Summative CATH Project report for all triplets populated collaboratively as a group
1. Project title
Handling the Hoard: Building a specification for 3D printing of archaeological objects for visitor
handling
2. Named Collaborators and your organisations
Name
Organisation
Dr Nicholas Tate
University of Leicester
Dr Emma Poulter
n/a (freelance)
Lucia Masundire
Leicestershire County Council
3. Please state the CATH project deliverables you attained (e.g. your project goals,
milestones achieved)
Outputs and Outcomes
The key outputs for this project were to develop:
1. A specification (to be shared with the museum sector) for 3D printing museum
archaeological objects specifically for visitor handling
2. A prototype methodology for evaluating visitor encounters of 3D printed archaeological
replicas
As of 28 May 2014 we were able to:
 Explore three different methods of scanning
 Experiment with objects made of different materials
 Print one object using one type of material
 Develop a draft specification for printing for handling
 Develop a methodology for evaluating visitor experiences
We haven’t been able to:
 Test the methodology (see Section 6)
 Produce a final specification that can be shared with the museum sector (see Section 6)
The project was split into 4 phases:
Object and method selection
As the outcome for UoL was to explore how they could use their own equipment to scan cultural
objects, the scanning methods were known from the outset. This comprised of an X-Ray Micro CT
scanner (Nikon Metris XTH 225) located in the School of Engineering and the FaroArm Fusion laser
scanner located in the Department of Geography. There are already lots of examples of successfully
using both techniques to produce digital models of objects (see Natural History Museum’s work in
scanning fossils and the Smithsonian Institution’s work as part of its X 3D programme using FaroArm
scanners) so we knew that these were well tested. In addition, the Department of Geography has
successfully employed the FaroArm laser scanner in the context of scanning a number of objects
including fluvial gravel surfaces. Both systems employ active sensors requiring the emission and
reflection/capture of information returned from a scanned object. The Micro CT scanner operates by
collecting many images which are effectively 2D slices (tomography) through an object to allow 3D
reconstruction; some skill is therefore required to explicitly identify the surface of the object from
this information, whereas the laser scanner is based on reflecting a laser pulse from the object to
record a dense cloud of points to build up an explicit reconstruction (surface model) of the surface of
the object.
LCC also employed the use of basic photogrammetry software (AutoDesk 123D Catch) to test this
technique for scanning. Photogrammetry is the process of taking measurements using photographs,
by taking images of an object at many different angles a 3D model can be created by “stitching”
these photographs together. There are many open source/free software that can be used to do the
“stitching” and is assumed to be relatively easy and cheap compared to the other techniques used.
At this stage the collaborators met at Leicestershire County Council’s Collections Resource Centre
along with the Conservation Manager and Finds Liaison Officer to examine various objects within the
Hallaton Hoard and to choose a selection of objects to test the method of scanning, printing and
handling. The objects chosen were selected on the basis of size, material, perceived ease (or not) for
scanning and local/historical importance. The final objects agreed upon were a silver bowl, a
cheekpiece and the Hallaton Helmet, our reasoning can be found in Appendix 1: Object & Method
Selection.
Scanning and printing
As mentioned above three techniques were employed for this project:
 Micro CT X-Ray
 Photogrammetry
 FaroArm fusion laser scanner
and the process can be broken down into two stages; scanning and editing. You can read more detail
about in Appendix 2: Scanning & Printing Methods
Development of methodology and specification
Methodology
After discussing the possible uses of the replica objects with Museum staff it was decided that the
cheek piece would never be left in the gallery unsupervised. Although highly tactile it is still fragile
and its small size leaves it at risk of being stolen should it be left unattended.
Three main visitor groups were identified:

Family groups – visiting during special events where the replica would be available for
handling, facilitated by a member of staff who is knowledgeable about the hoard

School groups – on specially arranged trips to see the objects as part of their school work
studies on the Romans. A member of staff would again be on hand during these visits to
facilitate the use of the replica

Specialist interest groups. The Hallaton Hoard is visited by a number of academics with
particular research interests in the objects. The replica should also be of interest and use to
them, allowing them to see good representations of the objects up close and to examine the
detail in a way they are unable to do at present as the objects are on permanent display.
In response to the identification of these three groups I have devised the following



A questionnaire aimed at adults visiting the museum on a general visit with or without
children. See Appendix 3: Questionnaire One
A questionnaire aimed at children on family or school visits. See Appendix 4: Questionnaire
Two
A questionnaire aimed at specialist interest groups undertaking independent study of the
hoard. See Appendix 5: Questionnaire Three
It is presumed that having the replica available will provide visitors with an accessible tool which will
allow them to study the objects close up, to examine the details and to ponder over their
significance as well as to be able to think more deeply about the original use of the cheek piece and
to imagine what it might have been like to make and wear it. The evaluation data will help up to see
if this is the case.

Suggested observation exercise (Appendix 6: Observation Sheet), to be carried out by
interns/volunteers to look at how having a replica present influences how visitors interact
with both the real and the replica objects and what the significance of having a replica Is in
terms of visitor perception of the hoard and helmet
It is presumed that having a replica of the cheek piece available for handling will mean that visitors
will stay longer at the exhibits and interact more. The observation exercise above will help us to
determine exactly what sort of interaction takes place.
Main questions to be addressed:


It what ways does the replica cheek shield add to visitor understandings of the real object
What is the impact on visitor behaviour of having the replica cheek shield in the gallery
alongside the real objects
Testing period: It has been suggested by the museum that visitor encounters to the replica and real
object be tested using this methodology during the British Archaeology festival in July. During this 16
day period the museum expects large numbers of visitors to the museum to see the hoard. We will
be filming people’s responses during this time. We will also carry out a “soft” test with LCC staff once
the replicas are ready.
Emma Poulter’s full methodology can be read in Appendix 8: Evaluation Methodology
Specification
As we haven’t been able to complete the process of testing the object we have not been able to
produce a final specification that can be shared amongst the sector. Instead we have produced a
draft specification that outlines what we think people should take into consideration when
embarking on a project such as ours. Once we have been able to complete the steps outlined in
section 6 we hope to update this document into a more final document. The draft specification can
be found in Appendix 9: Draft Specification
Due to the time constraints of this project we weren’t able to test the robustness of the replica in
order to make comments on how long it would last. We would have also liked to produce the
cheekpiece in different materials (using casts made from a mould of the 3D scan). This is something
that we hope to look in to in the future (see section 6).
Testing
Due to the time it took to arrange the scanning and printing of our objects we haven’t been able to
complete this phase (see section 6).
Individual outcomes
1. To support LCC’s strategic investigation into digital heritage
We had hoped to use the findings to inform new programmes of activity across the heritage service
including;
 Developing new resources and objects for people with dementia and special educational
needs;
 Extending our existing educational resources;
 Exploring its potential as a tool for income generation.
As we haven’t been able to test the objects we haven’t been able to explore with colleagues within
the service our plans for how we might be able to use 3D printing for the activity above. However,
the project has been very useful in exploring the scope and limitations of both scanning and 3D
printing. Realising simple things such as shiny objects don’t scan well has been really useful.
The project has so far resulted in a 3D print of one of the 6 cheek pieces found with the Hallaton
helmet. This will enable people to handle a copy which is similar in weight and size to the original,
which is extremely fragile. As well as helping to explain to people what cheek pieces are and how
they work, people can explore the propagandist artwork depicted on the piece (it shows a Roman
emperor on horseback, hand held up in a salute with a winged Victory (goddess) behind him raising
him up. Under his horses hooves he is stamping on a vanquished ‘barbarian’).
In addition to helping a general audience understand the object and its message, the print can be
used by academics who wish to study up close aspects of the decoration that cannot be seen from a
flat image. With this level of detail and once the testing has been carried out, we will be able to look
into how we can develop a package of learning resources and work with our Commercial
Development team to explore how material like this can be used as a tool for income generation.
By far the most important outcome for us, is that we have a full 3D scan of the Hallaton Helmet. It is
the only accurate representation of the helmet and is a good substitute for a full scale drawing
(something that would normally be done as part of an excavation archive, but the helmet is
extremely fragile and would be difficult to produce safely). This scan will also aid study of the helmet
without putting its fabric at risk.
3D scanning is an exciting prospect for an archaeological collection. We have many many objects in
our care that are not displayed because they are too fragile or too large. This project has revealed
that it would be possible to create models which can be handled, scaled up or down and used in
many ways without adding any risk to the fabric of the objects- not as exciting as handling the real
thing, but much less stressful for the curators.
Our experiences on this project has helped inform our work on the Click; Connect; Curate; Create
project where were are developing a digital touch object based on 3D scans of two objects with our
collection. It will also inform our recommendations on how we can use 3D scanning and printing
techniques to open up collections.
2. To support UoL Geography & Engineering department’s exploration into researching
cultural objects
This element of the project was highly successful in that it has enabled the development of expertise
at the University of Leicester in the scanning and production of 3D printed heritage objects. This has
led to further involvement with colleagues within the School of Archaeology and Ancient History and
Geology in relation to possible grant bids, and external involvement with the Digital Building
Heritage Group at DMU.
3. To support Emma Poulter ’s research with UoL and the BM into visitor encounters of
object formats, informing a larger AHRC grant and EPSRC grant (with the University of
York)
This research investigating the use of different types and versions of objects in the museum setting is
in keeping with the research of the Object Unbound Consortium, made up of researchers and
practitioners from the British Museum, University of Leicester and University of York. Our work looks
at what objects and different versions of those objects (for example the 'real' object, the replica
object and the digital object) can do both in separate contexts and when placed together. This CATH
project has allowed us to experiment with what in practice it means to have a replica image of the
'real' museum object interacting with visitors in the museum context and has revealed how
beneficial cutting edge scanning technology is as it has allowed us to understand what the cost
effectiveness of this process can mean for museum engagement and deepening visitor
understanding of the past. It is hoped that the findings of this project will be presented for
discussion with the CATH group at a later date and that these discussions will influence future
research work and collaborations in this field which is of growing interest to a range of theorists and
practitioners.
3. Please state any problems you encountered with your project delivery
The biggest problem in the delivery of this project was time. Although we had our first project
meeting in October we didn’t start scanning until January. As we weren’t able to confirm dates
enough in advance we were not appoint a filmmaker to document the process. We have however
engaged a filmmaker to document the testing of the handling objects which we feel will produce a
more useful resource for the sector.
The objects were only available for this project as the Harborough Museum (which is their
permanent home) was closed for refurbishment and were due to be redisplayed at the end of
February, this left just 3 months to complete the scanning phase of the project. Whilst we thought
that this left enough time, Christmas fell during this period and took about 4 weeks from our
timeframe. Eventually we were able to get all three objects scanned and one model printed by the
end of March.
4. Please state any positive unexpected outcomes as a result of your project collaboration
The biggest unexpected outcome has been the relationships that have developed with the partners
in the triple-helix as well as those external (ie DMU). There is a commitment to explore how we can
develop this relationship further
5. What is the potential for any policy outcomes such as new developments in audience
engagement?
There are many objects in museums which are too delicate to touch. Using innovative technology
such as the scanning techniques experimented with here provides a cost effective way to allow
people to engage more closely with these otherwise untouchable objects.
The ability to produce accurate, cost effective handling objects is also of significance in that it brings
into the museum setting different learning styles and techniques which will help different sorts of
learners to engage and ask questions of the objects.
In terms of current museum theory, in the digital age we are confronted with new and different
versions of objects daily. With the production of highly accessible replicas as another ‘form’ of an
object, questions can be asked of what different forms of objects do. This burgeoning of object types
helps us to decentre the focus of our attention, away from privileging the real object over other
forms of things (such as the digital and the replica) which may have an important role to play in
furthering visitor understandings but which have been traditionally disregarded as being of
secondary importance in terms of status to the ‘real thing’.
In order to evaluate what the impact is of different forms of objects working together in the museum
context in terms of visitor reception and understanding testing and evaluation of the use of the
objects (based on the methodologies advised here) is necessary.
6. Next steps. Please state further plans for your project, if any
We are aiming to complete the project outside of the CATH programme. Our aim is to have two
cheekpieces printed (from an original model and then a mirror image), the helmet and the bowl. We
want to explore creating a mould for the helmet so we are able to produce multiple cast models and
we want to explore having a metal version of the bowl. We want to explore how we can produce
objects
We would like to have these completed by the beginning of July so that we are able to launch the
models during Leicestershire’s Festival of Archaeology on Saturday 26 July. We also plan to test the
methodology and record people’s reactions. For LCC our next steps will be to look at how we can
display the digital models as well as the printed replica. The digital models to us are as important as
the replica and we want to make sure that we utilise these as best we can. We will also look at how
we treat these models and preserve them for the future. This project will have an impact on our
Acquisitions and Disposal policy to take into consideration digital and printed replica objects.
7. What was your approximate breakdown of your actual spending and how did you come
to this budget allocation? SME/ SCO/ HEI
SCO
£350 – towards cost of filming handling session. Not yet spent but allocated to supplier
SME
£1,350 3 days consultancy and £63 travel – total £1,413
HEI
£150 scanning costs, £550 printing costs – total £700
Total cost of project – £2,463
Appendix 1: Object & Method Selection
(a) Silver Bowl
This bowl was chosen as the initial target for modelling and printing as it was perceived to be the
easiest. It was small and therefore could be scanned using both the X-ray CT scanner and the FARO
arm LiDAR scanner. It was also discovered in a complete form (although there was some historical
damage) and was the least fragile and most easily handled object out of the three. As the bowl was
made from silver we did identify that this may be problematic to be scanned using the X-Ray CT
scanner due to previous experiences of scanning metal.
(b) Cheekpiece
In terms of evaluating visitor encounters with replicas we thought it important to explore objects
that cannot be handled due to their fragility and conservation issues. Whilst the bowl is also not able
to be handled by the public there is a perception that as it is in a complete form that its fragility is
not recognised. This is why we chose the cheekpiece. It is also smaller and therefore could be
scanned using both the X-Ray CT scanner and the FARO arm LiDAR scanner. The cheekpiece itself
was the best preserved part of the helmets that were discovered and depicts an emperor riding
horseback trampling an enemy. It is made of iron and was covered in a thin silver sheet, and was
found alongside six other cheekpieces although they were in a less preserved state.
Emperor’s Cheekpiece Front view
Emperor’s Cheekpiece Back view
(c) Helmet
The Hallaton Helmet was one of the most significant finds from the Hallaton Hoard. We knew it
would be the most difficult object to get scanned, due to its size (it was too large to fit into the X-Ray
CT scan) and its fragility (when the helmet was found it was in many pieces and initially it had to be
excavated encased in plaster of Paris to allow for it to be transported, it took 8 years to conserve and
sits on a stand which cannot be removed). However due to its significance, its fragility and what little
information is held about the helmet it was chosen as the third object. It is made of iron and was
gilded in silver
Hallaton Helmet Front view (on permanent
stand)
Hallaton Helmet Back view
Appendix 2: Scanning & Printing Methods
Method 1:
X-Ray Ct Scanning
Objects:
Silver Bowl
Scanning:
The actual process of scanning took around 4 hours and consisted of the machine taking 1800
individual X-Rays at different angles to produce a CT scan. Test X-Rays were taken to determine the
best position for the bowl, after testing with the bowl upside down and right way up a final position
of the bowl leaning upright was agreed upon. Plastazote foam (conservation grade foam) was used
to provide a secure platform for the bowl to rest in this position. More images could have been
taken to produce a higher resolution scan but this would have added more time to the process and it
wasn’t guaranteed to be successful. A Kv of 190 and a current of 431 micro amps with 4mm of
copper filtration was used for this method
Editing:
Whilst the X-Rays appropriately penetrated the bowl, we identified some problems with the scans in
relation to the shape/edges of the bowl. It would seem that the X-Rays were not coping well with
the smooth lip of the bowl making the identification of the surface of this feature more difficult than
expected. Although a number of attempts were made to improve this using the software product
VG Studio max 2.1, results were not entirely satisfactory. Lack of time precluded further
experimentation with this technology.
Micro CT X-Ray External view
Micro CT X-Ray Internal view
Method 2:
Photogrammetry
Objects:
Silver bowl, cheekpiece, Hallaton Helmet
Scanning:
The process of taking the photographs to produce the model was relatively quick, taking about an
hour and a half to set up and take the required number of images at different angles. Each object
provided its own difficulties; with the bowl being too shiny, the cheekpiece being rather flat and not
being able to get the edges and the helmet not being able to be removed from its stand and
therefore an underneath shot not being possible.
Editing:
As with the other techniques this was the lengthiest part of the process. It was not possible to create
3d model of the bowl (as it was too shiny and the software we used was not able to identify the
different parts of the object) and the cheekpiece did x. The Helmet provided the best model even
though we were not able to take the underneath shot, the outside model looked (from our point of
view) very good particularly as it was able to pick up the colour and detail of the helmet. This
technique was carried out by the LCC Digital Project Officer who had no previous experience of using
this method, although they were a professional photographer. This lack of experience didn’t cause
many issues and a good model was produced, problems arose when more expert editing was
required and time precluded further experimentation with this technology. AutoDesk 123d Catch
was used to develop the model and GLC player was used to view the models on different computers,
Approval was also required to install the two programmes used to produce the model and some LCC
computers did not cope very well.
Photogrammetry model of helmet
back view
Photogrammetry model of helmet
front view
Photogrammetry model of helmet
side view
Method 3:
FaroArm Fusion Arm Scanner
Objects:
Silver bowl, cheekpiece, Hallaton Helmet
Scanning:
Due to the difficulties we experienced with the X-Ray CT scan and time constraints we decided to
scan the bowl and cheekpiece first, see how these models turned out and if a success then work on
scanning the helmet. Both objects to about 60 minutes each to complete and results were
immediate as we were able to see ‘draft’ model upon completion. In order to create the model, the
FaroArm scanner produced a ‘point cloud’ (points fixed in 3D space) of each object– where each
point represents a laser beam reflected from the surface of the object being scanned. This point
cloud is then edited using the software PolyWorks® to produce a 3D triangulated surface model
which in an STL file which is suitable for 3D printing. The editing of the cheekpiece model was
deemed to be a success so we decided to try with the helmet. The scanning took significantly longer,
taking 3 hours in total to produce the raw model.
Triangulated surface model of the cheekpiece overlaid in green
Editing
‘Editing in Polyworks’ includes point interpolation, alignment, triangular mesh generation, mesh
editing and creation of watertight 3D model. Each scan produces a cloud of points which must then
be reconstructed into a triangular surface model.
3D point cloud of top left corner of the
cheekpiece
Derived surface model of top left corner of
the cheekpiece
The process of alignment requires the matching of points between scans .
The process of scan alignment showing the matching of points (colour dots) between
scans for the helmet
Final Results
(a) Bowl
The scan of the bowl provided a 3D image as displayed below. Issues with the bowl in terms of the
misalignment of scans meant that a final model has not yet been produced to allow 3D printing.
(b) Cheekpiece
The scan of the cheek-piece provided the 3D image below. This was comprised of some 1.5 million
triangles and required mesh smoothing and hole filling to ensure the model was watertight.
3d scan of cheekpiece front view
3d scan of cheekpiece back view
(c) Helmet
The scan of the helmet provided the 3D model below. This required considerable editing and
comprises over 5 million triangles.
Printing
We explored several alternatives for 3D printing of the objects, however given the short time period
of this project we made use of the Design Unit at De Montfort University in Leicester that has
considerable experience in 3D printing of materials using a variety of materials and printers. On
discussion with staff in the Design Unit it was suggested that their EOS Formiga P100 printer be
employed which enables products to be produced in sintered nylon with an effective resolution of
0.1 mm. This offered a material that was tougher/robust for handling purposes in comparison with
other available 3D printers which although more accurate were more fragile (Ford, personal
communication). Other routes for printing exist (e.g. printing in metal) however we were unable to
explore these in the time available.
Watertight STL files were passed to the Design Unit at De Montfort University for 3D printing. Of the
scanned objects we selected the cheek-piece as the first item for 3D printing; this is displayed in
below.
3d print of cheekpiece front view
3d print of cheekpiece back view
Appendix 3: Questionnaire One
Questionnaire One
{Draw an imaginary line across the floor in front of the Hallaton Helmet display and select
every visitor to cross the line aged 18 years or above – allow them some time in front of the
exhibit before asking them questions and presenting them with the replica}.
General Museum Visitor – questions to be asked by an interviewer who
has knowledge of the helmet and of the hoard.
Section 1
2 mins
Introduction
Welcome & thank you
Just to give you some background, I work at the Harborough Museum and I am doing a
study looking at the use of replica objects in the museum.
Explain what you want them to do
Do you have 10 minutes to help us with our survey?
If yes thank them and stress that:
- there are no right or wrong answers
- their answers will remain anonymous
-you didn’t make the exhibition so they can be totally honest and you won’t be
offended by anything they say.
- that their responses will have us improve the museum’s services for visitors
Section 2
5 mins
Questionaire
Question 1
Male or Female: …………..
Visitor’s Postcode:…………………
Visitor’s Age: under 18…..18 – 25 ……26- 35……. 36- 45…..46- 55….. 56-65….. 66-75…….. over
76…….
How often do you come to the Harborough Museum?
This is my first visit…… about every 10 years……about every 5 years……less than once a
year……..about once or twice a year…….. every few months……
Other (please state)……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
What is the purpose of your visit today (you can tick more than one box)?
Educational (for themseleves)……..Educational (for children they are
with)Leisure……….Passing by the museum and decided to stop by………to visit the
hoard……..general research………
Other (please state)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
1. Did you know about the Hallaton Helmet before you came to the Harborough Museum?
Yes
□ No □
(If yes, where had they seen the object before)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. What are the things about this object that first attracted your attention?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Did you read the object label? Yes
□ No □
(If yes, what sticks in your mind about this object?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hand the visitor the replica cheek piece and make sure that they are still standing in from
of the Hallaton Helmet
Question 2
The object that you are holding is a replica of the cheek piece you can see on the helmet.
Do you notice anything in particular about this replica as you are handling it?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 3
What do you think of when you are handling this object?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 4
How closely do you think it resembles the cheek piece on the helmet?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 5
Do you notice any differences? If so what are they?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 6
Does it help you to think differently about the helmet and the hoard and if so why?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 7
Are there any questions about the cheek piece, helmet or the hoard which you would like to
ask me which handling this object makes you think about? Is there anything else that you
would like to find out about it?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Explain how the replica was made using cutting edge laser scanning and printing
technology working with the University of Leicester. Explain that it has been made out of
resin and coated with metal to look more like the helmet when it was made. Explain that
this was made relatively cheaply and that the museum would like to produce replicas of
other objects which are delicate and too fragile to handle
Question 8
On a scale of 1-5 how useful would you say the replica is for helping you to understand more
about the Hallaton Helmet? 1 is very good, 5 is very poor
1…..2…..3…..4….5…..
Question 9
Was there anything that surprised you about handling this object?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 10
What do you think about the use of replicas in museums alongside real objects, do you think
they are a good or bad idea and if so why?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 11
What sorts of objects do you think it would be good to have replicas made of?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 12
Do you have any questions or other comments for us?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Thank you very much for your time we value your comments and
opinions.
Appendix 4: Questionnaire Two
Questionnaire Two
{Draw an imaginary line across the floor in front of the Hallaton Helmet display and select
every visitor to cross the line who has a young person with them aged 8 years or above –
allow them some time in-front of the exhibit before asking them questions and presenting
them with the replica}.
Survey for young people aged 8 - 16– questions to be asked by a DBS
checked interviewer who has knowledge of the helmet and of the hoard
only when permission has been obtained from the parent or carer who is
with the young person (parent or carer must stay with the young person
for the duration of the interview).
Section 1
2 mins
Introduction
Welcome & thank you
Hello, my name is ? and I work for the Harborough Museum and I am finding out about
what people think of using replica objects in the museum. Would you mind if I ask the young
person you are with some questions, it will take about 10 minutes. There are no wrong or
right answers so you can be totally honest as I didn’t make this exhibition so I won’t be
offended by anything you say and your answers will help us to improve our museum for
other young people.
Thank you
Explain what you want them to do
Section 2
5 mins
Questionaire
Question 1
Consent from parent or guardian:
Signature………………………………………name (prined)…………………………………….
Relationship to young person……………………………………………………………………..
Young person - Male or Female: …………
Young person’s Age…….
Question for parent or guardian:
How often do you come to the Harborough Museum with the young person you are with?
This is my first visit…… about every 10 years……about every 5 years……less than once a
year……..about once or twice a year…….. every few months…….
Other (please state)……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
What is the purpose of your visit today (you can tick more than one )?
Educational (for themselves)……..Educational (for children they are
with)…….Leisure……….Passing by the museum and decided to stop by………to visit the
hoard……..research…….
Other (please state)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
1. Did you know about the Hallaton Helmet before you came to the Harborough Museum?
Yes
□ No □
(If yes, where had they seen the object before)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. What are the things about this object that first attracted your attention?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Did you read the object label? Yes
□ No □
(If yes, what sticks in your mind about this object?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hand the young person the replica cheek piece and make sure that they are standing in
front of the Hallaton Helmet display.
Question 2
The object that you are holding is a replica of the cheek piece you can see on the helmet.
Look closely at the replica, what do you see?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 3
What does handling the replica feel like?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 4
What does holding the replica make you think about?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 5
Now that you have looked closely at the replica look at the helmet in the case, can you see the
cheek piece which the replica is a copy of? Does seeing the replica make you think differently
about the helmet and if so why?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 6
Do you notice any differences between the replica and the cheek piece on the helmet? If so
what are they?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 7
Are there any questions about the cheek piece, helmet or the hoard which handling this
object makes you think about? Is there anything else that you would like to find out about it?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Explain how the replica was made using cutting edge laser scanning and printing
technology working with researchers at the University of Leicester. Explain that it has
been made out of resin and coated with metal to look more like the helmet when it was
made. Explain that this was made relatively cheaply and that the museum would like to
produce replicas of other objects which are delicate and too fragile to handle for other
young people to handle
Question 8
On a scale of 1-5 how useful would you say the replica is for helping you to understand more
about the Hallaton Helmet? 1 is very good, 5 is very poor
1…..2…..3…..4….5…..
Question 9
What do you think about the use of replicas in museums alongside real objects, do you think
they are a good or bad idea to help young people like you understand objects in museums
better and if so why?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 10
What sorts of objects would you like to have replicas made of?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 11
Do you have any other questions for us?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you very much for your time we value your comments and
opinions
Appendix 5: Questionnaire Three
Questionnaire Three
Specialist researcher who has come to the museum to research and study
the Hallaton helmet in particular or the hoard in general– questions to
be asked by a volunteer or member of museum staff
Section 1
2 mins
Introduction
Welcome & thank you
Just to give you some background, I work at the Harborough Museum and I am doing a
study looking at the use of replica objects in the museum.
Explain what you want them to do
Do you have 10 minutes to help us with our survey?
If yes thank them and stress that:
- there are no right or wrong answers
- their answers will remain anonymous
-you didn’t make the exhibition so they can be totally honest and you won’t be
offended by anything they say.
- that their responses will have us improve the museum’s services for visitors
Section 2
5 mins
Questionaire
Question 1
Male or Female: …………..
Visitor’s Postcode:…………………
Visitor’s Age: under 18…..18 – 25 ……26- 35……. 36- 45…..46- 55….. 56-65….. 66-75…….. over
76…….
How often do you come to the Harborough Museum?
This is my first visit…… about every 10 years……about every 5 years……less than once a
year……..about once or twice a year…….. every few months……
Other (please state)……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Please could you tell us more about your research into the Hallaton helmet/hoard
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Hand the visitor the replica cheek piece and make sure that they standing in front of the
Hallaton helmet
Question 2
The object that you are holding is a replica of the cheek piece you can see on the helmet.
How closely do you think it resembles the cheek piece on the helmet?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 3
What do you like about the replica? [prompt question – tell me more about that]
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Question 4
What did you not like about the replica?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 5
Does it prompt you to think differently about the helmet and the hoard and if so why, if not
why?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Explain how the replica was made using cutting edge laser scanning and printing
technology working with the University of Leicester. Explain that it has been made out of
resin and coated with metal to look more like the helmet when it was made. Explain that
this was made relatively cheaply and that the museum would like to produce replicas of
other objects which are delicate and too fragile to handle
Question 6
On a scale of 1-5 how useful would you say the replica is for helping you undertake your
research about the Hallaton Helmet? 1 is very good, 5 is very poor
1…..2…..3…..4….5…..
Question 9
Was there anything that surprised you about handling this object?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 10
What do you think about the use of replicas in museums alongside real objects, do you think
they are a good or bad idea and if so why?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 11
What sorts of objects do you think it would be good to have replicas made of?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Question 12
Do you have any questions or other comments for us?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Thank you very much for your time we value your comments and
opinions
Appendix 6: Observation Sheet
The Hallaton Helmet replica cheek piece handling observation
sheet
To be completed by a member of museum staff at a distance with no interaction with the museum
visitor.
Observer name………………………Date…………….school/family/individual
Points to look out for
Is the visitor alone or in
a group
Where has s/he come
from (which gallery or
direction)
Why have they
approached the
Hallaton Helmet
(stumbled upon it, look
like they have
purposely come to see
it)
Did they notice the
label?
Did they read the label?
Did they interact with
the replica and
interpreter?
Did they engage with
the replica? (ie pick it
up, study it, ask
questions of the
interpreter)
Did they look at the
helmet again or while
holding the replica – if
so which part?
Who led the interaction
with the helmet and
the replica – the visitor
or the interpreter?
What did the visitor do
next?
Notes
M/F……….Age (estimate)……..
Appendix 8: Evaluation Methodology
The Hallaton Hoard CATH Project
Evaluating Visitor Encounters
Proposed methology
May 2014
Dr Emma Poulter
Project brief
To develop an evaluation methodology which can be used to access how the objects from
the hoard, and replicas produced using cutting-edge scanning and printing technology, work
when encountered together in the Harbourgh Museum setting.
To determine a series of questions to be asked to assess in what ways the existence of a
printed replica object, which can be relatively cheaply produced, influences visitors
understanding, knowledge and emotional response to the hoard objects.
To use this small, targeted case study to suggest what the impact on the sector and value to
visitors would be of having accurate, high quality and low cost replicas available of
important museum objects.
The Hallaton Hoard
In 2000, members of the Hallaton Fieldwork Group were investigating a local field and found
pieces of Roman pottery and animal bones. One of their members, Ken Wallace, later made
one of Leicestershire’s greatest archaeological discoveries when he uncovered hundreds of
tiny silver Iron Age coins.
During the following years, the Hallaton Fieldwork Group and professional archaeologists
from University of Leicester Archaeological Services (ULAS) worked on the site and
unearthed an astonishing array of Late Iron Age and Roman objects which we now know as
the Hallaton Treasure.
It includes over 5000 Iron Age and Roman gold and silver coins, a unique silver bowl, ingots,
jewellery and feasting evidence in the form of hundreds of pig bones and the remains of a
bronze tankard. Importantly it also included a silver-gilt Roman cavalry helmet and parts of
at least three others
The site is believed to have been a Late Iron Age shrine used by the local Corieltavi people
around the time of the Roman conquest of Britain in AD 43. The objects may have been
buried as sacrifices to the gods over a number of years. They probably represent the wealth
of various communities.
The Hallaton Treasure was one of the first internationally important Treasure finds to be
acquired by a local Museum Service so it could be displayed in the same county in which it
was discovered.
Since the display of the Hallaton Hoard museum visitor figures have gone up. It is clear that
the hoard and in particular the helmet are the museum’s and indeed the county’s star
objects and as conservator Wendy Scott commented: ‘anything that can be done to
enhance visitors understanding and the impact these objects have on them would be
important’.
The CATH group
In November 2014 a multi-disciplinary group of researchers came together to examine how
cutting edge scanning and printing technology could be used to enhance the visitor
experience of the Hallaton Hoard. My remit was to develop a methodology to test how
visitor understanding of the real object, viewed only behind glass and too delicate to touch,
are affected by having an accurate, cost effective, high quality and tactile replica present.
At the time of the project inception the Hallaton Hoard objects were in storage while the
Harbourgh Museum was undergoing redevelopment. This enabled the research group to
view the objects up close and to select objects to be scanned. The group chose a selection of
objects including the Iron Age Bowl, the main body of the Hallaton Calvary Helmet, which
although much decayed remains an impressive object, and the best surviving of the four
cheek pieces, which remains in a good condition.
Various types of scanning technology were experimented with. Our original expectations
were that of all the objects chosen the bowl would prove the easiest to scan as it is the
simplest in form. In reality this object proved the hardest to replicate because of its
reflective smooth surface. The results were much better with the helmet and the cheek
piece. The scan of the helmet produced a unique 3D model. This alone is highly valuable to
the museum which had no such documentation relating to the object previously. The fact
that the helmet was also permanently displayed on a purpose made stand was also
problematic as the object could not therefore be scanned underneath. This means that for
the replica of the object to be printed various edits would need to be made to the initial
scan. As a result of the project deadline it was not possible for these edits to take place in
time. However, the scan of the cheek piece was highly successful and it was possible to get
this printed out at a cost of £80 a time. The result was a high quality replica object of a
similar weight to the original object, produced at a reasonable cost. Because of the
technology used the replica is made of a resin and is therefore white in appearance. At the
time of writing the Nick Tate is looking into whether a metal coat can be added to the
replica to give it a silver appearance which will be more akin to the original appearance of
the object.
Methodology for accessing the impact the replica of the cheek piece will have when used
alongside the real object in the gallery.
After discussing the possible uses of the replica objects with Museum staff it was decided
that the cheek piece would never be left in the gallery unsupervised. Although highly tactile
it is still fragile and its small size leaves it at risk of being stolen should it be left unattended.
Three main visitor groups were identified:

Family groups – visiting during special events where the replica would be available
for handling, facilitated by a member of staff who is knowledgeable about the hoard

School groups – on specially arranged trips to see the objects as part of their school
work studies on the Romans. A member of staff would again be on hand during
these visits to facilitate the use of the replica

Specialist interest groups. The Hallaton Hoard is visited by a number of academics
with particular research interests in the objects. The replica should also be of
interest and use to them, allowing them to see good representations of the objects
up close and to examine the detail in a way they are unable to do at present as the
objects are on permanent display.
In response to the identification of these three groups I have devised the following



A questionnaire aimed at adults visiting the museum on a general visit with
or without children (Appendix 3: Questionnaire One)
A questionnaire aimed at children on family or school visits (Appendix 4:
Questionnaire Two)
A questionnaire aimed at specialist interest groups undertaking independent
study of the hoard (Appendix 5: Questionnaire Three)
It is presumed that having the replica available will provide visitors with an accessible tool
which will allow them to study the objects close up, to examine the details and to ponder
over their significance as well as to be able to think more deeply about the original use of
the cheek piece and to imagine what it might have been like to make and wear it. The
evaluation data will help up to see if this is the case.

Suggested tracking exercise, to be carried out by interns/volunteers to look at
the dwelling time at the Hallaton Helmet display with and without the replica
present. Appendix 6: Observation Sheet
It is presumed that having a replica of the cheek piece available for handling will mean that
visitors will stay longer at the exhibits and interact more. The tracking exercise above will
help us to determine if this is the case.
Main questions to be addressed:


It what ways does the replica cheek shield add to visitor understandings of the real
object
What is the impact on visitor behaviour of having the replica cheek shield in the
gallery alongside the real objects
Testing period: It has been suggested by the museum that visitor encounters to the replica
and real object be tested using this methodology during the British Archeaology festival in
July. During this 16 day period the museum expects large numbers of visitors to the
museum to see the hoard.
Impact on the Hallaton Museum of the existence and use of the replica cheek piece
The museum sees the use and impact of the replica cheek pieces as multifarious.

It provides a cost effective and highly tangible and accurate way of allowing visitors
to experience what the object looks and feels like. When the Hoard was first
discovered the museum considered commissioning a craftsman to create a replica
which demonstrated what the original might have looked like. However the costs
involved in the production of such a highly skilled piece proved prohibitive. This new
scanning technique therefore provides a very attractive, cost effective alternative
engagement tool.

There are three generic Roman helmet replicas in the gallery. It was observed that
these experience good use by visitors but mainly as a dressing up tool, in order to
pose for photographs. The production of a quality replica would allow more serious
and accurate study of the Hallaton Helmet in a way which is not currently
achievable.

Use for visually impaired visitors. The existence of a tactile replica has obvious
benefits to the visually impaired visitor who would be able to hold and feel what an
accurate replica of the objects behind glass is like to touch.

Storytelling and children’s workshops - The cheek piece’s distinctive imagery of an
officer on horseback with a winged goddess in the back ground are easily traceable
using your fingers – this would lend itself to imaginative discussions and story telling
sessions.
Appendix 9: Draft Specification
This document outlines some points for consideration when embarking on a 3d printing project,
when looking at printing for the purposes of handling. It is aimed at the cultural heritage sector. This
document is a draft and a final version will be available from Summer 2014
Choosing your object
These questions aim to get you to think about why are you wanting to print the object in the first
place, what will happen with the printed model, the materials the original is made of and what your
budget is. All of this will have an impact on the scanning and printing methods used
1. Why do you want to print this object?
2. What’s your total budget for this project?
3. What is your project made of? Is it; shiny, dull, big, small, metal, stone, fragile etc
4. Is it currently on display or in store?
Final Product
These questions aim to get you thinking about what will happen with the final printed model (other
considerations will need to be made regarding the digital scan). This gets you to consider items such
as materials and intellectual property. These options will also have an impact on the scanning and
printing methods used
1. How “authentic” does the replica need to be? Does the final object need to look/feel
exactly like the original?
2. What will the replica be used for? (research, educational or commercial)
3. How frequently will the replica be handled?
4. Where will the replica be stored?
Scanning
There has already been quite a lot of research carried out in terms of the different scanning
techniques available for creating digital models of heritage objects. See Table 1 for an analysis
created by Emma Marie Payne for UCL. For this project we also used Photogrammetry which
involves taking 3d measurements of an object through photographs. Whilst in theory this method is
relatively easy to use, for the purposes of this project issues involving skills and infrastructure meant
that we weren’t able to produce a viable model. Cultural Heritage Imaging provides some useful
insights on their website http://culturalheritageimaging.org/Technologies/Photogrammetry/
1. Do you have the skills, equipment & infrastructure to scan internally?
a. If not, do you have the funds to train and purchase to deliver internally?
b. If not, can you partner with others or commission someone else? (explore
relationships with local universities, commercial companies or open source
software)
c. Are you aware of Intellectual Property issues relating working with others/using
open source software? Your answer on what you want to use this for will have
an impact on your decision see Lambert Toolkit, Jisc Digital Media, nesta IPR
Frameworks (for our project we followed Model D of Lambert’s Consortium
Agreements)
d. Are you able to transport the original object off site?
i. How will you do this?
ii. Do you have the insurance cover?
iii. Does the third party have the insurance cover
2. Will you also want to use the 3d model scan?
a. How will you use it?
b. Do you have the skills, equipment & infrastructure to do this internally? (There
are many open source /free platforms that will allow you to view your model
but be aware of their terms & conditions and IP issues that might arise)
Printing process
1. Who will do the printing?
a. Do you have the skills and equipment to do internally?
b. If not, can you partner with others or commission someone else? (explore
relationships with local universities, commercial companies or online printing
sites). Be aware of IP issues associated with using an external company or
partner
c. Can you train staff and purchase equipment?
2. Is the model easy to print directly or will you need to print a mould and cast the object
instead?
3. What material do you want to use?
4. What finish will you want to have
Table 1 Advantages and Disadvantages – Comparative analysis of CT scanning, 3D laser scanning
and PTM
Noncontact
Colour
Resolution
Cost
3D LASER
SCANNING
✓
CT
SCANNING
PTM
✓
Good (c.50μm)
High
About £3000+
✓
✓
✕
Very good (c.50μm/3–
5μm for micro-CT
scanning)
Very high
About £200,000+
✓
✓
✓
Very good
c.2–8μm (equivalent to
that of digital
photography)
Low-medium
$350 for a starter kit
from CHI (CHI
Website 2012)
Other advantages
Geometric data
Can be produced in conjunction with
structured light scanning; however, this
is complicated (Mudge et al. 2005: 9)
Other disadvantages
3D LASER SCANNING

Can scan both small objects and very large buildings

and sites.



Training is necessary, particularly because of the potential dangers
associated with lasers (Jones 2007: 11).
Image resolution and accuracy of geometric data decreases with
equipment used for larger objects and sites (Jones 2007: 7).
Data post-processing is complex, requiring considerable training.
However, improved software is reducing this issue (Karsten and Earl 2010:
19).
Inappropriate for imaging black and/or highly specular materials e.g.
polished marble or gilded surfaces (Jones 2007: 7; Bryan 2007: 18), or
fluffy materials (fur/feathers) (Cignoni and Scopigno 2008).
CT SCANNING

Enables investigation of internal structure of
objects.

Objects must fit into scanning tunnel.
PTM




Can be used under microscope to reveal very small

surface features.
Can be used to image specular objects

(e.g.Bridgman and Earl 2012).
Free software is available for creating PTMs (from
HP and CHI) (HP Website 2012; CHI Website 2012).
Although 3D geometric data is difficult to produce,
the surface normals can be used for haptic virtual
models (Bridgman and Earl 2012).
Processing images to make PTMs is fairly complicated and some training
may be required. Improved software is reducing this issue.
Provides only one fixed view of an object. However, multi-view PTM (POM
(PTM Object Movie)) has been achieved (Mudge et al. 2006).
Payne, E.M. 2013. Imaging Techniques in Conservation. Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies 10(2):17-29,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jcms.1021201