Lyell Collection

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garfunkel, Z.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2006; v. 260; p. 301-326;
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2006.260.01.13
© 2006 Geological Society of London

Neotethyan ophiolites: formation and obduction within the life cycle of the host basins

Zvi Garfunkel

Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, 91904 zvi.garfunkel{at}huji.ac.il

To understand the Neotethyan ophiolites better, their place in the history of the host basins is explored, using the Jurassic Hellenic-Dinaric and some Cretaceous (mainly peri-Arabian) ophiolites as examples. These formed in mature (c. 60 Ma and 100 Ma old) seaways by spreading at rates that apparently were too high to persist for more than a fraction of the basin history. Each ophiolite group formed in a short time interval, about 10 Ma, soon after changes in the motions of plates in the host basins. Therefore, these ophiolites do not seem to have formed by normal long-term spreading along mid-ocean ridges, but their formation signifies special ‘ophiolite events’. This fits well the widely accepted origin in a supra-subduction zone (SSZ) setting that was inferred from geochemical data. The ophiolites studied here are thus interpreted as having formed in new subduction zones that originated during changes in plate motions. The spreading during their accretion was driven by fast retreat (roll-back) of the subducting slabs. The western ophiolites of the Hellenic-Dinaric belt, dominated by mid-ocean ridge basalt (MORB)-like rocks but invaded by SSZ magmas, could have formed along ridges just before they failed (collapsed), but the age data fit better formation in a proto-back-arc setting alongside the more eastern ophiolites with the typical SSZ signature. The construction of the ophiolites examined here ended when they were detached from their substrate and pushed over the adjacent basins. At that stage they were underplated by metamorphic soles, but how the latter were emplaced still needs clarification. Continuing retreat of the subducting slabs consumed the host basins and pushed the ophiolites hundreds of kilometres until they were obducted over the nearby margins 15–20 Ma after formation. This framework seems to apply to many ophiolites and allows us to interpret them in terms of known processes, but also highlights problematic issues that still need to be resolved.





This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Geological Society, London, Special PublicationsHome page
S. P. Rice, A. H. F. Robertson, and T. Ustaomer
Late Cretaceous-Early Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Eurasian active margin in the Central and Eastern Pontides, northern Turkey
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 2006; 260: 413 - 445.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Geological Society, London, MemoirsHome page
A. H. F. Robertson
Contrasting modes of ophiolite emplacement in the Eastern Mediterranean region
Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 2006; 32: 235 - 261.
[Abstract] [PDF]