Absolute Dating of Construction Materials and Petrological Characterisation of Mortars from the Santalla de Bóveda Monument (Lugo, Spain)

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1891346/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Absolute Dating of Construction Materials and Petrological Characterisation of Mortars from the Santalla de Bóveda Monument (Lugo, Spain)

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1891346/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 14 Dec, 2023

Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences →

You are reading this latest preprint version

The construction materials of the Santalla de Bóveda Monument, one of the most studied buildings in Galicia (Spain), are analysed to date the mortars and bricks of walls and vaults by combining three dating techniques: optically stimulated luminescence, radiocarbon and thermoluminescence. Petrological characterisation of the mortars themselves is carried out. Until now, the paintings on the vault have been interpreted as Roman, early Christian or pre-Romanesque, depending on the interpretative framework used by the researcher who studied them. There is also no consensus on their functionality. A total of 21 samples were collected and 39 datings were made. The results are conclusive: the original building dates from the second half of the 4th century AD, the paintings date from the beginning of the 7th century or the upper floor from the 10th-12th centuries. These results make it necessary to review the history of Galician architecture between Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval Ages.

Archaeology of Architecture

Paintings and Lime Mortars

Optically Stimulated Luminescence

Radiocarbon

Petrography

Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Age

The Santalla de Bóveda Monument is located fifteen kilometres southwest of Lugo, in the northwest of Galicia (Spain), in a rural area of the Mera valley (Fig. 1). It is a small semi-buried building, under the Bóveda Parish Church, built in the 18th century, with an apsidal quadrangular floor plan, which was divided into three naves. The small apse has a rectangular floor plan and is vaulted; it is accessed through a brick voussoir arch. Only the parts of the vault in the lateral naves have survived, where paintings depicting birds and plant elements have been well preserved. There is a shallow pool in the flagstone pavement. The aula is preceded by a two-column portico in antis, and in its narthex the remains of the vault that covered it, decorated with geometric paintings, have been preserved. The doorway of the aula has a central opening crowned by a light horseshoe-shaped brick arch, above imposts, and framed by a chambranle and a granite moulding with vegetal decoration, alfiz type. Two rectangular lintelled windows with a mitered arch above them are on either side of the door. There are several bas-reliefs depicting various types of birds and human figures in the portico, both on the outer façade and in the narthex (Fig. 1). Part of the north elevation of a first floor is preserved above this structure (Fig. 2).

The monument has aroused great interest since its discovery, both for its uniqueness and for the interpretation of its well-preserved paintings as Roman. But its chronology and functionality has always been the subject of controversy. Some of the most recurrent interpretations are as nymphaeum of the 4th century AD (Castillo 1932; Chamoso 1952; Abad Casal 1979) or from the end of the 3rd century AD in the orientalising style (Gómez-Moreno 1949); as a possible salutary waters place (Ares 1962, 1963, 1964), remodelled in the second half of the 4th century (Chamoso 1952).

It has also been interpreted as a Roman funerary monument of oriental character of the 4th century AD, transformed for Christian worship around the 9th century AD following pre-Romanesque Asturian models (Schlunk 1935); or as the baths of a villa of the 4th century AD and a later transformation, around the 5th century, into a Prisciliano tomb (Fernández de la Vega 1970) or with a Christian reuse before the 8th century AD (Guardia 2002).

Several authors define a Roman origin with later stages in the 5th, 8th or 9th centuries (Acuña 1973; Núñez 1978; Rodríguez Colmenero 1992, 2018; Singul 1997, 1998; Vidal 2003; Carrocera 2016). Arias (1979, 1980) sees a single structural phase to which construction, painting and sculpture are assigned and it is reused with the passing of time. Finally, Montenegro (2016) defends the statement of the space to an Alto Imperial funerary monument no later than the 2nd century AD with Dionysiac character.

Research carried out by our team in 2007–2008 identified a complex stratigraphic sequence thanks to an Archaeology of Architecture study of the monument, applying stratigraphic analysis of walls (Benavides and Blanco-Rotea 2008; Blanco-Rotea et al. 2009) (see Fig. 6 below):

Phase I. First underground building consisting of a narthex, the vaulted aula without division into three naves and with a swimming pool, and the W apse, also vaulted.
Phase II. Alterations to the aula modifying its appearance: division of the aula into three naves; decoration of the interior of the aula with paintings and possibly decorated plaques; possible alteration of the entrance door to the monument; and a possible modification of the main façade.
Phase III. Construction of a vaulted room above the aula and with access from the W.
Phase IV. Specific alterations affecting the W door of the aula, the vault of the narthex or the vault of the upper floor.
Phase V. Interventions in the contemporary period, which took place between its discovery in 1929 and the last intervention by the architect César Portela in 2006–2007.

Stratigraphic reading is a well-proven method of archaeological analysis of architecture (Domingo and Sánchez, 2010) that provides a relative sequence of construction phases. To date absolutely, other methods are used, such as the use of chronological indicators or absolute dating techniques applied to materials, such as radiocarbon or optically stimulated luminescence (OSL).

But, in case of using chronological indicators, three points must be considered at the Santalla de Bóveda Monument:

1) It is a unicum, there is no known similar example in the Iberian Peninsula and even less in the NW that would allow us to establish a comparison on which to build an interpretative model for the Santalla de Bóveda Monument, although some parts of the complex could have similarities with other constructions.

2) The materials and construction techniques used in the Santalla de Bóveda Monument, as well as the motifs of the paintings, are documented in a wide chronological range, from Roman times to the Early Middle Ages. This has meant that each author has given greater or lesser weight to one or other chronology, depending on the interpretative framework used. This is the case, for example, of the decorative scheme of the central part of the vault which has now disappeared, which is compared both with the motifs of Roman villae and with the paintings of pre-Romanesque Asturian art (Blanco-Rotea et al. 2009: 192–196).

3) The scarcity of studies of Galician Early Medieval architecture from an archaeological point of view that would allow us to establish well-defined contexts, on a stratigraphic basis, between the 5th and 10th centuries, there is an aspect that it has changed today thanks to the development of different projects focused on the archaeology of Early Medieval architecture (Blanco-Rotea et al. 2015; Sánchez Pardo et al. 2017, 2020; Sanjurjo-Sánchez et al. 2020).

Taking these points into account, in the present study it was considered essential to characterise and date precisely the construction materials used at the Santalla de Bóveda Monument. Construction materials of historical monuments generally come from the vicinity of the building (Drdácky et al. 2013; Furlan 2017; Freire-Lista and Fort 2019). The geological setting where the Santalla de Bóveda Monument was built conditioned its construction materials, especially the aggregates of the mortars which come from the grinding of granite. The historical quarries are superficial in the area, and the granite is weathered to different degrees. While quartz is resistant to chemical weathering, clay minerals are a product of the weathering of feldspars and micas. Therefore, aggregates from weathered granite have more clay minerals than aggregates from fresh granite. The aggregates will have a large amount of clay if the aggregates are extracted from a highly weathered and sandblasted granite saprolite, which reduces the mortar quality. Masons could improve the mortar quality made with granite aggregates from saprolites by concentrating the quartz grains. That is, washing and removing the clay minerals.

From a geological point of view, the Santalla de Bóveda Monument is in the south of Hombreiro-Santalla (HS) pluton, on a syn-kinematic two-mica granite (Aranguren 1997). Two-mica granites occur usually as small plutons late in a plutonic sequence that intrudes high-grade metamorphic rocks of an orogen. They are usually leucocratic, massive, hypidiomorphic granular granitoids that consist of about 31% volume percent quartz, 26% K-feldspar, 31% plagioclase and about 10% mica in which muscovite may exceed biotite. In some, muscovite is absent in which event total mica is about 5%, except for a few types that contain abundant biotite. In two-mica granites hornblende is absent, magnetite is sparse, and sphene is rare. Common accessory minerals are apatite, zircon, monazite, garnet, and tourmaline.

Petrographic characterisation is a very useful technique for construction materials (Germinario and Török 2019; Parracha et al. 2020; Careddu et al. 2021). It allows for the techniques and source materials used in the preparation of historical mortars to be identified (Elsen 2006; Ergenç and Fort 2019; Freire-Lista et al. 2020).

In terms of obtaining the date of the materials, in recent years, both ¹⁴C and OSL dating of mortars have made it possible to obtain ages of historic buildings (Sanjurjo-Sánchez 2016; Urbanova et al. 2020). Radiocarbon AMS dating enables the dating of the layering of a mortar from the analysis of the lime binder, although the calcite can be mixed with geogenic calcite, secondary calcite due to dissolution and re-precipitation, or affected by very slow setting processes that can cause the overestimation or underestimation of ages (Ringbom et al. 2014; Sanjurjo-Sánchez et al. 2010; Urbanova et al. 2020). OSL dating of quartz aggregates has also been used (Goedicke 2003). However, OSL dating can also overestimate the age if the quartz aggregate has not been well exposed to daylight when the mortar was prepared before layering (Sanjurjo-Sánchez et al. 2016; Urbanova et al. 2020).

The aim of this work is to obtain an absolute chronology for the Santalla de Bóveda monument and its different construction phases for a correct interpretation of their architecture and decoration.

Dating of mortars and bricks by Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL), Thermoluminescence (TL) and ¹⁴C

There are currently several methods for dating mortars, such as radiocarbon or OSL, as discussed above. However, the dates obtained are often flawed, or have very wide margins of error that do not allow for a refined chronology. Nevertheless, there are three possible strategies to identify inaccurate ages in mortars: (i) cross-checking results with independent dating methods (e.g. ¹⁴C vs. OSL), (ii) dating several samples of the same construction phase, and/or (iii) comparing the ages obtained with those of other materials, such as wood, charcoal or bricks from the same structure. Such strategies have been used simultaneously in this work, allowing both the reduction of uncertainties and the removal of biased ages.

In order to obtain a robust chronology, a total of 39 datings were performed from 21 samples taken from different walls of the studied building (Fig. 3). They correspond to each of the phases previously identified in the monument (Blanco-Rotea et al. 2009), always from inconspicuous places that did not affect the paintings. 20 OSL and 15 ¹⁴C ages were obtained for mortars, on quartz aggregates and carbonates or charcoal, respectively. Thus, for some samples two or even three ages were obtained. Thermoluminescence dating (TL) was also performed on 5 brick samples. The list of samples, dated material, location in the building and age result are shown in Table 1.

The ‘Cryo2SoniC’ method (Nonni et al. 2018) was used for ¹⁴C mortar dating, which involves several steps of cryogenic fragmentation, fragment selection, ultrasonic cleaning and centrifugation to separate the calcite of interest (archaeological calcite). This archaeological calcite was sent to the ICA laboratory (Florida, USA) for AMS dating. Charcoal samples were directly sent to the same laboratory. Ages were calibrated using the curve of Reimer et al. (2020) with Oxcal 4.4 software (Bronk Ramsey 1994).

Both OSL and TL dating were carried out at the Luminescence Laboratory (University Institute of Geology) of University of A Coruña (UDC). The outer part of the samples was removed and pure quartz aggregates were extracted following the procedures described in Viveen et al. (2014). Multigrain aliquots were mounted and analysed in two readers: a Riso DA-15 TL/OSL and a Lexsyg Research, equipped with ⁹⁰Sr/⁹⁰Y beta radiation sources providing doses of 0.095±0.003 Gy s^-1.

OSL dating requires the assessment of the accumulated charge in the quartz grains. This is estimated as the equivalent dose (D_e) by measuring the luminescent signal. The radiation dose rate is also estimated as the dose-rate (D_r) (Aitken, 1985). For OSL dating, to estimate D_e, the SAR (single-aliquot regenerative dose) protocol of Murray and Wintle (2000, 2003) was used. For TL dating the Additional Dose (AD-TL) protocol (Aitken 1985) was used. The D_r was estimated by analysing the U, Th and K content in the samples and surrounding materials by X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) combined with Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) in some cases, and Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) in others. Conversion factors of Guerin et al. (2011) were used to assess the beta dose. For the gamma dose, a geometric model similar to the one proposed by Feathers et al. (2008) was used, estimating the cosmic dose according to Prescott & Hutton (1994). The result was compared with the estimations obtained using both Al₂O₃ OSLD/TLDs dosimeters and a portable gamma spectrometer GF Instruments Garmma Surveyor Vario.

Mortars petrographic characterisation

Four mortar samples, one from each construction phase of the Santalla de Bóveda Monument, were embedded in resin in a vacuum chamber to consolidate them and to avoid disintegration in the preparation of thin sections. The thin sections were studied under a Leica DM750P polarised-light microscope.

Dating of mortars and bricks by Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL), Thermoluminescence (TL) and ¹⁴C

Very high D_rs were obtained, ranging from ≈3 mGy a^-1 to ≈11 mGy a^-1. This is due to the high concentration of U, Th and K in the building granite and mortar aggregates. The observed OSL and TL signals were bright. The Central Age Model (CAM) proposed by Galbraith et al. (1999) was used to assess the D_es for most of the mortar samples, as the measured aliquots provided symmetrical dispersions with low overdispersion values. Asymmetric and more overdispersed distributions were observed only in few samples. In such cases the Minimum Age Model (Galbraith et al. 1999) was used. The brick TL analyses provided bright signals, but the uncertainty obtained was high for the assessed D_es (20%), except for one sample.

Calcite separation for ¹⁴C dating provided enough material for AMS analyses, that provided calibrated ages which are shown in Table 1. It can be observed that ¹⁴C ages of calcite, charcoal and OSL in mortar and TL in bricks provide consistent results for most samples, providing very consistent ages for the different construction phases. A Phase I/II has been considered because some doubtful features were observed in some structures of both phases, being difficult to assign a clear phase to them. The obtained ages show that these structures fit better chronologically into Phase I.

The four construction phases are clearly separated chronologically, being possible to estimate a precise interval for each of them (Fig. 4). Phase I corresponds to the second half of the 4^th century, while Phase II fits the first half of the 7^th century. Phase III ranges between the 10^th and the first half of the 12^th century. Finally, Phase IV ranges between the second half of the 17^th century and the 18^th century.

Mortars petrographic characterisation

Fig. 5 shows the petrographic micrographs of the four mortar types studied. Phase I mortar has centimetre-sized aggregates of bimetallic granite (altered and unaltered), and centimetre-sized ceramic fragments. The monocrystalline aggregates are mostly quartz ≈70% < 1mm.

Phase II mortar has absence of aggregates of rock fragments. It has aggregates mostly of quartz with a slightly homogeneous grain size ≈2.5 mm. In addition, small aggregates of biotite and muscovite. Presence of unaltered microcline and carbon.

Phase III mortar also has absence of aggregates of rock fragments. But it has ceramic aggregates. Lime cement is very differently and, to a lesser extent, contains lumps of lime cement. The aggregates are smaller (≈1 mm) and the percentage of quartz is lower than in the other types of mortars (< 50%).

Phase IV mortar has aggregates with heterogeneous mineralogy: ≈15% Biotite, ≈10% muscovite, ≈35% potassium feldspar, ≈40% quartz and homogeneous particle size < 1 mm.

The stratigraphic reading of the walls had documented the existence of five phases in the Santalla de Bóveda Monument. The samples taken in 2007 and 2020 were collected considering this sequence with the aim of dating and characterising the construction materials, specifically the mortars. As can be seen, both in terms of characterisation and dating, the mortars are divided into four large groups.

In Phase I (Fig. 6), the mortars collected roughly oscillate between the year 28 and 602, with the second half of the 4^th century being the time when they coincide with each other. However, there is a group of mortars dated by ¹⁴C that fall outside this range, one (BOV20MU001_A_P) dating from 1175-1324 AD, another (BOV20MU002_B) from 1607-1506 BC and two others (BOV20MU003_A_P and BOV20MU003_B_P) from 760-363 BC and 43-209 BC respectively. However, this disparity does not occur between the dates obtained by OSL. As for the bricks, the pattern is repeated, ranging from 55 to 602 AD. Thus, considering the coherence and coinciding range of the mortars dated by OSL, the phase corresponding to the construction of the aula was placed in the second half of the 4^th century.

There is a series of mortars and bricks collected in the vault of the apse and in the horseshoe arch of the entrance, whose interval could be placed in both Phase I and II, as they present very large margins of error. In the case of the apse vault, the mortar corresponds to 344-920 AD and the brick 364-894 AD, both of which coincide quite closely with each other. Our assessment is inclined to place them in Phase I, considering the results of the reading of the walls, which indicate that the vault would have been made with the rest of the aula, as no cuts can be seen in it.

In the case of the aula entrance door, the mortar dates from 248-557 AD and the brick from 63 BC-597 AD. The reading of paraments placed this doorway as part of a Phase II alteration. In part, the most recent dating results lead us to a time immediately prior to the construction of the paintings, but it could also fall within Phase I, so we believe that either hypothesis would be feasible. In fact, if we look at one of the dates of the mortar used to prepare the paintings, it is very similar to these (346-526 AD). We thus leave both hypotheses open in this case.

The mortars collected from elements of Phase II (Fig. 6) were taken, on the one hand, from the remains of the central vault conserved in the Provincial Museum of Lugo (Spain), obtaining dates of 607-774 AD (MUSEB-001_P) and 434-603 AD (MUSEB-002_P), coinciding in the interval 603-607. On the other hand, the mortar used to prepare the paintings preserved in situ, dates ranging from 346 to 680 AD. In this case, they all coincide with the beginning of the 7^th century, although one point must be made: in Phase II, all the mortars have been dated by ¹⁴C except for one BOV20MU008, which is slightly older and coincides with the dating of the horseshoe arch of the doorway to the aula, which would date to the end of the 6^th century. In other buildings it has been found that the carbonation of the mortars is not immediate, but occurs some years after the time of laying (Lindroos et al. 2020; Daugbjerg et al. 2021), so it could even be hypothesised that this reform corresponds to the end of the 6^thand beginning of the 7^th century.

Understanding these data in context requires further research, an intensive analysis of the environment of the Santalla de Bóveda Monument, and of the place where the building is located. But three aspects should be highlighted that open up new hypotheses on which to continue working. The first building is framed in a historical context in which in Gallaecia there was a ruralisation of the territory with the increase of villae and other types of rural settlements and their functions, especially in the surroundings of the cities. The 4^th century sees the greatest development of this type of settlement (Carlsson-Brandt 2021: 690), a phenomenon also closely associated with the occupation of the vicinity of the roads that articulate the territory; in fact, the Santalla de Bóveda Monument is located in a central place between the XIX and XX Roman Vias, in a flat area and close to several hillforts (Gómez 2005: 191), a fairly common proximity in relation to the villae (Carlsson-Brandt 2021: 688-689). From our point of view, the Santalla de Bóveda Monument would most probably be part of a type of Roman rural settlement that, at least, would have a phase in the second half of the 4^th century, but determining its typology without a detailed knowledge of the whole is adventurous. See the current case of the Roman site of Proendos (Sober, Lugo), whose geomagnetic prospecting has identified an important complex which is currently being excavated (Alonso et al. 2021) and which yields contexts from the 1^st to the 6^th-7^th century AD. In the case of the Santalla de Bóveda Monument, there are few interventions that have been carried out in the area that allow us to advance this hypothesis. The excavations carried out by Gimeno (1989) point to the existence of Roman materials, most of which were dated between the 3^rd and 5^th centuries (Motenegro 2016: 284), coinciding with the dating of the first phase of the building. It should be noted that in the area around the Santalla de Bóveda Monument there are other settlements whose materials are also linked to Late Roman dates, such as the capital of Santa Cruz da Retorta Church from the 4^th- 5^th centuries (Gómez 2005: 193). Therefore, in view of the confirmation of the initial phase of the Santalla de Bóveda Monument in the second half of the 4^th century, it would be necessary to review from this perspective these nearby contexts which point, as several authors point out, to a high degree of organisation and development of the rural settlement during this period (Tejerizo 2020: 165) which in the Santalla de Bóveda Monument has a continuity in the following centuries, if one considers the dating of the reform of the aula and the paintings of the vault, or the construction of the upper floor.

Focusing on the paintings, the samples collection was limited to the mortars of the preparatory layers of the painting without affecting them. In spite of this we count on the stratigraphic analysis made by Cabrera (1992) of four samples of painting. He emphasises the polishing of intonachi and the superposition of painting layers (Blanco-Rotea et al. 2009: 186-187). The identified pigments are: cinnabar, green earth, Egyptian blue, bone black, lime white and also verdaccio which he identifies with the description that Cennino Cennini gives for it[1].

Recent studies about the Egyptian blue, the use of which many authors claim was abandoned in the Roman age, demonstrate that it was still being used years later[2]. Thanks to new technologies, its use has been confirmed even in the paintings of the Cinquecento[3]. As for the verdaccio we have not found references to it before Cennini[4], although it is possible that a similar technique for the flesh colour was used in the Byzantine[5] and Romanesque[6] wall paintings.

These researches allow us to confirm that the absolute dates obtained in this study are not contradictory to the use of the pigments identified by Cabrera.

The dating of the paintings to the 7^th century, far from being a problem, reinforces the initial hypothesis of the survival of Roman structural techniques, both because of their wide circulation over an enormous territory and because of their efficiency, which have proved to be of great quality and durability.

Thus, the permanence of the techniques, materials and pigments used in the paintings, while leading some authors to consider them Roman, others argued that the pictorial technique used in the Santalla de Bóveda Monument remained almost intact until the first centuries of the Middle Ages (Murat 2021: 17-19, 27), it occurs here with the technical realisation, the master lines and the colours palette (Benavides and Blanco-Rotea 2008: 68-72; Blanco-Rotea et al. 2009: 184-187).

An exact parallel with the paintings of the Santalla de Bóveda Monument is yet to be found, although there existed numerous partial parallels. Also, it is true that there are not paintings of the 7^th AD century so well preserved apparently without restorer interventions and not even hidden by later plasters. Maybe because of the unusual conservation in painting it is more frequent to find parallels in mosaic of the same age, so much for the greater resistance of the materials and for the conservation of pavements with hardly any walls around them.

The decoration of the lost central part of the vault is documented in such a long period that it is possible to find parallels from the 2^nd century BC, as Polybius house in Pompeii (Croisille, 2005: 74) to the Royal Palace of Caserta from the 18^th century AD; although/even though the nearest are in the Asturian Pre-Romanesque (Arias Páramo, 1999) (Fig. 7). The vases with branches and flowers that we can see in the intrados have parallels in the Byzantine world[7] and once more in the Asturian Pre-Romanesque (Arias Páramo, 1999: 77).

Birds, grapes, rosaceae and lozenges also appear during a long time in buildings whose functions are different and in territories very far apart.

Although in wall paintings we can rarely see them, the graticules made by successions of motives are frequents in the Roman world[8] and also in much later moments as it is the case of the apodyterium of Qusayr’ Amra built in the 8^th century AD (Almagro et al., 1975; Vibert-Guigue, 2004: 210-213; Manzano, 2007: 339) or the Sala delle Oche in the Palace of Bonifacio VIII (Anagni, Italy) (1294-1303)[9] (Fig. 8).

In mosaics (Fig. 9), the model which presents more similarities with the Santalla de Bóveda Monument is the one of the vault hall of the chapel of Sant'Andrea in the Archiepiscopal Palace of Ravenna[10], from the era of the bishop Pietro II (494-519). The floral lozenges are populated with various species of birds.

With variations on the same theme we can find several mosaic floors, in some cases like in Apostles Church of Madaba[11] (Jordan) another mosaic is preserved with the same geometric pattern of the lost vault (Fig. 9). Also in Madaba, and from the same century, we find this scheme in the Church of al-Khadir[12] or the Church of the Martyrs, representing birds, flowers, grapes and other fruits. All of that leads to show the chronological, geographical and functional dispersion of the pattern of the aula vault.

Regarding the remains of the vault preserved on the upper floor, we had already raised on other occasions (Blanco-Rotea et al. 2009) the complexity of linking them to phase I or II, as the relationship between them was severed in the reform carried out by Gallego and Portela in 1985-1993. However, the difference in the construction technique used between the vaults of the aula and the upper floor led us to assume that these were different phases, as corroborated by the results of the dating, which lead us to firmly establish the existence of a third phase in which a room was built above the aula. However, in this case the dating is also somewhat disparate. There are two OSL mortar dates that we consider to be in error, AUE110 gives a date of 3267-2091 BC and AUE017 of 417-127 BC. The remaining ones range between 764 and 1475 AD, with the 10^th-12^th centuries being the coinciding dates. On the other hand, in the case of the bricks used in this vault, the dates range between 336 and 919 years, coinciding in the interval 648-739 AD, which leads us to wonder if they are not reused bricks from another building or from the lower structure.

We also link to this time a series of replacement mortars documented in the vault of the aula over earlier mortars and structures, also dating from around the 11^th-12^thcenturies.

The Baroque phase, which should perhaps be associated with the time when the current Parish Church was built in 1750 and a ceiling was placed over the remains of the aula now filled with rubble from the upper floor. It corresponds to a mortar dated 1646-1799 AD.

[1] ‘burnt sienna, bone black, lime white and cinnabar’ (Cabrera1992: 38).

[2] ‘In the wall paintings of the church of San Saba (Rome), dating to the first half of the 8^th century AD, Egyptian blue and lapis lazuli have been detected mixed together within the same pictorial layer’ (Gaetani et al. 2004: 13). ‘Egyptian blue has been identified positively in a Roman medieval fresco of the lower church of San Clemente’ (Lazzarini 1982: 84).

[3] ‘Egyptian blue was optically identified in a single thin section from a painting by Giovanni Battista Benvenuto from 1524, a period from which Egyptian blue is normally considered not to exist’ (Bredal-Jørgensen et al. 2011:1438).

[4] Cennino d’Andrea Cennini (c.1370-1440), a painter who describes the techniques of the master Giotto in The Book of The Art. The verdaccio’s description is very accurate in chapter LXVII, whereas it is quite simplified in chapter LXXXV.

[5] Dyonisius de Fourna (1670-1745), in his treatise Erminia picturii bizantine describes: ‘The flesh-colours are made with green earth, (...) dark ochre, (...) lime white (...) and black. Grind them well and use as base colour’ (Villarquide 2015:117).

[6] Eraclio says in De coloribus et artibus romanorum: ‘For the flesh-colours is sometimes used, mostly in Italy, a layer of verdaccio as in Byzantium, in which case the work is made basically from dark to light’ (Villarquide 2015:143).

[7]In Ravena, in Gala Placidia mausoleum and Neonian Baptistery, both from 5^th century AD and the Albenga baptistery, 5^th-6^th AD, all of them made in mosaic.

[8]Pompeii (Croisille 2005:92), Domus Aurea (S Segala, Sciortino,1999: 80), Villa di Arianna (Guinouves 1987:8-9; Formoso 2006: 87), villa di Popea in Oplontis or Villa di Minori in the Amalfitan coast (Laken 1998: 297 and 395). In this these two last cases, the succession of motives that made the lozenges are interlaced just as in Santalla; Abad Casal (1979: 920; 1982: 368) makes an interesting reflection of on? this ‘knot’.

[9]Although much later than Saint Eulalia, this painting has in common with it the interlacing of the losanges, a large variety of birds - although only the geese give the room its name - and the hypothesis that the paintings were inspired by a treatise on birds (De arte venandi cum avibus in this case and the Dioscorides of Vienna in the case of Saint Eulalia).

[10]In this case it is pergolato (arbour: mosaic and tempera painting). https://www.ravennamosaici.it/cappella-di-santandrea-e-museo-arcivescovile/

[11]A mosaic inscription (later destroyed) indicated the name of the church and 578 as the year of the completion. https://universes.art/es/art-destinations/jordania/madaba/church-of-the-apostles (last search 28/11/2021).

[12] https://eldiwan2010.blogspot.com/2018/07/jordania-madaba-la-ciudad-de-los.html (January 2022 consultation).

The results of the study of mortars and bricks from the Santalla de Bóveda Monument have allowed us to obtain an absolute chronology for the entire sequence previously identified, which leads us to open up new hypotheses about the interpretation of the monument and to raise a series of methodological reflections.

In terms of dating, this is a complex that was constantly reused until it was filled in the second half of the 18^th century:

First Late Roman building: second half of the 4^th century AD.
Alterations to the aula and vault paintings: late 6^thand early 7^th centuries.
Construction of the first floor and occasional repairs: 10^th-12^th centuries.
Occasional alterations and clogging of the monument: 18^th century.

These results are also supported by the petrographic characteristics of the mortars, which are different in each phase.

These four periods are coincident with important events of change in Gallaecia, and subsequently in Galicia, some of which are currently in the process of revision due to new archaeological findings, making it possible to reinterpret the transition from the Late Roman period to the Early Medieval Ages. We refer to 1) the process of ruralisation in the Late Roman period and the generation of new types of settlements that will transform the Galician rural landscape from the second half of the 4^th century; 2) the moment of transformation that takes place at the end of the Suebi period and the beginning of the Visigothic period, at the end of the 6^th and beginning of the 7^th century, which happens to be much more complex than previously thought; 3) the great impact of the proliferation of the construction of churches in rural environments that took place in the 10^th century ; and, finally, 4) the transformation of these churches in the 18^th century, a time when demographic changes and the spread of the Baroque style from urban centres led either to the abandonment of the previous temples or to a major remodelling that masked the remains of the first churches in Galicia. This opens up new working hypotheses that will have to be tested by extending the study of the Santalla de Bóveda Monument to the territory in which it was implanted, and which it surely contributed to structure with other elements of which it would form part.

Finally, the work carried out, together with previous experiences, will allow to establish a working protocol which can be summarised as follows, although further specific work on this area will have to be developed: 1) Samples should always be collected after a previous archaeological study that allows us to identify the stratigraphic sequence or either original mortars. 2) In order to obtain accurate and reliable results it is desirable to perform combined OSL and ¹⁴C analysis on carbonates of lime mortars. But these techniques are destructive, so we have limited ourselves to collecting samples from the base of the paintings and the interior of the vault. If the results of Phase I are analysed, the mortars studied by OSL, the bricks by TL and OSL, and the charcoal by ¹⁴C, show consistent dating, although the carbonates dated by ¹⁴C show inconclusive results. In Phase II, however, the results are consistent between ¹⁴C and OSL, except for one sample which corresponds to a replacement mortar.

Funding

This work was supported by the Palarq Foundation under project ‘Chronology of the early medieval churches of Santa Eulalia de Bóveda and San Breixo de Ouvigo’ (PI Jorge Sanjurjo-Sánchez); the Government of Galicia under grant for postdoctoral training, Modality B (Call for applications 2019) with the project ‘Landscape and Change Architectures (LARCH)’ (Nº Exp. ED481D 2019/026) (PI Rebeca Blanco-Rotea); the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, (PORTUGAL) in the frame of the UIDB/00073/2020 project of the I & D unit Geosciences Center (CGEO) and Stimulus of Scientific Employment, Individual Support 2017. CEECIND/03568/2017, who holds David M. Freire-Lista.

Conflicts of interest

Not applicable

Ethical approval/statements - Consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent to participate / Availability of data and information

All authors consent to the publication and availability of their data and information.

Availability of code (software application or customised code)

Not applicable

Authors' contributions

RBR wrote the main manuscript text. JSS wrote the sections on methods and results of mortars datings and DMFL on methods and results of petrographic characterisation of mortars. RBG wrote the parts of the paintings. RBR prepared figures 1-3 and 6, and with JSS prepared table 1; JSS prepared figure 4; DMFL prepared figure 5, and with Rosa Benavides prepared figures 8-9; Rosa Benavides prepared figures 7. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Abad Casal L (1979) Aportación al estudio de Santa Eulalia de Bóveda. In: Actas del XV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología (Lugo 1975). Zaragoza, pp. 917–922.
Acuña Castroviejo F (1973) Galicia romana: Artes plásticas. Dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela.
Aitken MJ (1985) Thermoluminescence dating. Academic Press, London.
Almagro M, Caballero L, Zozoya J, Almagro A (1975) Qusayr ‘Amra. Residencia y Baños Omeyas en el desierto de Jordania. Junta de Andalucía, Granada.
Alonso Toucido F, Folgueira Castro A, Bartolomé Abraira R, Sánchez Pardo JC, Tejerizo García C, César Vila M (2021) Resultados da primeira escavación no xacemento de Proendos, Sober. Croa, 31: 40–56. https://viladonga.xunta.gal/sites/default/files/ficheros/04-croa31.pdf
Aranguren A (1997) Magnetic fabric and 3D geometry of the Hombreiro-Sta. Eulalia pluton: Implications for the Variscan structures of eastern Galicia, NW Spain. Tectonophysics, 273 (3–4): 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(96)00243-0
Ares Vázquez N (1962) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda. Dos lisiados y un monasterio. Boletín de la Comisión de Monumentos Históricos y Artísticos de Lugo, VII (57–58): 115–123.
Ares Vázquez N (1963) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda. Mensaje de la cigüeña. Boletín de la Comisión de Monumentos Históricos y Artísticos de Lugo, VII (59–60): 173–182.
Ares Vázquez N (1964) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda. Otro relieve en el pórtico. Boletín de la Comisión de Monumentos Históricos y Artísticos de Lugo, VII (61–62): 237–246.
Arias Páramo L (1999) Prerrománico Asturiano. El arte de la Monarquía Asturiana. Trea, Gijón.
Arias Vilas F (1979) El Castro de Penarrubia (Lugo) y la novedad de sudatación por C¹⁴. In: Actas del XV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología (Lugo 1975). Zaragoza, pp. 613–622.
Arias Vilas F (1980) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda, (folleto). Museo Provincial de Lugo, Ministerio de Cultura, Lugo.
Benavides R, Blanco-Rotea, R (2008) Mirando cara o futuro: coñecer para conservar. In: Montenegro Rúa, E, Blanco-Rotea, R, Benavides, R, Portela, C (eds) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda, pp. 43–82. Xunta de Galicia, Santiago de Compostela.
Blanco-Rotea R, Benavides García R, Sanjurjo Sánchez J, Fernández Mosquera D (2009) Evolución constructiva de Santa Eulalia de Bóveda (Lugo, Galicia), Arqueología de la Arquitectura, 6: 149–198. https://doi.org/10.3989/arqarqt.2009.09010
Blanco-Rotea R, García Rodríguez S, Mato Fresán C, Sanjurjo Sánchez J (2015) La Basílica da Ascensión y Os Fornos (Allariz, Ourense) y la cristianización de la arquitectura en la Antigüedad Tardía. Estudos do Quaternário, 12: 111–132. https://doi.org/10.30893/eq.v0i12.117
Bredal-Jørgensen J, Sanyova J, Rask V, Sargent ML, Hoberg Therkildsen R (2011) Striking presence of Egyptian blue identified in a painting by Giovanni Battista Benvenuto from 1524. Anal Bioanal Chem, 401: 1433–1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-011-5140-y
Bronk Ramsey C (1994) Analysis of Chronological Information and Radiocarbon Calibration: The Program OxCal. Archaeological Computing Newsletter, 41: 11–16.
Cabrera Garrido JM (1992) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda. Informe relativo al estado de la piedra y a las actuaciones necesarias para su conservación. Unpublished report, Madrid.
Careddu N, Cuccuru S, Grillo SM (2021) Sardinian granitoids: 4000 years of geoheritage and dimension stones. Resources Policy, Elsevier, 74, 102339.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102339.
Carlsson-Brandt Fontán E (2021) Arqueología del Poblamiento Rural en la Galicia Romana: las villae y otras formas de ocupación del espacio (ss. I-V d.C.). Dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela.
Carrocera Fernández E (2016) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda (Lugo): Ensayo sobre la cronología de las pinturas. Portvgalia, Nova Série, 37: 163–188.
Castillo López A (1932) La Arquitectura en Galicia. In: Carreras y Candi (dir) Geografía General del Reino de Galicia. Alberto Martín, Barcelona, pp. 849–851.
Chamoso Lamas M (1952) Sobre el origen del monumento soterrado de Santa Eulalia de Bóveda (Lugo). Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, XXII: 231–251.
Croisille JM (2005) La peinture romaine. A. et J. Picard, Paris.
Daugbjerg TS, Lindroos A, Heinemeier J, Ringbom Å, Barrett G, Michalska D, Hajdas I, Raja R, Olsen J (2021) A field guide to mortar sampling for radiocarbon dating. Archaeometry, 63: 1121–1140.
Domingo Fominaya M, Sánchez Luengo AJ (Dir. And Coord. Ed.) (2010) Arqueología aplicada al estudio e interpretación de edificios históricos. Últimas tendencias metodológicas. Ministerio de Cultura, España.
Drdácky M, Fratini F, Frankeová D, Slízˇková Z (2013) The Roman mortars used in the construction of the Ponte di Augusto (Narni, Italy)– A comprehensive assessment. Construction and Building Materials, 38: 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.044
Elsen J (2006) Microscopy of historic mortars—a review. Cement and Concrete Research, 36 (8): 1416–1424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.12.006.
Ergenç D, Fort R, (2019) Multi-technical characterization of Roman mortars from Complutum, Spain. Measurement, 147, 106876, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.106876.
Feathers JK, Johnson J, Kembel SR (2008) Luminescence dating of monumental stone architecture at Chavín De Huántar, Perú. Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theory, 15 (3): 266–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-008-9053-9
Fernández de la Vega C (1970) El enigma de Santa Eulalia de Bóveda (Lugo). El Progreso, Suplemento del 15 de febrero. Lugo
Freire-Lista DM, Fort R (2019) Historical City Centres and Traditional Building Stones as Heritage: the Barrio de las Letras, Madrid (Spain). Geoheritage, 11 (1): 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0314-z.
Freire-Lista DM, Sousa L, Carter R, Al-Na‘îmî F (2020) Petrographic and Petrophysical Characterisation of the Heritage Stones of Fuwairit Archaeological Site (NE Qatar) and their Historical Quarries: Implications for Heritage Conservation. Episodes, 44 (1): 43–58. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2020/0200s12.
Formoso E (2006) Les décors à reseau. Des peintures murales surprenantes et méconnues. La peinture Antique. Dossiers d’Archeologie, 318: 86–89.
Furlan G (2017) When Absence Means Things Are Going Well: Waste Disposal in Roman Towns and its Impact on the Record as Observed in Aquileia. European Journal of Archaeology, 20 (2): 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2016.7.
Gaetani MC, Santamaria U, Seccaroni C (2004) The Use of Egyptian Blue and Lapis Lazuli in the Middle Ages: The Wall Paintings of the San Saba Church in Rome. Studies in Conservation, 49 (1): 13–22, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1506927.
Galbraith RF, Roberts RG, Laslett GM, Yoshida H, Olley JM (1999) Optical dating of single and multiple grains of quartz form Jinmi-um Rock Shelter, northern Australia: Part I, experimental design and statistical models. Archaeometry, 41: 339–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1999.tb00987.x
Germinario L, Török A (2019) Variability of technical properties and durability in volcanic tuffs from the same quarry region – examples from Northern Hungary, Engineering Geology, 262, 105319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105319.
Gimeno García-Lomas R (1989) Trabajos arqueológicos en Santa Eulalia de Bóveda y en el Castro de Corvazal. Unpublished report, Lugo.
Goedicke C (2003) Dating historical calcite mortar by blue OSL: Results from known age samples. Radiation Measurements, 37 (4–5): 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4487(03)00010-6
Gómez-Moreno Martínez M (1949) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda. Misceláneas: Historia-Arte-Arqueología. Primera Serie. La Antigüedad. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Digo Velázquez, Madrid, pp. 415–423.
Gómez Vila J (2005) Vías romanas de la actual provincia de Lugo. Dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela.
Guardia M (2002) El santuario romano de Bóveda en su ornamentación pictórica. Semata, 14: 253–276. http://hdl.handle.net/10347/4616
Guérin G, Mercier, N, Adamiec G (2011) Dose-rate conversion factors: Update. Ancient TL, 29: 5–8.
Laken L (2001) Wallpaper patterns in Pompeii and the Campanian Region: towards a fifht Pompeian style?. In: Alix Barbet (dir.) La peinture funéraire antique. Actes du VIIe Colloque de AIPMA (Association Internationle pour la peinture murale antique) (1998). Errance, Paris, pp. 295–300.
Lazzarini L (1982) The discovery of Egyptian blue in a Roman fresco of the mediaeval period (ninth century A.D.). Studies in Conservation, 27 (2): 84–86. https://doi.org/10.1179/sic.1982.27.2.84
Lindroos A, Ringbom Å, Heinemeier Hajdas I, Olsen J (2020) Delayed Hardening and Reactivation of Binder Calcite, Common Problems in Radiocarbon Dating of Lime Mortars. MoDIM 2018 Proceedings of the Mortar Dating International Meeting. Radiocarbon, 62: 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.5
Montenegro Rúa EJ (2016) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda: Estudio histórico-arqueológico y propuesta interpretativa del monumento y su entorno. Dissertation, Autonomous University of Madrid.
Murray AS, Wintle AG (2003) The single aliquot regenerative dose protocol: Potential for improvements in reliability. Radiation Measurements, 37 (4): 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4487(03)00053-2
Murray AS, Wintle AG (2000) Luminescence dating of quartz using an improved single-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol. Radiation Measurements, 32 (1): 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4487(99)00253-X
Nonni S, Marzaioli F, Mignardi S, Passariello I, Capano M (2018) Radiocarbon Dating of Mortars with a Pozzolana Aggregate Using the Cryo2SoniC Protocol to Isolate the Binder. Radiocarbon, 60 (2): 617–637. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2017.116
Núñez Rodríguez M (1978) Arquitectura prerrománica. In: Historia da arquitectura galega. COAG: Santiago de Compostela, pp. 113–117 and 131–139.
Parracha JL, Santos Silva A, Cotrim M, Faria P (2020) Mineralogical and microstructural characterisation of rammed earth and earthen mortars from 12th century Paderne Castle. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 42: 226–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.07.021.
Prescott JR, Hutton JT (1994) Cosmic ray contributions to dose rates for luminescence and ESR dating: large depths and long term variations. Radiation Measurements, 23: 497–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/1350-4487(94)90086-8
Reimer PJ, Austin WEN, Bard E, Bayliss A, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramse C, et al. (2020) The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon, 62: 725–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41
Ringbom Å, Lindroos A, Heinemeier J, Sonck-Koota P (2014) 19 years of mortar dating: Learning from experience. Radiocarbon, 56: 619–635. https://doi.org/10.2458/56.17469
Rodríguez Colmenero A (1992) Culto a las aguas y divinidades orientales en el Lugo romano: los monumentos de Bóveda y San Roque. In: Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie II, Hª Antigua (5). Termalismo antiguo. Actas de la mesa redonda Aguas mineromedicinales, termas curativas y culto a las aguas en la Península Ibérica. UNED, Madrid, pp. 309–335.
Rodríguez Colmenero A (2018) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda: trazos cronológicos en la evolución de una edificación sacra a lo largo de la antigüedad tardía. In López Quiroga, J. (coord) In tempore suevorum el tiempo de los Suevos en la Gallaecia (411–585), el primer reino medieval de Occidente. Deputación Provincial de Ourense, Ourense, pp 363–364.
Sánchez Pardo JC, Blanco-Rotea R, Sanjurjo-Sánchez J (2017) Tres arquitecturas altomedievales orensanas: Santa Eufemia de Ambía, San Xés de Francelos y San Martiño de Pazó. Arqueología de la arquitectura, 14, e062. https://doi.org/10.3989/arq.arqt.2017.017
Sánchez-Pardo JC, Blanco-Rotea R, Costa-García JM, Sanjurjo-Sánchez J, Barrientos-Rodríguez V, Alonso-Toucido F (2020) Hacia una reinterpretación de la secuencia de ocupación del Yacimiento de a Cidadela (A Coruña). SPAL. Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla, 29 (1): 157–188. https://doi.org/10.12795/spal.2020.i29.06
Sanjurjo-Sánchez J (2016) Dating Historical Buildings: An Update on the Possibilities of Absolute Dating Methods. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 10 (5): 620–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2015.1055384
Sanjurjo Sánchez, J., Blanco-Rotea, R. and García Quintela, M. (2020) OSL dating of earthen mortars from a medieval building in North Western Spain: Crypt of Basílica dae Ascensión (Allariz, Ourense). Radiocarbon, 62 (3): 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.70
Sanjurjo-Sánchez J, Trindade MJ, Blanco-Rotea R, Benavides Garcia R, Fernández Mosquera D, Burbidge C, Prudêncio MI, Dias MI (2010) Chemical and mineralogical characterization of historic mortars from the Santa Eulalia de Bóveda temple, NW Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37: 2346–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.04.008
Santos Zalduegui JF, Pin C, Aranguren A, Gil Ibarguchi JI (1996) Application of specific extraction chromatographic methods to the Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd isotope study of geological samples: The Hombreiro-Santa Eulalia Granite (Lugo, NW Spain). Geogaceta, 20 (2): 495–497
Segala E, Sciortino I (1999) Domus Aurea. Electa: Milano.
Schlunk H (1935) Santa Eulalia de Bóveda. Adolph Goldschmidt zu seinem siebenzigsten Geburtstag, 15 (Januar 1933): 1–13.
Schlunk H, Berenguer M (1957) La pintura mural asturiana de los siglos IX y X. Madrid: Sánchez Cuesta, Diputación Provincial de Asturias.
Singul Lorenzo FL (1997) La pintura de Santa Eulalia de Bóveda (Lugo). Ortodoxia y clasicismo en la pintura paleocristiana del Noroeste hispánico. Boletín Auriense, 27: 175–193.
Singul Lorenzo FL (1998) La pintura de Santa Eulalia de Bóveda (Lugo): significado y relaciones con el arte paleocristiano y la pintura asturiana. Ortodoxia y clasicismo en la pintura paleocristiana del Noroeste hispánico. Boletín Auriense, 28: 59–84.
Tejerizo García C (2020) El poblamiento en el interior de la Gallaecia entre el final del Imperio Romano y la Alta Edad Media: nuevos datos, nuevas propuestas. Studia histórica. Historia Medieval, 38 (2): 155–187. https://doi.org/10.14201/shhme2020382155187
Urbanová P, Boaretto E, Artioli G (2020) The State-of-the-Art of Dating Techniques Applied to Ancient Mortars and Binders: A Review. Radiocarbon, 62 (3): 503–525. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.43
Vidal Caeiro L (2003) Posibilidades de la aplicación de la Arqueología de la Arquitectura en Santa Eulalia de Bóveda (Lugo). Arqueología de la Arquitectura, 2: 275–286. https://doi.org/10.3989/arq.arqt.2003.57
Villarquide Jevenois A (2015) Artistas y tratadistas. Las técnicas pictóricas de la Antigüedad al Renacimiento. Escola Superior de Conservación e Restauración de Bens Culturais de Galicia, Pontevedra.
Viveen W, Sanjurjo-Sánchez J, Goy-Diz A, Veldkamp A, Schoorl JM (2014) Paleofloods and ancient fishing weirs in NW Iberian rivers. Quaternary Reserarch, 82: 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2014.04.011

Table 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.

No competing interests reported.

floatimage4.jpeg
Table 1. Results of OSL and 14C ages obtained for mortar samples, and TL for brick samples. The table lists the samples in order of construction phases.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 14 Dec, 2023

Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences →

Editorial decision: Major revision
21 May, 2023
Reviews received at journal
23 Dec, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
21 Dec, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
06 Dec, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
27 Sep, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
30 Jul, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
28 Jul, 2022
First submitted to journal
24 Jul, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Absolute Dating of Construction Materials and Petrological Characterisation of Mortars from the Santalla de Bóveda Monument (Lugo, Spain)

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Results

Discussion Of Results And Relation To Stratigraphic Reading

Conclusions: New Perspectives

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1