The digitalization of archaeological heritage is no longer a future prospect but an operational condition that is profoundly redefining the tools, languages, and purposes of research. The contributions gathered in this issue of the journal clearly demonstrate how the intersection of Virtual Archaeology, integrated surveying, and HBIM (Heritage Building Information Modeling) is moving beyond the experimental phase to take on the profile of a true methodological infrastructure for knowledge, protection, and valorization.
The overarching theme of this entire issue is the model: an epistemological device capable of organizing heterogeneous data, linking sources, spaces, times, and interpretations, while making the steps leading from material evidence to critical reconstruction transparent. In this perspective lies the contribution on archaeological data models in HBIM: a multi-level framework founded on four integrated components: spatial, documentary, stratigraphic, and interpretive. The Common Data Environment (CDE) is identified as the place where data is transformed into shareable and updatable knowledge, offering the opportunity to manage the growing information complexity of archaeological contexts without losing scientific rigor and traceability.
Following this same line is the essay dedicated to San Lorenzo in Miranda, which develops a diachronic HBIM paradigm for a “palimpsest-monument,” where form, phase, and source become operational categories within a single representation system. The value of this contribution lies in showing that the information model can accommodate not only the current state (stato di fatto) of the artifact but also its past and future transformations, its persistences and its gaps, clearly distinguishing between surveyed and interpreted data. In this case, the model is not merely a technical tool, but a form of testimony to historical complexity.
The processual dimension of digital tools emerges clearly in the contribution dedicated to the excavation of Santa Maria in Viridis in Ashkelon, where topographical and photogrammetric surveys are integrated into the daily phases of excavation and sampling. The concept of reversible excavation, made possible by multi-scale models shared across different disciplines, fosters an archaeological practice that thrives on transdisciplinarity, with archaeologists, architects, geologists, chemists, and physicists operating within the same information space.
Alongside these reflections, the case of the Mausoleum of Cecilia Metella reminds us that integrated surveying remains, first and foremost, a tool for the critical analysis of architecture. The combination of laser scanning, photogrammetry, and autoptic (on-site) observation allows for a re-reading of materiality, reuse, and transformations, even challenging established chronological attributions. Digital technology does not replace the expert eye; it reinforces it, verifies it, and makes it reproducible.
No less significant is the direction indicated by the study on the Nuragic Complex of Palmavera, which addresses the transition from excavation to visual storytelling. Here, the digital model serves as the “invisible” base for constructing analog dissemination tools—panels, axonometric views, timelines, and narrative illustrations—capable of making the site understandable to diverse audiences. The theme of valorization is thus linked back to scientific responsibility: communicating without simplifying, translating without betraying.
Finally, the case of Priene, with the virtual reconstruction of the Temple of Athena Polias and the Doric Stoa, brings the problem of metric control and model quality back to the center. The verification of the Level of Accuracy (LoA) through the comparison between HBIM and the point cloud shows that if the information model aims to be a reliable research tool and not just an effective visual machine, it must be based on explicit validation procedures.
Taken together, these contributions outline a clear trajectory. Contemporary digital archaeology no longer coincides solely with the production of images or spectacular reconstructions; rather, it is defined as a field in which acquisition, modeling, semantization, interpretation, and communication converge into a single ecosystem. The challenge is not to accumulate more data, but to structure it better; not to reconstruct more, but to make the degree of certainty of what is reconstructed legible; not just to innovate tools, but to rethink processes.
This issue of the journal is positioned precisely within this horizon. What emerges is a scientifically mature framework in which the digital is no longer an external support to archaeology, but an internal, critical, and productive component. It is here, probably, that one of the most important transformations of the discipline is taking place today: in the ability to make the model not just a representation of the past, but a shared space for knowledge and experimentation on the past.
Cecilia Maria Bolognesi (Politecnico di Milano)