its routine use. It is only after the last of the burials, that of a seven-year-old child which was exceptionally laid face-down, that the house was rebuilt once again (occupation phase 2A) (Figure 10). Figure 9. The (aggregate) top plan of occupation phase 3 at House B (Cartography by Kalliopi Efkleidou). Over the next period and until Classical times habitation expanded outside the confines of the mound top. A settlement was established around the foothills of the mound (known as trapeza or table) that continued to be occupied until the abandonment of the site in general as part of the synoecism for the foundation of the city of Thessaloniki by Kassandros in 316 B.C. (Andreou, 2019, Andreou and Kotsakis, 1997). While habitation on the mound top did not cease, as recent investigations have demonstrated (Andreou et al., 2022), all such evidence was obliterated from the area of House B by an organized clearance event that prepared the area for the construction of a large Classical-period house. The size of this house (covering an area of at least 100 m2) exceeded that of the prehistoric one. Some of its walls were built on top of the stubs of the prehistoric house’s walls, but interior walls especially were built on high rubblestone socles laid inside foundation trenches cut through the prehistoric deposits. The house comprised at least four spaces, but the fragmentary nature of the many architectural remains in its vicinity does not allow us to reconstruct its complete plan, at least in the excavated area of the site. The house suffered a major destruction during the Classical period, that caused parts of the EFKLEIDOU et al. 29 4th CAA GR Conference roof to collapse inside the house. Yet, the structure was rebuilt again, as the very partially preserved stone walls document. The final episode in the biography of House B was its conversion to a Christian burial ground. Five burials of Athens, Greece 2021 three infants and two adults were found with the bodies placed in an extended position, with their arms crossed over the chest, oriented west to east. The burials were neatly ordered in two rows, one for the adults and one for the infants, and regularly spaced (Andreou and Kotsakis, 1994, Andreou et al., 2022). Figure 10 3D model of occupation phase 2B and the last burial performed during this phase in the northern part of House B (Model by SmartEye Project, © Thessaloniki Toumba Excavation Archive & SmartEye Project). 6. Discussion The growing need to make past archaeological projects and their findings more accessible to the public integrating means such as immersive 3D models has become widely acknowledged among archaeologists nowadays. 3D models provide direct interaction with heritage without damaging it and without hindering its continued investigation. This understanding has led to the growing incorporation in archaeological excavation practice of new methods (i.e., structure-from-motion photogrammetry, point clouds) and technologies (i.e., drones, laser scanners) that improve and accelerate the creation of high-quality and high-resolution 3D models of excavations, archaeological deposits, built-in features and portable artifacts in 3D. However, when it comes to presenting excavations that have already been backfilled or sealed off for reasons of preservation, the use of these methods and technologies is impossible. Turning to the use of legacy data then becomes a one-way street with all the problems and restrictions posed by the aims, methods, and conditions under which the legacy data were compiled. The methodology presented here demonstrates that the processing of legacy data (plans, sketches, diaries, and reports) can achieve their operationalization and allow the production of 3D models of the excavated landscape. In the case study presented, many of the problems identified in the legacy data available were the result of excavation protocols and technologies that were continuously developed, evaluated and adapted or upgraded over a period of almost 40 years. Most importantly, however, they were the result of their time and collected without ever having in mind the use in which we aim to put them today. However, considering the irreversibly destructive effect of all archaeological excavations, whereby artifacts and occasionally entire occupation phases are removed and obliterated, it is imperative that we continue to seek new and enhanced ways to reconstruct the archaeological remains in a way which represents faithfully and accurately their condition during excavation. The present paper presents an attempt to achieve this aim by making use, to the best possible extent, of the available legacy data, even when they present substantial limitations by today’s standards. EFKLEIDOU et al. 30 4th CAA GR Conference In fact, the operationalization of the visual data available (plans, sketches, sections and photographs) together with the analysis of the stratigraphic and architectural data from the excavations at the archaeological site of Thessaloniki Toumba, allowed us to unlock and effectively present the complex building history of House B. The evolution of the continuous habitation in this area was thus successfully presented in the traditional form of phase-plan sequences as well as in the form of 3D-model sequences enabling the direct visualization of the site’s ongoing excavation and the archaeological remains’ materials, hue, and form. As a final comment, we would like to note that 3D visualization did not provide any useful insights during the stratigraphic sequencing and phasing of the archaeological deposits because the latter is an analytical step that needs to precede the building of the 3D model. However, the models finally produced have provided both expert and wider audiences with a unique way to envision and gain a better understanding of how past spaces looked and were used by the people who lived in them. In the end, these 3D models and our ability to “walk” through and explore them is worth a thousand words! Acknowledgements This research was carried out in the context of the project SMART EYE: Development of a prototype for smart visualization of invisible antiquities (Τ6ΥΒΠ00023, ΜΙS 5056205). The project is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund) through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation 2014-2020, Special Actions "Aquaculture" - "Industrial Materials" - "Open Innovation in Culture". The Thessaloniki Toumba excavation is funded by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the Research Committee of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. References Allison, P., 2008, Dealing with Legacy Data - an introduction. Internet Archaeology, 24, DOI 10.11141/ia.24.8. Andreou, S., 2009, Stratified Wheel made Pottery Deposits and Absolute Chronology of the LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba. In: DegerJalkotzy, S. & Bächle, A. E. (eds.) LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms III: LH III C Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age. Proceedings of the international workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, February 23rd and Athens, Greece 2021 24th, 2007. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Andreou, S., 2019, Μετά την Τούμπα: παράδοση και νεωτερισμοί στις κοινωνίες της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας στο τέλος της 2ης και στις αρχές της 1ης χιλιετίας π.Χ. In: Kotsakis, K. (ed.) Η αντίπερα όχθη. Κοινωνικός χώρος και ιδεολογία στις προϊστορικές κοινότητες. Μελέτες αφιερωμένες στη μνήμη του καθηγητή Γ. Χ. Χουρμουζιάδη. Θεσσαλονίκη: Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης. Andreou, S., Efkleidou, K. & Triantaphyllou, S., 2014, Η Πανεπιστημιακή Ανασκαφή στην Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης κατά το 2009. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, 24 (2010), 359-364. Andreou, S. & Kotsakis, K., 1994, Η ανασκαφή στην Tούμπα της Θεσσαλονίκης το 1991. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, 5, 210-18. Andreou, S. & Kotsakis, Κ., 1997, Η προϊστορική τούμπα της Θεσσαλονίκης. Παλιά και νέα ερωτήματα. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, 10Α (1996), 369-87. Andreou, S., Triantaphyllou, S. & Efkleidou, K., 2022, Ανασκαφή Τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης 2006-2016. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, 30 (2016), 281-290. Efkleidou, K, Karantoni, M, Triantaphyllou, S & Andreou, S., 2022, Unlocking building biographies during the Late Bronze Age in Central Macedonia: the case of the Thessaloniki Toumba mound settlement. Journal of Greek Archaeology, 7: 94-121. Efkleidou, K., Valamoti, S. M., Vliora, E., Karathanou, A., Kyrillidou, S., Papadias, Y., Triantaphyllou, S. & Andreou, S., 2018, Η πανεπιστηµιακή ανασκαφή στην Τούµπα Θεσσαλονίκης κατά το 2013. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, 27 (2014), 307-315. Jung, R., Andreou, S. & Weninger, B., 2009, Synchronisation of Kastanas and Thessaloniki Toumba at the end of the Bronze and the beginning of the Iron Age. In: Deger-Jakotzy, S. & Baehle, A. (eds.) LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms III. LH III C Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age. International Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, 23-24.2.2007. Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jung, R. & Weninger, B., 2002, Zur Realitaet der Discrepanz zwieschen den kalibrierten 14C-Daten und der historischaerchaeologishen Datierung in Kastanas. EFKLEIDOU et al. 31 4th CAA GR Conference Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlugshuegel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975-1979. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19 bis 11. Teil 1 & 2. Kiel: Verlag Oetker/Voges. Jung, R. & Weninger, B., 2004, Kastanas and the chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. In: Higham, T., Bronk Ramsey, C. & Owen, C. (eds.) Radiocarbon and Archaeology. Proceedings of the 4th symposium, Oxford 2002. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. Katsianis, M., Tsipidis, S. & Kalisperakis, I., 2015, Enhancing excavation archives using 3D spatial technologies. In: Papadopoulos, C., Paliou, E., Chrysanthi, A., Kotoula, E. & Sarris, A. (eds.) Archaeological Research in the Digital Age. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Greek Chapter (CAA-GR). Rethymno, Crete, 6-8 March 2014. Rethymno: Institute for Mediterranean Athens, Greece 2021 Studies – Foundation of Research and Technology (IMS-FORTH). Kotsakis, K., Andreou, S., Vargas, A. & Papoudas, D., 1995, Reconstructing a Bronze Age settlement by CAD. In: Huggett, J. & Ryan, N. (eds.) Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology 1994: Proceedings of the 22nd CAA conference 1994. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, Archaeological and Historical Associates Limited. Kotsakis, Κ. & Andreou, S., 1989, Προκαταρκτικές παρατηρήσεις στις αρχιτεκτονικές φάσεις του οικισμού της Tούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, 2, 201-212. Tsipidis, S., Koussoulakou, A. & Kotsakis, K., 2011, Geovisualization and Archaeology: supporting excavation site research. In: Ruas, A. (ed.) Advances in Cartography and GIScience. Volume 2: Selection from ICC 2011. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-19214-2_6 EFKLEIDOU et al. 32