Briquetage and salt cakes: an experimental approach of a prehistoric technique

GIS-based Landform Classification of Eneolithic Archaeological Sites in the Plateau-plain Transition Zone (NE Romania): Habitation Practices vs. Flood Hazard Perception

“…To identify the relationship between settlements placement and morphological features, a geo-referenced database was created using Esri ArcGIS 10.3, based on field surveys ( Figure 2), along with relevant archaeological documentation and registries. It should be noted that the analysis was based only on certain settlements, where archaeological documentation was well-grounded in reports, radiocarbon-based chronology, scientific articles, and geo-archaeological maps [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] (…”

“…3850-3500 BC) ( Figure 3d), and 205 sites are Cucuteni settlements (ca. 4600-3500 BC), but the cultural phase they belong to (Cucuteni A, A-B, or B) is unknown (Figure 3e,f) [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]47].…”

“…According to the TPI-landform classification by combining two neighbourhood sizes, the most potentially affected settlements by floods were built on the concave landforms: deeply incised streams (37 sites), U-shaped valleys (25), and plains with ≤ 5 • slope (3 sites) ( Table 4). These sites may correspond to temporary settlements used for a particular activity (e.g., fishing, hunting, clay exploitation, flint processing), and could indicate the seasonal mobility of prehistoric communities generated by the annual hydrological regimes [34][35][36][37][38]41,75]. Overall, the habitation practices deduced from settlement landform patterns attest that prehistoric communities had a high awareness of flood hazard, especially during the Precucuteni and Cucuteni A periods (ca.…”

“…4100-3850 BCE) and Cucuteni B (ca. 3850-3500 BCE) [35,[39][40][41]. Besides the literature on the morphological features in the study area [42][43][44][45][46], only a few works deal with the local or the relative topographic position of archaeological settlements in the landscape [47,48]; most of them refer to the evaluation of cultural heritage sites to natural hazards (landslides, gully erosion) and anthropogenic impact [49][50][51][52][53][54].Understanding the connections between the small-scale features, large-scale landforms, flood hazard perception, and the types of archaeological settlement is an important method applied in the study of the prehistoric peoples because the landscape can reveal insights into settlement distribution and dynamics over time [4,27].…”

Archaeometric and Chemometric Studies Involved in the Authentication of Old Heritage Artefacts I. Contributions of the Iasi school of Conservation Science

“…The majority of the published works referring to the elucidation of the mechanism by which the Liesegang effect forms have been cited in many ISI-ranked scientific journals, presented at the end of the reference list [32-58], many citing two to up to four of the papers by our team. Chemometric characteristics with archaeometric value for ceramic artefacts With respect to the identification of the archaeometric characteristics, highlighted in ancient ceramics and used for authentication [59][60][61][62][63][64][65], our team has investigated the evolutive modules Si/Al, Ca/Mg, and K/Na, which were shown to be excellent chemometric relations ( fig. 8 and tables 2 and 3), then the rate of ceram solubilisation (aluminosilicates) under the influence of alkaline carbonates and phosphates (figs.…”