New Archaeointensity Results From Greek Materials*

Abstract

This paper reports palaeointensity results from Greek materials from EC and AD periods, recently obtained in the Sofia palaeomagnetic laboratory. The classical Thellier method was applied and of 26 specimens studied 20 gave acceptable results. The paper aims to compare the newly obtained results with previously published ones from Greece and neighbouring territories relating to the same period of time. The trend of palaeointensity obtained for the period 2900–1700 BC coincides well with the Bulgarian intensity variation curve, while the younger period, 1900–1200 BC, needs further investigation because of the contradictory results obtained by different authors. It is also established that the bricks from the church of Agios Ioannis are earlier than the date of the building's construction and are reused.

Continuous geomagnetic field models for the past 7 millennia: 1. A new global data compilation

“…Ukrainian and Moldovan data along with data from the central part of European Russia were also compiled by Burlatskaya et al [1986b] with some additional data taken from Rusakov and Zagniy [1973b]. In the Southern Europe file we have combined data from Greece [ Liritzis and Thomas , 1980; Thomas , 1983; Walton , 1984, 1990; Papamarinopoulos , 1987; Walton and Balhatchet , 1988; Aitken et al , 1989a, 1989b, 1991; Kovacheva et al , 2000; Spatharas et al , 2000; Nachasova and Burakov , 2002], Eastern Turkey [ Nachasova and Burakov , 2002], Italy [ Shaw , 1974; Tanguy , 1975; Evans , 1986, 1991; Rolph and Shaw , 1986; Hedley and Wagner , 1991], and former Yugoslavia compiled by Burlatskaya et al [1986b]. Scandinavian intensity data come from Finland [ Aitken et al , 1991; Pesonen et al , 1995] and a few from Norway and Denmark [ Gram‐Jensen et al , 2000].…”

Archaeomagnetic Studies in Kilns From N. Greece

“…Intensity data reported since 1980 (Liritzis and Thomas 1980) are by far more numerous (for a thorough review see DeMarco et.al., 2008) whereas directional data appeared in 1984 (Downey and Tarling, 1984). Recently new archaeomagnetic data have been obtained following severe selection criteria (Evans & Kondopoulou, 1998, Kovacheva et al, 2000, Kondopoulou & Spatharas, 2002, Tarling et al, 2004, Evans 2006) which leaded to the construction of new intensity (Spatharas, 2005, DeMarco et al, 2008 and directional SVC for Greece (DeMarco, 2007).…”

ARCHAEOMAGNETISM IN ARCHAEOMETRY— A SEMI‐CENTENNIAL REVIEW*

“…Kovacheva et al (2000) typified the increasing reliance on magnetomineralogical analyses to pre‐select samples, choose a temperature interval and make corrections for archaeointensity results. In addition to the linearity and temperature spread sought in the double‐heating Thellier–Thellier palaeointensity method (Thellier and Thellier 1959), reliability checks included monitoring of RNRM directions, repeat PTRM checks and constancy of low‐field susceptibility versus temperature.…”

“…In addition to the linearity and temperature spread sought in the double‐heating Thellier–Thellier palaeointensity method (Thellier and Thellier 1959), reliability checks included monitoring of RNRM directions, repeat PTRM checks and constancy of low‐field susceptibility versus temperature. To characterize the mineralogy and size of the grains carrying the magnetization, Kovacheva et al (2000) employed IRM acquisition and thermal demagnetization, alternating‐field demagnetization of both TRM and IRM, anisotropy of susceptibility and of IRM and fabric corrections using the easy‐plane model of magnetization. Results were interpreted for both ceramics and bricks, with ceramics having a higher anisotropy due to the greater fabric generated during manufacture.…”