4.2 Review

Refining Holocene geochronologies using palaeomagnetic records

期刊

QUATERNARY GEOCHRONOLOGY
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 47-74

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quageo.2018.11.004

关键词

Geochronology; Palaeomagnetic dating; Archaeomagnetic dating; Palaeosecular variation

资金

  1. German Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SPP PlanetMag 1488, BR4697/1]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2014- 4125]
  3. French ANR project [ANR-13-BS05-0012]
  4. US National Science Foundation [EAR 1623786]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aperiodic nature of geomagnetic field variations, both in intensity and direction, can aid in dating archaeological artefacts, volcanic rocks, and sediment records that carry a palaeomagnetic signal. The success of palaeomagnetic dating relies upon our knowledge of past field variations at specific locations. Regional archaeo- and palaeomagnetic reference curves and predictions from global geomagnetic field models provide our best description of field variations through the Holocene. State-of-the-art palaeomagnetic laboratory practices and accurate independent age controls are prerequisites for deriving reliable reference curves and models from archaeological, volcanic, and sedimentary palaeomagnetic data. In this review paper we give an overview of these prerequisites and the available reference curves and models, discuss techniques for palaeomagnetic dating, and outline its limitations. In particular, palaeomagnetic dating on its own cannot give unique results, but rather serves to refine or confirm ages obtained by other methods. Owing to the non-uniform character of magnetic field variations in different regions, care is required when choosing a palaeomagnetic dating curve, so that the distance between the dating curve and the record to be dated is not too large. Accurate reporting and incorporation of new, independently dated archaeo- and palaeomagnetic results into databases will help to improve reference curves and global models for all regions on Earth.

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

4.2
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