{"id":309,"date":"2024-07-16T17:10:41","date_gmt":"2024-07-16T17:10:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/castrodesanchuis.es\/?page_id=309"},"modified":"2024-09-18T06:47:13","modified_gmt":"2024-09-18T06:47:13","slug":"san-chuis-virtualvirtual-san-chuis","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/castrodesanchuis.es\/?page_id=309","title":{"rendered":"SAN CHUIS VIRTUAL VIRTUAL SAN CHUIS"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n\n\n

Durante el a\u00f1o 2016, acometimos el proyecto de realizar la reconstrucci\u00f3n virtual del castro de San Chuis. Para realizar este trabajo, utilizamos como herramienta de modelado 3D la aplicaci\u00f3n Blender. Blender es un software libre que presenta una gran versatilidad y una amplia plasticidad y que, entre otras facilidades, permite aplicar texturas de im\u00e1genes originales procedentes de las propias estructuras restituidas. Ahora, en el a\u00f1o 2024, hemos llevado a cabo una mejora del modelo de acuerdo con las nuevas posibilidades que nos ofrecen hoy en d\u00eda las aplicaciones de modelado 3D, muy mejoradas respecto a aquella \u00e9poca. Hemos continuado trabajando con Blender, pero ya con una versi\u00f3n actualizada y muy diferente a aquella primera que usamos. Esta nueva versi\u00f3n permite dar un mayor realismo al modelo, no solo por la aplicaci\u00f3n de texturas, sino tambi\u00e9n por el propio sistema de renderizado, render Cycles, muy superior a anteriores. No queremos extendernos m\u00e1s en cuestiones t\u00e9cnicas, cualquier consulta al respecto de este software puede realizarse en la propia p\u00e1gina web de la organizaci\u00f3n, Blender.org.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Otra novedad que hemos a\u00f1adido a aquella primera versi\u00f3n de modelo 3D, es que hemos reconstruido la l\u00ednea de la muralla y algunas caba\u00f1as de acuerdo a la informaci\u00f3n que nos proporcion\u00f3 el estudio por georradar. Hemos texturizado de manera diferente esta parte de la muralla y las caba\u00f1as para que no exista confusi\u00f3n con la zona que realmente se ci\u00f1e a los restos excavados.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Con anterioridad al comienzo de los trabajos de reconstrucci\u00f3n, planteamos una hip\u00f3tesis de trabajo gu\u00eda a fin de conseguir la mayor exactitud posible, siempre teniendo en cuenta que es una deducci\u00f3n a partir de los estudios urban\u00edsticos que se han hecho sobre el castro y de los datos que poseemos hasta ahora.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\u00ed, hemos partido siempre a la hora de dise\u00f1ar las estructuras del plano de planta en AutoCAD con las medidas originales y exactas. A partir de ah\u00ed hemos ido elevando los muros. Hemos dado a las estructura ind\u00edgenas una media de altura de 1,40 m. Esto es as\u00ed porque no se encontraron demasiados restos de derrumbe de muros junto a ellas cuando se excavaron por lo que se pens\u00f3 que en ning\u00fan momento debieron sobrepasar esa altura. Sin embargo, las techumbres s\u00ed que presentan un nivel m\u00e1s elevado que dar\u00eda la altura necesaria a la vivienda. Esto se puede observar a\u00fan en algunas zonas donde se conservan este tipo de caba\u00f1as, como es la zona de los Ancares, que nos ha servido de inspiraci\u00f3n. En las habitaciones circulares, en aquellas en las que hemos encontrado restos de su existencia, hemos situado un poste central, como es el caso de la Estructura 3. En el caso de no existir, simplemente hemos puesto una cubierta c\u00f3nica elaborada con estructuras en madera como es tradicional en estos casos. Si la vivienda es peque\u00f1a y la techumbre no va a tener mucho peso en ocasiones no se necesita del poste central para su sujeci\u00f3n. En el caso de la Estructura 9, que es muy particular, hemos hecho un estudio de lo que podr\u00eda haber sido su cubierta y planteado una hip\u00f3tesis de reconstrucci\u00f3n: no existen trazas de que se usaran postes centrales por lo que el sistema de vigas debi\u00f3 de ser m\u00e1s sofisticado y fuerte, con un sistema de nervios de m\u00e1s envergadura. Hay que tener en cuenta que es una cubierta muy amplia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Por lo que se refiere a la zona romana, los muros son m\u00e1s altos y la techumbre aunque ser\u00e1 vegetal, tendr\u00e1 otra estructura distinta. Hemos decidido que la cubierta sea vegetal porque cuando hemos estudiado la distribuci\u00f3n espacial de los materiales, no hemos encontrado una cantidad de restos de t\u00e9gula o de tejas de pizarra que nos permitiera pensar en una cubierta general de tejas de una clase o de otra. Hay alguna zona donde aparecen algunas tejas de pizarra pero la verdad es que no dar\u00edan para cubrir una superficie medianamente extensa. S\u00ed que hemos encontrado restos de clavos de hierro a lo largo de los muros lo que nos lleva a pensar en cubiertas de madera con los clavos reforzando o ayudando a la construcci\u00f3n del armaz\u00f3n de vigas. Probablemente los clavos se utilizar\u00edan para fijar tejas de pizarra en los bordes de la cubierta como refuerzo ya que es uno de los puntos m\u00e1s d\u00e9biles del armaz\u00f3n. Solo hemos encontrado un resto de estuco en la zona del interior de la vivienda adherido a la pared: nos hace suponer que quiz\u00e1 estar\u00eda enlucida, al menos esa zona.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hemos aplicado texturas de piedra extra\u00eddas de las im\u00e1genes originales de los muros del castro en las paredes de cada vivienda para intentar una apariencia m\u00e1s realista. Hemos restituido el suelo del interior de cada vivienda con una textura de tierra apisonada, que nos pareci\u00f3 la m\u00e1s adecuada. En cuanto a las cubiertas, hemos aplicado textura de paja extra\u00edda de im\u00e1genes de restituciones reales de viviendas de este tipo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

En el interior de las viviendas hemos colocado los hogares en caso de que existieran y los enlosados originales, como es el caso de la Estructura 12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Para hacer las escenas del interior de las viviendas m\u00e1s reales, hemos a\u00f1adido algo de mobiliario. Es evidente que, si bien hemos tratado en todo momento de a\u00f1adir objetos propios de la \u00e9poca y de los cuales hemos hallado restos, hay algunos tales como muebles de madera que, aunque basados en modelos reales de cada \u00e9poca, son fruto de nuestra imaginaci\u00f3n. Hemos a\u00f1adido mobiliario romano en la \u00e9poca romana, y, para la Edad del Hierro, no hemos a\u00f1adido nada m\u00e1s que un banco de madera que consideramos que era posible que existiera. Hemos sido muy cuidadosos con la Edad del Hierro porque tampoco quer\u00edamos descontextualizar hist\u00f3ricamente el modelo. En este sentido, las cer\u00e1micas y molinos de mano que aparecen est\u00e1n modelados de acuerdo con los restos existentes en el yacimiento. C\u00f3mo ya he se\u00f1alado, la \u00fanica excepci\u00f3n ser\u00eda el peque\u00f1o banco de madera de la estructura 9, un peque\u00f1o cesto de esparto y una estera, estos tres basados en objetos hallados en contextos hist\u00f3ricos similares. La \u00c9poca Romana en este sentido es de sobra conocida, por lo que realmente no hemos a\u00f1adido nada que no se haya contrastado hist\u00f3ricamente. Como ocurre con la \u00e9poca anterior, las tipolog\u00edas cer\u00e1micas, incluidas las Terras Sigillatas<\/em> est\u00e1n m\u00e1s que contrastadas. En cualquier caso, todas las escenas de interior de la \u00e9poca romana son una recreaci\u00f3n libre.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Para dar forma a la superficie donde se asienta el castro hemos utilizado los planos de AutoCAD con las curvas de nivel desarrollando as\u00ed no solo la planta sino tambi\u00e9n los perfiles de las pendientes. En primer lugar exportamos los planos de AutoCAD a Blender donde fuimos levantando la malla 3D del terreno siguiendo las l\u00edneas de las curvas de nivel y elev\u00e1ndolas en altura cada 2.5 m. Despu\u00e9s suavizamos la malla para finalmente darle textura. Parte de la textura se dio a partir de im\u00e1genes cenitales extra\u00eddas de Google Earth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Como ya hemos comentado en otras p\u00e1ginas de esta web, tanto el Barrio Alto como el Bajo estaban en uso en \u00e9pocas anteriores a la muralla de m\u00f3dulos, tal y como evidencian las dataciones con radiocarbono. La Estructura 18 pasa por diferentes fases constructivas comenzando su andadura como vivienda levantada a base de materiales perecederos durante la Primera Edad del Hierro. Adem\u00e1s, los restos de una primitiva muralla de paramento continuo que se hallaron al norte de la muralla de m\u00f3dulos hace factible pensar en la existencia de un poblado rodeado de una muralla de este tipo ya en fechas muy tempranas. Sin embargo, los datos que poseemos son tan escaso que nos parec\u00eda imposible acometer la reconstrucci\u00f3n del castro en estas fechas. Por lo tanto, la primera reconstrucci\u00f3n que veremos ser\u00e1 de la Segunda Edad del Hierro, cuando se produce su petrificaci\u00f3n. Sin embargo, durante esta fase tambi\u00e9n se promueve una evoluci\u00f3n urban\u00edstica fiel reflejo del cambio de mentalidad que se est\u00e1 produciendo y que se manifiesta en la tensi\u00f3n creciente entre la tradicional identidad comunal, o de poblado, y la familiar. Esto conllevar\u00e1 una privatizaci\u00f3n de espacios antes semip\u00fablicos, que en el caso de la Estructura 9 conlleva un cierre completo del espacio existente entre estructuras convirti\u00e9ndose en una sola. Esta evoluci\u00f3n de la que tenemos suficientes datos es la que se mostrar\u00e1 en esta primera restituci\u00f3n del castro.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

En cuanto a la Estructura 12 hemos reconstruido el hogar y el pavimento, adem\u00e1s del banco corrido. Vemos que en este caso esta estructura es circular sin el a\u00f1adido posterior rectangular de la \u00e9poca romana. La zona industrial la hemos resuelto elevando un muro paravientos siguiendo la l\u00ednea de los restos encontrados.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Para las murallas hemos diferenciado dos partes una interior de relleno y otra exterior que es el revestimiento con piedra. Les hemos dado una altura general de tres metros. Hemos restituido un sistema de puertas sencillo, aunque realmente desconocemos completamente como era. S\u00ed que creemos que las estructuras delanteras eran formas de dificultar la llegada a la puerta del castro en el caso de ataque por esta zona. Hemos unido con un muro el torre\u00f3n a la muralla del barrio alto y situado una puerta principal en madera en la entrada del poblado.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Por otra parte, donde estaba la Estructura 6 hemos situado una caba\u00f1a redonda siguiendo los restos que se encontraron debajo de estas cuadrangulares de \u00e9poca romana. Hemos reconstruido la que se derruy\u00f3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Durante la \u00e9poca romana, son las estructuras del barrio alto las que sufren una mayor modificaci\u00f3n, aunque en el barrio bajo tambi\u00e9n ocurre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Se construye de nueva planta la Estructura 6 y para ello se derruyen las ind\u00edgenas necesarias, en concreto la Estructura 11. El paravientos de la zona industrial tambi\u00e9n desaparece. Ocurre lo mismo en el barrio alto pero a mucha mayor escala. Para construir la Estructura 15 se derruye, que sepamos,
la Estructura 14, aunque dado el amplio espacio que ocupa la nueva residencia romana, podr\u00edan haberse destruido m\u00e1s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

La Estructura 18 es rectangularizada en esta fase. Por otra parte, se pavimenta parte del terreno y corredores circundantes de la Estructura 15, lo que hemos reflejado en la restituci\u00f3n que veremos m\u00e1s adelante. Por lo que se refiere a la muralla, ya no hemos colocado la puerta ni las estructuras anexas que ser\u00edan inutilizadas para facilitar el acceso del contingente romano.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Para saber m\u00e1s pulsa los enlaces en las im\u00e1genes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

During 2016, we undertook the project of carrying out the virtual reconstruction of the San Chuis hillfort. To carry out this work, we used the Blender application as a 3D modeling tool. Blender is a free software, which presents great versatility and wide plasticity and which, among other facilities, allows applying textures of original images from the restored structures. Now, in the year 2024, we have carried out an improvement of the model according to the new possibilities that 3D modeling applications offer us today, greatly improved compared to that time. We have continued working with Blender, but now with an updated version that is very different from the first one we used. This new version allows for greater realism to the model, not only due to the application of textures, but also due to the rendering system itself, render Cycles, which is much better than before. We do not want to go into further technical details, any questions regarding this software can be made on the organization’s own website, Blender.org.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another novelty that we have added to that first version of the 3D model is that we have reconstructed the line of the rampart and some huts according to the information provided to us by the georadar study. We have textured this part of the rampart and the huts differently so that there is no confusion with the area that really corresponds to the excavated remains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prior to the beginning of the reconstruction work, we have proposed a guiding working hypothesis in order to achieve the greatest possible accuracy, always taking into account that it is a deduction from the urban planning studies that have been carried out on the hillfort and the data we have so far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, when designing the structures, we have always started from the AutoCAD floor plan, with the original and exact measurements. From there we have been raising the walls. We have given the indigenous structures an average height of 1.40 m. This is because not many remains of collapsed walls were found next to them when they were excavated, so it was thought that at no time should they have exceeded that height. However, the roofs do have a higher level that would give the house the necessary height. This can still be observed in some areas where this type of huts are preserved, such as the Ancares area, which has served as inspiration for us. In the circular rooms, those in which we have found remains of their existence, we have placed a central post, as is the case of Structure 3. If it does not exist, we have simply put a conical roof made with wooden structures as is traditional in these cases. If the house is small and the roof is not going to have much weight, sometimes the central post is not needed for support. In the case of Structure 9, which is very particular, we have carried out a study of what its roof could have been like and proposed a reconstruction hypothesis: there are no traces of central posts being used, so the beam system must have been more sophisticated and stronger, with a larger rib system. It must be taken into account that it is a very wide roofing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As far as the Roman area is concerned, the walls were taller and the roof, although it would be vegetal, would have a different structure. We believe that the roof was vegetal because when we have studied the spatial distribution of the materials, we have not found a number of remains of tegula<\/em> or slate tiles that could allow us to think of the presence of a general roofing made of tiles of one class or another. There are some small areas where a few slate tiles appeared but the truth is that they are not enough to cover a fairly extensive surface. However, we have found remains of iron nails along the walls which leads us to think of wooden roofs with the nails reinforcing or helping to build the frame of wood beams. Probably the nails would be used to fix slate tiles on the edges of the roofing as reinforcement since it is one of the weakest points of the wooden framework. We have only found a stucco rest in the area of the interior of the house attached to the wall: it makes us suppose that perhaps it would be plastered, at least that area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have applied stone textures taken from the original images of the hillfort walls to the walls of each house to try to give it a more realistic appearance. We have restored the floor inside each house with a texture of tamped soil, which we thought was the most appropriate. As for the roofs, we have applied a straw texture taken from images of real restorations of houses of this type.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inside the houses we have placed the fireplaces in case they existed and the original pavements, as in Structure 12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To make the scenes inside the houses more realistic, we have added some furniture. It is clear that, although we have always tried to add objects from that period and of which we have found remains, there are some such as wooden furniture that, although based on real models from each period, are the product of our imagination. We have added Roman furniture in the Roman period, and, for the Iron Age, we have not added anything more than a wooden bench that we consider possible to have existed. We have been very careful with the Iron Age because we did not want to decontextualize the model historically. In this sense, the ceramics and hand mills that appear are modelled according to the remains existing in the site. As I have already pointed out, the only exception would be the small wooden bench in structure 9, a small esparto basket and a mat, these three based on objects found in similar historical contexts. The Roman Period in this sense is well known, so we have not really added anything that has not been historically verified. As with the previous period, the ceramic typologies, including the Terras Sigillatas<\/em>, are more than contrasted. In any case, all the interior scenes from the Roman period are a free recreation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In order to mould the surface where the hillfort is settled we have used the AutoCAD planes with the level curves with the purpose of developing not only the plan but also the slope profiles. First we exported the AutoCAD plane to Blender where we were building the 3D mesh of the terrain following the lines of the level curves and lifting them up in height every 2.5 m. Then we smoothed the mesh and added texture to it. Part of the texture was made from zenith images taken from Google Earth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

As we have already mentioned, both the Upper and Lower Quarter were in use in times before the rampart of modules, as evidenced by radiocarbon dating.  Structure 18 goes through different construction phases beginning as a dwelling built on perishable materials during the First Iron Age. In addition, the remains of a primitive continuous rampart that were found to the north of the rampart of modules makes possible to think of the existence very early of a village surrounded by a rampart of this type. However, the data we have are so scarce that it seemed impossible to us to undertake the reconstruction of the hillfort at this time. Therefore, the first reconstruction of the hillfort that we will see belongs to the Second Iron Age, when its petrification takes place. However, during this phase a true urban evolution is also promoted reflecting the change of mentality that is occurring and which is manifested in the growing tension between the traditional communal identity, or village identity, and family identity. This will lead to the privatization of previously semi-public spaces, which in the case of Structure 9 entails a complete closure of the existing space between structures becoming one. This evolution of which we have enough data is what will be shown in this first restitution of the hillfort.

As for Structure 12 we have rebuilt the fireplace and pavement, in addition to the bench. We see that in this case this structure is circular without the later rectangular addition of Roman times. The industrial area has been solved by lifting a windbreaker wall following the line of the remains found.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the rampart we have differentiated two parts: an inner filling part and an exterior one that is the stone covering. We have given them a general height of three meters. We have restored a system of simple doors, although we really do not know how it was. But nevertheless, we believe that the front structures were ways to make difficult the arrival to the hillfort door in the case of an attack in this zone.
We have united with a wall the tower to the Upper Quarter rampart and located a main door in wood at the village entrance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


On the other hand, in the place where Structure 6 was, we have placed a round hut following the remains that were found under the quadrangular one of Roman time. We have rebuilt the one that was destroyed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

During the Roman era, the structures of the Upper Quarter are the ones that went through a major modification, although this occurred as well in the Lower Quarter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Structure 6 was built with a new shape and for that the necessary Indigenous structures were demolished, specifically Structure 11. The windbreak of the industrial zone also disappeared. The same thing happened in the Upper Quarter, but on a much larger scale. To build Structure 15, as far as we know, Structure 14 is demolished, but given the large space occupied by the new Roman residence, more could have been destroyed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Structure 18 was refurbished in this phase receiving a new quadrangular shape. On the other hand, part of the terrain and surrounding corridors of Structure 15 were paved, which we have reflected in the restitution that we will see later. As far as the wall is concerned, we have not placed the door and the annexed structures that were disabled to facilitate the access of the Roman contingent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To learn more click on the links in the images.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\t\t