|
|
|
|
|
by bee_rider
245 days ago
|
|
> Archaeologists generally aren't that computer-savvy. Why throw interdisciplinary shade? > I haven't seen any indications of paint residues on the pillars, but we know that many of the statues in these enclosures were also painted bright colors that would be missed by a digital reconstruction. Wouldn’t a digital reconstruction just have whatever textures were selected? If there’s no indication of paint residues, they can look for other clues of course. But, without any other evidence, what’s the alternative, right? Guessing would be bad, don’t want to mislead people. |
|
But just to highlight some knowledge gaps, it's usually not clear what damage was caused during the backfill process, what the exposure conditions for these pillars were during their lifetimes (e.g. roof or not, though these earlier rectangular rooms are generally agreed to have covered with wooden beams), and even the dating is a bit suspect in this area.
Plus, the relevant team may not even have a LIDAR scanner to do that properly as that's fairly specialist equipment. Etc.
Getting to the point where it's possible and reasonable isn't easy.