Comparing a NextEngine 3D Scanner with Casting Mediums for Making Positives of Cord-Impressed Pottery

Summary

In this paper, I compare using latex and Sculpey molds with a NextEngine 3D scanner in creating positive copies of upper midwestern, Late-Woodland, cord-impressed pottery for analysis. Making cast positives of these impressions in casting mediums present different hazards to the sherd. A NextEngine 3D Scanner may present fewer hazards to sherds, while allowing for digital copies that are easily manipulated and measured. It is also portable and relatively inexpensive compared to other 3D scanning technologies. I list the benefits and problems of each method based on tests of a small number of sherds from the UWM-ARL collections. Pressure exerted on sherd, whether or not residues are removed, manipulability of final product, shrinkage, and clarity of the impression structure will be recorded and compared. I will also compare cost, time consumed, and ease of use. I will include how long it takes to learn how to use the NextEngine Scan Studio as well as how long it takes to manipulate the scans in Meshlab. I will then make separate illustrations based on the molds and 3D scans that are blown-up representations of the textile structure and compare the ease of illustration for each.

This Resource is Part of the Following Collections

• Society for American Archaeology 83rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (2018)

Keywords

Spatial Coverage

Record Identifiers

Abstract Id(s): 22400