Archaeometry in the Cultural Heritage Studies and Art (Definitions Future Trends and Challenges) - Journal of Research on Archaeometry
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------
year 7, Issue 1 (2021)                   JRA 2021, 7(1): 1-30 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Razani M, Sehati F, B. Kasiri M. Archaeometry in the Cultural Heritage Studies and Art (Definitions, Future Trends and Challenges). JRA. 2021; 7 (1) :1-30
URL: http://jra-tabriziau.ir/article-1-225-en.html
1- Tabriz Islamic Art University , m.razani@tabriziau.ac.ir
2- Tabriz Islamic Art University
Abstract:   (865 Views)
Understanding and investigation of the principles, fundamentals, and the actions during the last century; following the emergence of the concept of “archaeometry” or “archaeological science”, that have encompassed the areas of cultural heritage, has have become a must for understanding the nature of scientific trends in archaeometry. Therefore, it is important to clarify the main definitions as the most important fundamental principles in conceptualization to create a common language. The purpose of this study was to investigate the origins of archaeometry by studying the approaches, areas, and boundaries of the related studies, to achieve the principles and basis of this scientific discipline. In Europe, archaeometric activities have been developed over the last century, with a focus on the topics and issues raised in the form of various interdisciplinary research approaches, and today, much of the research in this field of cultural heritage science is being conducted in an interdisciplinary approach, due to the variety of topics. According to a historical study of this interdisciplinary area of science, it can be said that archaeometry in the West has an archaeological origin and is related to the natural sciences. But in Iran, archaeometry was officially initiated under the domain of restoration of historical objects at the universities, began with the establishment of laboratories dedicated for archaeometrical studies in museums and research centers, and continued recently as an independent university discipline. Today, the most important axis of this scientific discipline includes: Characterization, Dating, Provenance, Authentication, Identification the objects application, Reconstruction of the ancient technologies, Science of conservation and restoration, Prospection & Remote sensing methods in archaeometry, Bioarchaeology, Geoarchaeology & Paleoclimatology, and Cyber-archaeology. The results of the investigations and studies realized in this research showed that due to the interdisciplinary nature of archaeometry in a discourse and research approach, it could not have a theoretical foundation. Meanwhile, understanding and adhering to the principles and foundations of the methodology of this interdisciplinary research approach in relation to the other sciences must be admitted. As if some rules and principles, such as the ethics in archaeometry, as a basic concern, have shaped the limitations and developed the archaeological methodological approach.
Full-Text [PDF 1911 kb]   (591 Downloads)    
Technical Note: Original Research | Subject: Archaeometry
Received: 2020/05/10 | Accepted: 2020/09/10 | Published: 2021/09/21 | ePublished: 2021/09/21

References
1. Pollard AM, Batt CM, Stern B, Young SM, Young SM. Analytical chemistry in archaeology. Cambridge University Press; 2007. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511607431]
2. Tite MS. Archaeometry-an overview. Inproceedings-International School of Physics Enrico Fermi 2004;154: p. 347-356. IOS Press; Ohmsha; 1999.
3. Stern WB. Archaeometry-Analyzing the Cultural Heritage. CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry. 2001 Nov 1;55(11): p.915-22.
4. Bahrololoumi, F., Bahadori R., Archaeometry in archaeological research in Iran, Eighty Years of Iranian Archaeology, Vol. 2, Editors: Yousef Hassanzadehy; Sima Miri: Pazineh Press Center & National Museum of Iran. 2012.pp329-344 [بحرالعلومی، فرانک، بهادری. رویا. نقش باستان سنجی در باستان شناسی ایران، مجموعه مقالات 80 باستان شناسی ایران، جلد دوم، به کوشش، یوسف حسن زاده، سیما میری، تهران: موزه ملی و نشر پازینه ،1391. ص329-344]
5. Razani M, Ajourlou B (edited). Introduction to the book Application of Scientific Analysis in Archeology and Restoration of Cultural Heritage, Selected Articles of the First and Second National Conferences. editors: Razani M, Ajourlou B. Tabriz: Islamic Art University of Tabriz (1391-1392) 1393. [in Persian] [رازانی مهدی، آجورلو بهرام (به ویرایش). مقدمه کتاب کاربرد تحلیل های علمی در باستان سنجی و مرمت میراث فرهنگی، برگزیده مقالات اولین و دومین همایش ملی. به کوشش: رازانی مهدی، آجورلو بهرام. تبریز: دانشگاه هنر اسلامی تبریز (1391-1392) 1393.]
6. Liritzis I, Laskaris N, Vafiadou A, Karapanagiotis I, Volonakis P, Papageorgopoulou C, Bratitsi M. Archaeometry: an overview. Scientific Culture. 2020 Jan 1;6(1):49-99.
7. Pollard AM. Archaeometry 50th anniversary issue editorial. Archaeometry. 2008 Apr;50(2):191-3. [DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00395.x]
8. Archaeometry. (1981). Walter Sullivan, New York Times, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/ archaeometry.
9. Archaeometry. (1958), from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ archaeometry.
10. Archaeometry. (n.d). Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=archaeometry
11. Archaeometry.. (n.d). Retrieved November 9, 2018, from, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/ dictionary/english/archaeometry
12. Ehrenreich RM. Archaeometry into archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 1995 Mar 1: p.1-6. [DOI:10.1007/BF02228433]
13. Martini M, Piacentini M, editors. Physics methods in archaeometry. IOS press; 2004 Jun 9.
14. Jones A. Archaeometry and materiality: materials based analysis in theory and practice. Archaeometry. 2004 Aug;46(3): p. 327-38. [DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00161.x]
15. Darvill, T. (2008). archaeometry. In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 31 Jul. 2019, from https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534043.001.0001/acref 9780199534043-e-236.
16. Glascock MD. Archaeometry. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, ed. by Deborah M. Pearsall. Academic Press, New York. 2008 [DOI:10.1016/B978-012373962-9.00019-4]
17. Artioli G, Angelini I. Scientific methods and cultural heritage: an introduction to the application of materials science to archaeometry and conservation science. Oxford University Press; 2010 Jul 8. [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548262.003.0001]
18. Martinón-Torres M, Killick D. Archaeological theories and archaeological sciences. InThe Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory 2015. [DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199567942.013.004]
19. Bahrololumi Shapoor Abadi, F. Dating methods in archeology. Tehran: 1388. [in Persian] [بحر العلومی شاپورآبادی فرانک. روش های سال‌یابی در باستان شناسی. تهران: سمت 1388.]
20. Holmes A. The association of lead with uranium in rock-minerals, and its application to the measurement of geological time. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character. 1911 Jun 9;85(578): p.248-56. [DOI:10.1098/rspa.1911.0036]
21. Taylor RE, Aitken MJ, editors. Chronometric dating in archaeology. Springer Science & Business Media; 1997 Nov 30. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4757-9694-0]
22. Adams WY, Adams EW, Adams EW, Adams EW, Mathematician P. Archaeological typology and practical reality: a dialectical approach to artifact classification and sorting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511558207]
23. Baillie MG. Tree-ring dating and archaeology. Routledge; 2014 Oct 24. [DOI:10.4324/9781315748689]
24. Aitken MJ. Science-based Dating in Archaeology, Longman. London. Allen, JRL Coal dust in the Severn Estuary, southwestern UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1990;18: p.169-74. [DOI:10.1016/0025-326X(87)90241-4]
25. Rixhon G, Briant RM, Cordier S, Duval M, Jones A, Scholz D. Revealing the pace of river landscape evolution during the Quaternary: recent developments in numerical dating methods. Quaternary Science Reviews. 2017 Jun 15; 166: p.91-113. [DOI:10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.08.016]
26. Walker M. Quaternary dating methods. John Wiley and Sons; 2005 Jun 17.
27. Tite MS. Archaeological Science‐Past Achievements and Future Prospects. Archaeometry. 1991 Aug;33(2): p.139-51. [DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4754.1991.tb00695.x]
28. Bahrololumi Shapoor Abadi, F. Archeometry, a way for communication between the natural sciences and archeology. Physics day. 2014; 5: p.32-37. [in Persian] [بحر العلومی شاپورآبادی فرانک. باستان سنجی، راه ارتباطی علوم طبیعی و باستان شناسی. فیزیک روز 1393؛ 5: ص. 32-37.]
29. Emami M, Razani M, Soleimani NA, Madjidzadeh Y. New insights into the characterization and provenance of chlorite objects from the Jiroft civilization in Iran. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2017 Dec 1;16: p.194-204. [DOI:10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.10.004]
30. Nagel A. "Persepolis in Color" in In Tehran 50: ein halbes Jahrhundert deutsche Archäologen in Iran; eine Ausstellung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Museum für Islamische Kunst, by: Eurasien-Abteilung Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Staatliche Museen Berlin;2. 12. 2011-4. 3. 2012, Translated in Persianby B, Rahimipour P. Translated by Fahimi. H. Translated by Fahimi H. Tehran: National Museum of Iran 2016. p.229-231. [in Persian] [ناگل الکساندر. «تخت جمشید رنگی» در تهران 50؛ تاریخچه نیم‌قرن حضور باستان شناسان آلمانی در ایران. به کوشش: املوینگ باربارا، رحیمی پور پاتریسیا. ترجمه فهیمی حمید. ناشر: موزه ملی ایران. 1395؛ ص. 229-231.]
31. Dadashzadeh M, Gorji M, Vahidzadeh R. "Egyptian Blue" or "Lapis Lazuli Paste"? Structural Study and Identification of the Collection of the Objects Nominate Lapis Lazuli Paste in the National Museum of Iran. Journal of Research on Archaeometry. 2017 Mar 10; 2(2): p.35-48. [Original in Persian with English Abstract] [داداش زاده مارال، عبدالله خان گرجی مهناز، وحید زاده رضا. «خمیر لاجورد یا آبی مصری؟ بررسی ساختاری و هویت‌بخشی مجموعه‌ای از اشیاء منسوب به خمیر لاجورد در موزه ملی ایران.» دوفصلنامه پژوهه باستان سنجی 1395؛ ۲ (۲): ص. 48-35.] [DOI:10.29252/jra.2.2.35]
32. Price TD, Burton JH. Provenience and Provenance. InAn Introduction to Archaeological Chemistry.Springer, New York, NY.2011: p. 213-42. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-6376-5_8]
33. Quinn PS. Ceramic petrography. The interpretation of archaeological pottery and related artefacts in thin section: Oxford, Archaeopress. 2013. [DOI:10.2307/j.ctv1jk0jf4]
34. Kasiri MB, Shahrsabzi S, Emami M, Razani M. Provenance of the stones used in plinths of the Achaemenid palaces of Borazjan, South-Western of Iran. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2020 Feb 1; 29:102064. [DOI:10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102064]
35. Emami M, Eslami M, Fadaei H, Karami HR, Ahmadi K. Mineralogical-geochemical characterization and provenance of the stones used at the Pasargadae Complex in Iran: A new perspective. Archaeometry. 2018 Dec;60(6): p.1184-201. [DOI:10.1111/arcm.12395]
36. Kohl PL, Harbottle G, Sayre EV. Physical and chemical analysis of soft stone vessels from southwest Asia. Archaeometry. 1979 Jan 1;21(2): p.131-59. [DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4754.1979.tb00249.x]
37. Abedi A, Vosough B, Razani M, Kasiri MB, Steiniger D, Ebrahimi G. Obsidian Deposits From North-Western Iran and First Analytical Results: Implications for Prehistoric Production and Trade. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry. 2018 Apr 1;18(2).
38. Price CA, Doehne E. Stone conservation: an overview of current research. Getty publications; 2011 Feb 15.
39. Henderson J, Evans JA, Sloane HJ, Leng MJ, Doherty C. The use of oxygen, strontium and lead isotopes to provenance ancient glasses in the Middle East. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2005 May 1;32(5):665-73. [DOI:10.1016/j.jas.2004.05.008]
40. Roberts BW, Thornton CP, editors. Archaeometallurgy in global perspective: methods and syntheses. Springer Science & Business Media; 2014 Jan 7. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-9017-3]
41. Pernicka E. Provenance determination of archaeological metal objects. In Archaeometallurgy in global perspective Roberts BW, Thornton CP, editors 2014 (pp. 239-268). . Science & Business Media Springer, New York, NY. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-9017-3_11]
42. Razani M, Nasirzadeh B. Fake and Forgery in Antiquities and Visual Arts: Terminology, Typology, Legal Fate and Evaluation Methods " Proceedings of the 1st & 2nd Iranian National Symposium on the Application of Scientific Analyses in Archaeometry and the Conservation of Cultural Heritage 2012 & 2013Editors: Mehdi Razani & Bahram, T IAU, Vol 1-2 (2012-2013) 2014; p. 32-107. [in Persian [ [رازانی مهدی، نصیر زاده بهناز. جعل و تقلب در آثار تاریخی و هنرهای تجسمی«مفاهیم، گونه شناسی، سرنوشت قانونی و روش های بررسی» در کاربرد تحلیل های علمی در باستان سنجی و مرمت میراث فرهنگی، برگزیده مقالات اولین و دومین همایش ملی. به کوشش: رازانی مهدی، آجورلو بهرام. تبریز: دانشگاه هنر اسلامی تبریز (1391-1392) 1393؛ ص. 32-107.]
43. Feilden BM, Jokilehto J. Management guidelines for world cultural heritage sites. 1998.
44. Holtorf C, Schadla-Hall T. Age as artefact: on archaeological authenticity. European journal of archaeology. 1999;2(2): p.229-47 [DOI:10.1179/eja.1999.2.2.229]
45. Labadi S. World Heritage, authenticity and post-authenticity: international and national perspectives. InHeritage and globalization. Routledge. 2010 Jun 17; p. 80-98.
46. Petzet M. International principles of preservation. Monuments and Sites. 2009;20.
47. Scott DA. Art: Authenticity, Restoration, Forgery. ISD LLC; 2016 Dec 31. [DOI:10.2307/j.ctvdmwx02]
48. Korff G, Roth M, editors. Das Historische Museum. Campus Verlag; 1990.
49. Seidenspinner W. Authentizität. Kulturanthropologisch-erinnerungskundliche Annäherungen an ein zentrales Wissenschaftskonzeptim Blick auf das Weltkulturerbe. 2007.
50. Craddock P. Scientific Investigation of Copies. Fakes and Forgeries (Ljubljana: Elsevier Ltd., 2009). 2009: p.141-60. [DOI:10.4324/9780080939001]
51. Tite MS. Archaeological Science‐Past Achievements and Future Prospects. Archaeometry. 1991 Aug;33(2): p.139-51. [DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4754.1991.tb00695.x]
52. Heeb J, Ottaway BS. Experimental archaeometallurgy. InArchaeometallurgy in global perspective. Springer, New York, NY. 2014; p. 161-92. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-9017-3_8]
53. Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. Archaeology: the key concepts (pp. 15-23). Routledge; 2013 Sep 5. [DOI:10.4324/9780203491096]
54. Ascher R. Experimental archeology. American Anthropologist. 1961 Aug 1:793-816. [DOI:10.1525/aa.1961.63.4.02a00070]
55. Coles J. Archaeology by experiment. Routledge; 2014 Oct 24. [DOI:10.4324/9781315748443]
56. Reynolds PJ. The nature of experiment in archaeology. Experiment and design: Archaeological studies in honour of John Coles. 1999 Oct: p.156-62.
57. Mathieu JR. Experimental archaeology. BAR International Series. 2002;1035.
58. Kingery WD. Technological systems and some implications with regard to continuity and change. History from things: Essays on material culture. 1993 Apr 17: p.215-30.
59. Franklin U. The real world of technology. CBC Massey Lecture Series.1992.
60. Miller HM. Chapter 2: Methodology: Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Technology. Archaeological Approaches to Technology. 2007; p.13-39.
61. Price TD, Burton JH. Technology, Function, and Human Activity. InAn Introduction to Archaeological Chemistry 2011 (pp. 155-186). Springer, New York, NY. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-6376-5_6]
62. Emami SM. Archaeometry, a Discipline for Linking Archaeology to Natural Sciences (Aims and Scopes). Journal of Research on Archaeometry. 2016 Mar 10;1(2): p.75-82. [Original in Persian with English Abstract] [امامی سید محمدامین. «باستان سنجی؛ پلی میان علوم طبیعی و مهندسی با باستان شناسی (اهداف و دورنما).» دو فصلنامۀ پژوهه باستان سنجی 1394؛ 1(2): ص. 75-82.] [DOI:10.29252/jra.1.2.75]
63. Muñoz-Viñas S, Viñas SM. Contemporary theory of conservation. Routledge; 2005.
64. Brandi C. Teoria del restauro. Ed. di storia e letteratura; 1963.
65. Sung B.G. Identification flight over southern Iran. In Tehran 50: ein halbes Jahrhundert deutsche Archäologen in Iran; eine Ausstellung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Museum für Islamische Kunst, by: Eurasien-Abteilung Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Staatliche Museen Berlin;2. 12. 2011-4. 3. 2012, Translated in Persianby B, Rahimipour P. Translated by Fahimi. H. Translated by Fahimi H. Tehran: National Museum of Iran 2016. ]In Persian[ [سونگ با گوان. پرواز شناسایی بر فراز جنوب ایران- در تهران 50؛ تاریخچه نیم‌قرن حضور باستان شناسان آلمانی در ایران به کوشش: املوینگ باربارا، رحیمی پور پاتریسیا. ترجمه فهیمی حمید. تهران: موزه ملی ایران 1395.]
66. Fassbinder JW. Geophysical prospection of the frontiers of the Roman Empire in southern Germany, UNESCO World Heritage Site. Archaeological Prospection. 2010 Jul;17(3): p.129-39. [DOI:10.1002/arp.387]
67. Telford WM, Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE, Sheriff RE. Applied geophysics. Cambridge university press; 1990 Oct 26. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139167932]
68. Conyers LB, Goodman D. Ground-penetrating radar. An Introduction for Archaeologist: AltaMira Press; 1997 Mar; p. 149-194
69. Daniels DJ. Ground Penetrating Radar, the institution of electrical engineers. London, UK. 2004. [DOI:10.1049/PBRA015E]
70. Linford N. The application of geophysical methods to archaeological prospection. Reports on progress in physics. 2006 Jun 26;69(7):2205. [DOI:10.1088/0034-4885/69/7/R04]
71. Sarlak B, Aghajani H. Archaeological investigations at Tepe Hissar-Damghan using Gravity and Magnetics methods. Journal of Research on Archaeometry. 2017 Mar 10;2(2): p.19-34. [Original in Persian with English Abstract [سرلک بهزاد، آقاجانی حمید. بررسی باستان سنجی در تپه حصار دامغان با استفاده از روش های گرانی سنجی و مغناطیس سنجی. دو فصلنامۀ پژوهه باستان سنجی 1395؛ 2(2): 19-34] [DOI:10.29252/jra.2.2.19]
72. Goodman D, Piro S. GPR remote sensing in archaeology. New York: Springer; 2013 Mar 19; 9: p. 233 [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-31857-3]
73. Aminpour B. Application of exploratory geophysical methods in archeology and an example of the application of magnetometric method around Choghaznabil temple.Bastan Pajhohi Journal, 1380; 4. (8) p. 4-9. [in Persian] [امین پور بابک. کاربرد روش های ژئوفیزیک اکتشافی در باستان شناسی و نمونه ای از اجرای روش مغناطیس سنجی در اطراف معبد چغازنبیل. باستان پژوهی1380؛ 4. (8) ص. 4-9.]
74. AliTajer S, Afshari Azad S. Investigating the Role of Geomatics Engineering in the Applications of Cultural Heritage, Archeology and Architecture. Journal of Archaeological Researches in Iran. 2013;5: p.169-9. [Original in Persian with English Abstract] [علیتاجر سعید، افشاری آزاد سمیه. بررسی جایگاه مهندسی ژئوماتیک در کاربردهای میراث فرهنگی و باستان شناسی و معماری. دوفصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی پژوهش های باستان شناسی ایران. گروه باستان شناسی دانشکده هنر و معماری بوعلی سینا. 1392؛ 5(3): ص. 169-195.]
75. Luo L, Wang X, Guo H, Lasaponara R, Zong X, Masini N, Wang G, Shi P, Khatteli H, Chen F, Tariq S. Airborne and spaceborne remote sensing for archaeological and cultural heritage applications: A review of the century (1907-2017). Remote sensing of environment. 2019 Oct 1; 232:111280. [DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111280]
76. Clark JG. Star Carr: a case study in bioarchaeology.1972.
77. Clark JG. Bioarchaeology: Some extracts on the theme. Current Anthropology. 1973 Oct 1;14(4): p.464-70 [DOI:10.1086/201358]
78. Buikstra JE. Biocultural dimensions of archaeological study: A regional perspective. Biocultural adaptation in prehistoric America. 1977: p.67-84
79. Wright LE, Yoder CJ. Recent progress in bioarchaeology: approaches to the osteological paradox. Journal of Archaeological Research. 2003 Mar 1;11(1): p.43-70. [DOI:10.1023/A:1021200925063]
80. Killgrove K. Bioarchaeology in the Roman world (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).2005
81. Roberts CA. Human remains in archaeology. A handbook. Number 18 Volume 10 Issue. 2009 Jul;29.
82. Afshar Z. Bioarchaeology: Scientific Studies of Archaeological Human Skeletal Remains. JRA. 2018; 4 (2): p.81-92. [Original in Persian with English Abstract] [افشار زهرا. زیست‌باستان‌شناسی: مطالعه علمی بقایای اسکلت‌های انسانی به‌دست‌آمده از کاوش‌های باستان‌شناسی. دو فصلنامه‌ی پژوهه باستان سنجی 1397؛ ۴ (۲) : ص.92-81.] [DOI:10.29252/jra.4.2.81]
83. Eurasien-Abteilung Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Tehran 50: ein halbes Jahrhundert deutsche Archäologen in Iran; eine Ausstellung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Museum für Islamische Kunst, Staatliche Museen Berlin; 2. 12. 2011-4. 3. 2012 im Pergamonmuseum, Museumsinsel Berlin, aus Anlass des fünfzigjährigen Bestehens der Außenstelle Teheran des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. von Zabern; 2011. [in Persian [ [پنکه نوربرت. تحلیل علمی یافته های جانوری- در تهران 50؛ تاریخچه نیم‌قرن حضور باستان شناسان آلمانی در ایران. به کوشش: املوینگ باربارا، رحیمی پور پاتریسیا. ترجمه فهیمی حمید. ناشر: موزه ملی ایران 1395.]
84. Price TD, Burton JH. An introduction to archaeological chemistry. Springer Science & Business Media; 2010 Oct 17.
85. Brown TA, Brown K. Biomolecular archaeology: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons; 2011 Feb 8. [DOI:10.1002/9781444392449]
86. DeNiro MJ, Epstein S. Influence of diet on the distribution of carbon isotopes in animals. Geochimica et cosmochimica acta. 1978 May 1;42(5):495-506. [DOI:10.1016/0016-7037(78)90199-0]
87. DeNiro MJ, Epstein S. Influence of diet on the distribution of nitrogen isotopes in animals. Geochimica et cosmochimica acta. 1981 Mar 1;45(3):341-51. [DOI:10.1016/0016-7037(81)90244-1]
88. Katzenberg MA, Schwarcz HP, Knyf M, Melbye FJ. Stable isotope evidence for maize horticulture and paleodiet in southern Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity. 1995 Apr;60(2):335-50. [DOI:10.2307/282144]
89. Little EA, Schoeninger MJ. The Late Woodland diet on Nantucket Island and the problem of maize in coastal New England. American Antiquity. 1995 Apr;60(2):351-68. [DOI:10.2307/282145]
90. B. Kasiri M, Abedi A. Application of Strontium Isotope Analysis of Bone and Tooth in the Study of Ancient Immigrations. JRA. 2020; 6 (1) :17-31: DOI:10.29252/jra.6.1.17 [باقرزاده کثیری مسعود، عابدی اکبر. کاربرد آنالیز ایزوتوپ های استرانسیوم استخوان و دندان در مطالعه پدیده مهاجرت های باستانی. پژوهه باستان سنجی. ۱۳۹۹; ۶ (۱) :۱۷-۳۱] [DOI:10.29252/jra.6.1.17]
91. Emami M. The study of mineralogy and archaeometry of ceramic artifacts during 1600-700 B.C. in Haft Tappeh, Choghazanbil, Eighty Years of Iranian Archaeology, Vol. 2, Editors: Yousef Hassanzadehy; Sima Miri: Pazineh Press Center & National Museum of Iran. 2012.pp314-328 [امامی، سید محمد امین، آرکئومتری و مینرالوژی فن سفالگری از 1600 تا 700 پ.م در چغازنبیل و هفت تپه، مجموعه مقالات 80 باستان شناسی ایران، جلد دوم، به کوشش، یوسف حسن زاده، سیما میری، تهران: موزه ملی و نشر پازینه، 1391.ص314-328]
92. Chaychi Amirkhiz A, Shaikk Baikloo Islam B. Climatic Hazards of Fourth Millennium BC and Cultural p Responses of Human Societies Case Study: Tehran Plain and Qomroud-Gharachay Basin. JRA. 2020; 6 (1) :67-80 DOI: 10.29252/jra.6.1.67 [چایچی امیرخیز احمد، شیخ بیگلو اسلام بابک. مخاطرات اقلیمی هزاره چهارم ق.م و پاسخ‌های فرهنگی جوامع انسانی مطالعه موردی: دشت تهران و حوضه قمرود-قره‌چای. پژوهه باستان‌سنجی. ۱۳۹۹، ۶ (۱) :۶۷-۸۰] [DOI:10.29252/jra.6.1.67]
93. Levy, T.E and Liss, B (2020) Cyber-archaeology C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_3203-1]
94. Forte M, editor. Cyber-archaeology. Oxford: Archaeopress; 2019. [DOI:10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0207]
95. Liritzis I, Al-Otaibi FM, Volonakis P, Drivaliari A. Digital technologies and trends in cultural heritage. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry. 2015 Jan 1; 15(3):313-32.
96. Mirsafdari S, Mohammadifar Y. Recreating Information in Digital Archeology. Parseh J Archaeol Stud. 2020; 4 (13) :181-192 [میرصفدری ش، محمدی‌فر. ی. بازآفرینی اطلاعات در دیجیتال باستان‌شناسی. مطالعات باستان شناسی پارسه. ۱۳۹۹، ۴ (۱۳):۱۸۱-۱۹۲] [DOI:10.30699/PJAS.4.13.181]
97. Elgewely E. 3D Reconstruction of Furniture Fragments from the Ancient Town of Karanis. Studies in Digital Heritage. 2017 Dec 14;1(2):409-27. [DOI:10.14434/sdh.v1i2.23340]
98. Jelodarian, B, Razani. M. Using Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) to Examine Surface Morphology of Chlorite Handbags of the Halil-Roud Culture Basin, Jiroft belongs to Azerbaijan Museum. 2nd International Conference on the Archaeology of Southeastern Iran at: Jiroft, IRAN. December 2017 [بهروز جلوداریان بیدگلی، مهدی رازانی، بررسی ریخت شناسی سطح در آثار سنگ وزنه های کلریتی جیرفت موجود در موزه آذربایجان توسط روش تصویربرداری واریختگی بازتابشی (RTI). دومــین همــایش بیـن‌المـــللی باســتان‌شــناسی جــنوب‌شـرق دانشـــگاه جــیرفت، کرمــان. 1396]
99. Razani M, Haddadian MA. The Use of New Prototyping Technology to Reconstruct Missing Parts of the Archaeological Pottery. Pazhoheshha-ye Bastan shenasi Iran. 2018 Nov 22;8(18):193-212. doi: 10.22084/nbsh.2018.15134.1670 [رازانی مهدی، حدادیان محمد علی، پور عباس صفر. استفاده از فناوری‌های نوین نمونه سازی در بازسازی بخش های مفقود سفالینه های باستان-شناسی. پژوهش های باستان شناسی ایران. 1397؛ 8 (18): 193-212]
100. Razani M, Haddadian M A, porabbas S. The Use of Rapid Prototyping Technology to Reconstruct the Missing Parts of Glass Works with the Approach of Applying in Historical Glasses. mmi. 2016; 6 (12) :85-102[رازانی مهدی، حدادیان محمد علی، پورعباس صفر. استفاده از فنّاوری‌های نمونه‌سازی سریع در بازسازی بخش‌های مفقود آثار شیشه‌ای با رویکرد استفاده در شیشه‌های تاریخی. نشريه علمي مرمت و معماري ايران. ۱۳۹۵، ۶ (۱۲) : ۸۵-۱۰۲]

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research on Archaeometry

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb