Advertisement

Geologie en Mijnbouw

, Volume 76, Issue 1–2, pp 155–162 | Cite as

Archaeomagnetic dating of seven archaeological fireplaces in the Netherlands

  • A.A.M. van Hoof
  • C.G. Langereis
  • I. Joosten
  • J.R.A.M. Thijssen
  • E. Nijhof
  • H.A. Groenendijk
  • G.R.M. van den Eynde
Article

Abstract

The palaeomagnetic directions of seven Dutch fireplaces are compared with the archaeological age estimates which range from the first to the 17th century AD. A comparison with the British master curve of secular variation for archaeomagnetic dating results in a refinement of the archaeological age estimates in two cases, while four other archaeological age estimates can be confirmed. For one fireplace only one sample is reliable, resulting in a very poorly defined archaeomagnetic age of 2 to 3 centuries younger than the expected age (i.e. late Middle Ages). On the other hand, accepting the archaeological age estimates, the palaeomagnetic directions can contribute to the database that is used to construct the British secular-variation master curve. We applied the classification grades proposed by Tarling & Dobson (1995) which range from unreliable (grade 1) to reliable (grade 5). Three fireplaces have grades 5, one has grade 4, one grade 3, one grade 1 and for one case no grade was assigned.

archaeomagnetism British master curve rock magnetism secular variation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aitken, M.J. & H.N. Hawley 1971 Archaeomagnetism: Evidence for magnetic refraction in kiln structures-Archaeometry 13: 83-85Google Scholar
  2. Bucur, I. 1994 The direction of the terrestrial magnetic field in France, during the last 21 centuries. Recent progress-Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 87: 95-109Google Scholar
  3. Carmiggelt, A. & G. van den Eynde 1993 Een 17de-eeuwse tabakspijpoven in Breda-Archeologisch en bouwhistorisch onderzoek in Breda 1, 52 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, A.J., D.H. Tarling & M. Noël 1988 Developments in archaeomagnetic dating in Britain-J. Archeol. Sci. 15: 645-667Google Scholar
  5. Fisher, R.A. 1953 Dispersion on a sphere-Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 217: 295-305Google Scholar
  6. Hus, J. & R. Geeraerts 1995 On the origin of large regular deviations of magnetization direction observed in fired structures in archaeomagnetic studies-Annales Geophys., supp. 1 13: C13Google Scholar
  7. IGRF 1995 International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy (IAGA) Division V, Working Group 8, 1995 International geomagnetic reference field, 1995 revision-Geophys. J. Int. 125: 318-321Google Scholar
  8. Irving, E. 1964 Paleomagnetism and its application to geological and geophysical problems. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 399 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Kars, H & J.A. Broekman 1981 Early-medieval Dorestad, an archaeo-petrological study, II: The weights and the well. Petrology and provenance of the tuff-artefacts-Ber. Rijksd. Oudheidk. Bodemonderz. 31: 415-451Google Scholar
  10. Kirschvink, J.L. 1980 The least-squares line and plane and the analysis of paleomagnetic data-Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc. 62: 699-718Google Scholar
  11. Langereis, C.G. & H. Kars 1990 Archaeomagnetic dating of a limestone kiln at Nijmegen (The Netherlands)-Geol. Mijnbouw 69: 319-326Google Scholar
  12. Malin, S.R.C. & E. Bullard 1981 The direction of the Earth's magnetic field at London, 1570-1975-Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 299: 357-423Google Scholar
  13. Mullender, T.A.T.,A.J. van Velzen & M.J. Dekkers 1993 Continuous drift correction and separate identification of ferrimagnetic and paramagnetic contributions in thermomagnetic runs-Geophys. J. Int. 114: 663-672Google Scholar
  14. Parés, J.M., R. De Jonge, J.O. Pascual, A. Bermúdez, C.J. Tovar, R.A. Luezas & N. Maestro 1992 Archaeomagnetic evidence for the age of a Roman pottery kiln from Calahorra (Spain)-Geophys. J. Int. 112: 533-537Google Scholar
  15. Roberts, A.P., Y.I. Cui & K.L. Verosub 1995 Wasp-waisted hysteresis loops: Mineral magnetic characteristics and discrimination of components in mixed magnetic systems-J. Geophys. Res. 100: 17909-17924Google Scholar
  16. Schnepp, E. & R. Pucher 1996 Preliminary archaeomagnetic dating from a floor sequence of a bread kiln in Lübeck (Germany)-Geologica Carpathica 47: 186Google Scholar
  17. Soffel, H.C. & K. Schurr 1990 MAGNETIC REFRACTION STUDIED IN TWO EXPERIMENTAL KILNS-Geophys. J. Int. 102: 551-562Google Scholar
  18. Tarling, D.H. & M.J. Dobson 1995 Archaeomagnetism: An error assessment of firedmaterial observations in the British directional database-J. Geomag. Geoelectr. 47: 5-18Google Scholar
  19. Tauxe, L., T.A.T. Mullender & T. Pick 1996 Potbellies, wasp-waists, and superparamagnetism in magnetic hysteresis-J. Geophys. Res. 101: 571-584Google Scholar
  20. Willems, W.J.H. 1986 Romans and Batavians: a regional study in the Dutch eastern river area. Thesis Univ. Amsterdam. Caspary, Amsterdam. 491 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • A.A.M. van Hoof
    • 1
  • C.G. Langereis
    • 1
  • I. Joosten
    • 2
  • J.R.A.M. Thijssen
    • 3
  • E. Nijhof
  • H.A. Groenendijk
    • 2
  • G.R.M. van den Eynde
    • 4
  1. 1.Paleomagnetic Laboratory ‘Fort Hoofddijk’Utrechtthe Netherlands
  2. 2.State Service for Archaeological Investigations in the NetherlandsAmersfoortthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Archaeological Section of the municipality of NijmegenNijmegenthe Netherlands
  4. 4.Dienst Cultuur, P.O. BoxBredathe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations