4.5 Article

Quality control of archaeomagnetic determination using a modern kiln with a complex NRM

期刊

PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF THE EARTH
卷 33, 期 6-7, 页码 427-437

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pce.2008.02.028

关键词

archaeomagnetism; brick kiln; geomagnetic field; western Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A modern (1959) brick kiln from western Spain has been studied in order to conduct a quality control test of the archaeomagnetic method in a partially heated structure. The kiln exhibits two stable natural remanent magnetisation components: a low-temperature component (150-620 degrees C) acquired during kiln use and a randomly oriented, high temperature component (500-680 degrees C) acquired during the original firing of the bricks. A detailed rock magnetic study revealed a magnetic mineralogy dominated by non-stoichiometric magnetite and hematite, both of which contribute to the characteristic remanent magnetisation. Both the direction and intensity of the characteristic magnetisation have been compared with the known values for the geomagnetic field at the site location. Irrespective of the method used to determine the mean archaeomagnetic direction (principal component analysis, great circle analysis, with or without hierarchy) the results are statistically indistinguishable from each other and from the known field direction. In all cases the direction is within 5 degrees of the expected value. Thellier-style archaeointensity determinations have been carried out on a smaller specimen set, with the mean result consistent with the known field value. The results demonstrate the reliability of the archaeomagnetic method in determining the features of the geomagnetic field in the past, even in cases with a complicated magnetic history. Furthermore, they highlight the importance of a uniform sample distribution in order to obtain truly representative values for the direction and intensity of the ancient geomagnetic field. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据