The phanerozoic palaeotectonics of Turkey. Part I: an inventory

Abstract

This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Mehmet Ozan Sungurlu (1939-1990) for his immense contributions to our understanding of the geology of Turkey.

Comparisons Between Tethyan Anorthosite‐Bearing Ophiolites and Archean Anorthosite‐Bearing Layered Intrusions: Implications for Archean Geodynamic Processes

“…This temporal variation in the geodynamic settings of Tethyan anorthosite‐bearing ophiolites has implications for the evolution of the Tethys Ocean. The Paleo‐Tethys Ocean most likely underwent contraction because of the subduction of Paleo‐Tethyan oceanic crust from the Devonian to Jurassic (Table S1; Dilek & Furnes, 2009; Şengör, 1990; Şengör & Yılmaz, 1981; Şengör et al, 2019). Opening of the Neo‐Tethys Ocean occurred in the Triassic and Jurassic, as indicated by a large proportion of Tethyan anorthosite‐bearing ophiolites of these ages having formed in a mid‐ocean ridge setting (Dilek & Furnes, 2009, 2011).…”

“…This temporal variation in the geodynamic settings of Tethyan anorthosite-bearing ophiolites has implications for the evolution of the Tethys Ocean. The Paleo-Tethys Ocean most likely underwent contraction because of the subduction of Paleo-Tethyan oceanic crust from the Devonian to Jurassic (Table S1; Dilek & Furnes, 2009;Şengör, 1990;Şengör & Yılmaz, 1981;Şengör et al, 2019).…”

“…These anorthosite‐bearing ophiolites originated from the opening and closure of the Tethys oceans range from being highly fragmented (ophirags) and displaying an incomplete idealized ophiolite sequence (e.g., Koziakas, Greece) to preserving a near‐complete, Penrose‐type idealized ophiolite sequence (e.g., Troodos, Cyprus; Pindos, Greece; Mirdita, Albania; Kızıldağ, Turkey; Semail (Oman), Oman; Neyriz, Iran; and Chilas Complex, Pakistan; Figure 2 and Table S1; Anonymous, 1972, Dilek & Furnes, 2009, 2011). The majority of Tethyan and non‐Tethyan anorthosite‐bearing ophiolites and ophiolites in general do not preserve complete idealized ophiolite sequences and are variably composite (Dilek & Furnes, 2009, 2011; Furnes & Safonova, 2019; Okay & Tüysüz, 1999; Şengör & Natal'in, 2004; Şengör & Yılmaz, 1981; Şengör et al, 2019; Yılmaz, 2019).…”

“…Polat, Longstaffe, et al (2018) highlighted the similarity between Phanerozoic anorthosite‐bearing ophiolites and Archean anorthosite‐bearing layered intrusions and concluded that the latter formed in arc‐rift or back‐arc geodynamic settings. Some of the Phanerozoic ophiolites that formed during the opening and closure of the Tethys oceans (Paleo‐ and Neo‐Tethys), and therefore, the creation of the Alpine, Dinaride, Balkan, Taurus, Pontide, Caucasus, Zagros, and Himalayan mountain ranges (Dilek & Furnes, 2009; Şengör, 1979, 1990; Şengör et al, 2019; Yılmaz, 2019) contain anorthosites and share petrological and geochemical similarities with Archean anorthosite‐bearing layered intrusions (see Polat, Longstaffe, et al, 2018). The petrological and geochemical similarities between these Tethyan ophiolites and Archean anorthosite‐bearing layered intrusions include the fact that they both contain anorthosite‐bearing mafic to ultramafic cumulate sequences that are spatially associated with pillow basalts, and both have depleted, subduction‐derived N‐MORB‐normalized trace element patterns exhibiting variably negative Nb‐Ta‐Ti anomalies and high large‐ion‐lithophile abundances (Ashwal & Bybee, 2017; Dilek & Thy, 2009; Dilek & Furnes, 2009, 2011, 2014; Pearce, 2014; Polat, Longstaffe, et al, 2018).…”

Paleoenvironments of the Cappadocia region during the Neogene and Quaternary, central Turkey

“…During the Neogene and Quaternary periods, eastern Mediterranean region witnessed significant tectonic reorganization and volcanic activities mainly as a result of convergence and following collision between the Arabian and Eurasian plates. The northward motion of the Arabian and African plates followed by the gradual uplift of the Anatolian platelet and the retreat of the Neotehys Ocean (e.g., Şengör and Kidd 1979;Şengör and Yılmaz 1981;Şengör et al 2019). Paleogeographic analyses suggest that the main faunal and floral changes in Anatolia were mainly related to these closing of the southern branch of Neotethys ocean and topographic uplift processes and the establishment of land bridges among the Anatolia, Arabia, and Asia plates mainly during the Neogene (e.g., Steininger and Rögl 1984;Görür et al 1995;Şen et al 1998Şen 2013;Kazancı et al 1999Kazancı et al , 2005Rögl 1999;Saraç 2003Saraç , 2012Koufos et al 2005;Antoine and Saraç 2005;Koufos 2006;Ozaner and Saraç 2006;Strömberg et al 2007;Alçiçek 2010;Yavuz-Işık et al 2011;Métais et al 2016).…”