Middle Eocene Fe and Ca counts, Ca/Fe ratios, revised splices and astronomical age models form different Sites of IODP Exp342

Accurate age models are a tool of utmost important in paleoclimatology. Constraining the rate and pace of past climate change are at the core of paleoclimate research, as such knowledge is crucial to our understanding of the climate system. Indeed, it allows for the disentanglement of the various drivers of climate change. The scarcity of highly resolved sedimentary records from the middle Eocene (Bartonian - Lutetian Stages; 47.8 - 37.8 Ma) has led to the existence of the "Eocene astronomical time scale gap" and hindered the establishment of a comprehensive astronomical time scale (ATS) for the entire Cenozoic. Sediments from the Newfoundland Ridge drilled during Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Expedition 342 span the Eocene gap at an unprecedented stratigraphic resolution with carbonate bearing sediments. Moreover, these sediments exhibit cyclic lithological changes that allow for an astronomical calibration of geologic time. In this study, we use the dominant obliquity imprint in XRF-derived calcium-iron ratio series (Ca/Fe) from three sites drilled during IODP Expedition 342 (U1408, U1409, U1410) to construct a floating astrochronology. We then anchor this chronology to numerical geological time by tuning 173-kyr cycles in the amplitude modulation pattern of obliquity to an astronomical solution. This study is one of the first to use the 173-kyr obliquity amplitude cycle for astrochronologic purposes, as previous studies primarily use the 405-kyr long eccentricity cycle as a tuning target to calibrate the Paleogene geologic time scale. We demonstrate that the 173-kyr cycles in obliquity's amplitude are stable between 40 and 50 Ma, which means that one can use the 173-kyr cycle for astrochronologic calibration in the Eocene. Our tuning provides new age estimates for magnetochron reversals C18n.1n - C21r and a stratigraphic framework for key sites from Expedition 342 for the Eocene. Some disagreements emerge when we compare our tuning for the interval between C19r and C20r with previous tuning attempts from the South Atlantic. We therefore present a revision of the original astronomical interpretations for the latter records, so that the various astrochronologic age models for the middle Eocene in the North- and South-Atlantic are consistent.