2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.quageo.2022.101309
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fluctuations of magnetic inclination and declination in Mexico during the last three millennia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For dating purposes, we choose the time interval between 1000 BCE and 500 CE, based on the available age of the pottery style and radiocarbon dates. Both available local paleosecular reference curves (Mahgoub et al, 2019; García-Ruiz et al, 2022) show the paucity of directional data obtained from well-dated burned archaeological artifacts between 1000 BCE and 500 CE. The recent global geomagnetic models SHAWQ2K and SHAWQ-Iron Age (Campuzano et al, 2019; Osete et al, 2020) are of different age intervals.…”
Section: Main Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For dating purposes, we choose the time interval between 1000 BCE and 500 CE, based on the available age of the pottery style and radiocarbon dates. Both available local paleosecular reference curves (Mahgoub et al, 2019; García-Ruiz et al, 2022) show the paucity of directional data obtained from well-dated burned archaeological artifacts between 1000 BCE and 500 CE. The recent global geomagnetic models SHAWQ2K and SHAWQ-Iron Age (Campuzano et al, 2019; Osete et al, 2020) are of different age intervals.…”
Section: Main Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among these materials, archaeological artifacts are nearly optimal recorders of the ancient field due to their wide abundance, suitable magnetic properties (Brown et al, 2021), and our ability to date them precisely. Archaeomagnetic intensity (archaeointensity) data published in the past few decades have enabled the construction of regional geomagnetic intensity variation curves (Bonilla-Alba et al, 2021;Cai et al, 2017;Garcia-Ruiz et al, 2022;Genevey et al, 2016Genevey et al, , 2020Genevey et al, , 2021Goguitchaichvili et al, 2023;Herve et al, 2019;Kovacheva et al, 2014;Osete et al, 2020;Rivero-Montero et al, 2021;Schnepp et al, 2020;Tema & Lanos, 2021) and the development of global geomagnetic models (Arneitz et al, 2019;Campuzano et al, 2019;Constable et al, 2016;Korte et al, 2019;Nilsson et al, 2022;Pavon-Carrasco et al, 2014;Schanner et al, 2022) which have significantly improved our understanding of the temporal evolution of the global field and the nature of flow patterns in the outer core. With the understanding that the rate of change in field intensity can exceed 10 μT per century (Gallet et al, 2020(Gallet et al, , 2021Genevey et al, 2021;Kostadinova-Avramova et al, 2021;Osete et al, 2020;Rivero-Montero et al, 2021;Shaar et al, 2011Shaar et al, , 2022, it became clear that the temporal resolution of archaeointensity datasets should be at least one data point per century.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%