Contribution of stratigraphic constraints of Bulgarian prehistoric multilevel tells and a comparison with archaeomagnetic observations

Kostadinova‐Avramova, Maria; Kovacheva, Mary; Boyadzhiev, Yavor

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2014.01.008

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Archaeological dating is however a very generic term that integrates many different elements. The first is stratigraphy, which is essential for building chronologies for ancient multi-layered sites in the Middle East (Shaar et al, 2011;Gallet et al, 2020) and Eastern Europe (e.g., Kostadinova-Avramova et al, 2014). Elements such as coins, fragments of ceramics or metallic artefacts (e.g., swords and fibulae) are also key for dating, if the evolution of their typology is well known.…”

Section: Indirect Dating Of Trmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global archaeomagnetic data: The state of the art and future challenges

Brown

Hervé

Korte

et al. 2021

Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Indirect Dating Of Trmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global archaeomagnetic data: The state of the art and future challenges

Brown

Hervé

Korte

et al. 2021

Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although such a sampling procedure may obviously introduce large uncertainties in the dating of the studied fragments, it nevertheless appears that this approach can provide satisfactory results (e.g. Nachasova and Burakov, 1998;Kostadinova-Avramova et al, 2014).…”

Section: Late Neolithic Archeointensity Variations In the Middle Eastmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Late Neolithic (c. 7000–5000 BC) archeointensity data from Syria. Reconstructing 9000years of archeomagnetic field intensity variations in the Middle East

Gallet

Montaña

Genevey

et al. 2015

Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceWe present new archeomagnetic intensity data from two Late Neolithic archeological sites (Tell Halula and Tell Masaïkh) in Syria. These data, from 24 groups of potsherds encompassing 15 different time levels, are obtained using the Triaxe experimental protocol, which takes into account both the thermoremanent magnetization anisotropy and cooling rate effects on intensity determinations. They allow us to recover the geomagnetic intensity variations in the Middle East, between ∼7000 BC and ∼5000 BC, i.e. during the so-called pre-Halaf, proto-Halaf, Halaf and Halaf-Ubaid Transitional cultural phases. The data are compared with previous archeointensity results of similar ages from Northern Iraq (Yarim Tepe II and Tell Sotto) and Bulgaria. We find that previous dating of the Iraqi material was in error. When corrected, all northern Mesopotamian data show a relatively good consistency and also reasonably match with the Bulgarian archeointensity dataset. Using a compilation of available data, we construct a geomagnetic field intensity variation curve for the Middle East encompassing the past 9000 years, which makes it presently the longest known regional archeomagnetic intensity record. We further use this compilation to constrain variations in dipole field moment over most of the Holocene. In particular, we discuss the possibility that a significant dipole moment maximum occurred during the third millennium BC, which cannot easily be identified in available time-varying global geomagnetic field reconstructions

show abstract

“…Despite the rich material heritage from the Roman period in Bulgaria and the abundance of pottery discovered, provenance and technological studies of ceramic collections using instrumental techniques are very few and consider mainly the chemical composition of medieval pottery (including sgrafitto ) from Northeastern Bulgaria and the Black Sea coast (Kuleff & Djingova, ; Kuleff, Djingova, & Penev, ; Kuleff, Djingova, & Penev, ; Lyubomirova, Šmit, Fajfar, & Kuleff, ) or comparison of some clay sources and Thracian ceramics from South Bulgaria and from the ancient city of Troy (Guzowska, Kuleff, Pernicka, & Satir, ). In contrast, archaeomagnetic studies in the Sofia Palaeomagnetic laboratory have a great tradition in analyzing fired structures and bricks in order to recover the geomagnetic field characteristics of the archaeological past, to explain the physical processes of the magnetic enhancement, and for archaeomagnetic dating (Herries, Kovacheva, Kostadinova, & Shaw, ; Jordanova, Kovacheva, & Kostadinova, ; Jordanova, Petrovský, Kovacheva, & Jordanova, ; Kostadinova‐Avramova & Kovacheva, ; Kostadinova‐Avramova, Kovacheva, & Boyadzhiev, ; Kovacheva, Kostadinova‐Avramova, Jordanova, Lanos, & Boyadzhiev, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clay source and firing temperatures of Roman ceramics: A case study from Plovdiv, Bulgaria

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During urgent archaeological excavations in the city of Plovdiv (South Bulgaria), a Roman pottery workshop was found, including several dome kilns, ceramic sherds, and a large clay deposit incorporating yellow and gray clay layers. A set of the ceramic specimens (kitchenwares and tablewares) and raw clay samples were investigated using a portable device for X‐ray fluorescence and laboratory equipment for magnetic measurements, aiming to provide specific information about the origin and firing technology of the pottery. Despite significant difference in calcium content between local raw clay and pottery samples, we conclude that local natural clay sources were used and the initial stages of production involved clay purification, although we cannot rule out the procurement of more distant clay sources. Magnetic susceptibility testing allowed for determination of the maximum firing temperatures, showing that the pottery were fired predominantly at 780°C, with some samples being fired at temperatures up to 860°C. Magnetic analyses show that kitchenwares were fired under more uniform conditions than the tablewares, which undoubtedly reflected in the quality of the vessels produced.

show abstract

Contribution of stratigraphic constraints of Bulgarian prehistoric multilevel tells and a comparison with archaeomagnetic observations

Cited by 12 publications

References 26 publications

Global archaeomagnetic data: The state of the art and future challenges

Global archaeomagnetic data: The state of the art and future challenges

New Late Neolithic (c. 7000–5000 BC) archeointensity data from Syria. Reconstructing 9000years of archeomagnetic field intensity variations in the Middle East

Clay source and firing temperatures of Roman ceramics: A case study from Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About