Reconsidering Paleozoic Differences Between the Jadar Block and the Drina–Ivanjica Unit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GEOLOŠKI ANALI BALKANSKOGA POLUOSTRVA Volume 81 (1), July 2020, 1–9 – https://doi.org/10.2298/GABP191014002S Original scientific paper Оригинални научни рад Reconsidering Paleozoic differences between the Jadar block and the Drina–Ivanjica unit 1 2 Arko PAhIć IVADAr AuDENyI D S & T G Abstract. The peculiar Jadar block has an intervening position separating the main Neotethyanvs. West Vardar Zone (includingvs. ophiolites of Late Jurassic age) and a passive margin lithospheric segment of the Apulia/Adria microplate referred to as the Drina-Ivanjica block. The review aimed to reassess the peri- Neotethyan paleogeography affecting the evolution of the Neotethyan oceanic crust (‘single’ ‘multiple oceans’ or single- two ophiolite belts) by juxta - posing the key differences of the late Variscan temporal evolution (controlling early Alpine paleogeography) between the Jadar block and Drina–Ivanjica crystalline segment. The study goal is the questionable paleogeographic affinity of the Jadar block. Contrary to the recent inferences attributing the Jadar block as a segment of the Apulia/Adria microplate, the study examine whether and how the Jadar Late Paleozoic succession may allow for an alter - Key words: native paleogeographic solution of the Neotethyan relevance. According to this Jadar terrane, Drina–Ivanjica block, comparison survey of these late Paleozoic successions, it appears that the Permian-Triassic paleogeography, Jadar block may carry a (tentative) evidence of the proximity of the western Eocimmerian basement, Paleotethys, i.ePaleotethys. The comparison yields a putative paleogeographic position as - Neotethys. sociating the Jadar block with the post-Variscan European margin (not Аpulia/Adria microplate). The proposed shift of the Permian-Triassic paleo - geographic position of the Jadar block inevitably affects the obduction length . questions a favourable protracted along strike-width of the overriding Neotethyan West Vardar ophiolites (‘single ocean model’). Апстракт. Јадарски блок се налази између главног дела некадашњег Неотетиса или Западне вардарске зоне и Дринско-ивањичке пасивне маргине која припада Апуљско-jадранској микроплочи. Циљ овог рада је кратка реевалуација ране фазе ободних делова неотетиске палеогео - графске ситуације кроз упоредну анализу каснопалеозојске тј. варис цијске еволуције поменута два блока. Каснопалеозојска фаза је имала кључни утицај на рано алпску еволуцију некадашњег Неотетиса. У новијим ра - довима Јадарски блок је често представљен као део Апуљско-јадранске микроплоче, док се у овој студији указује на могућност да овај блок на 1 Geological Survey of Serbia, Rovinjska 12, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] 2 Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Đure Jakšića 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. 1 DARko SPAhIć & TIVADAR GAuDEnyI Кључне речи: Јадарски блок, Дринско-ивањички блок, Пермо-тријаска палеогеографија, основу својих каркатеристика може бити (ре)интерпретиран као сег - Палеотетис, Неотетис. мент промторијума пост-Варисцијске јужноевропске маргине, која је била под утицајем затварања Палеотетиса. Предложена позиција Ја - дарског блока утиче на горњојурско-доњокредну тектонску интерпре- тацију Западновардар ских офиолита као и предложену дужину самог обдуковања преко анализираних доминантно палеозојских блокова. Introduction and problem statement sensu u LAuf VariscanPAhIć – Eocimmerian setting ( Z et al., 2018; S et al., 2019; see fig. 1 for the tectonic The late Alpine underthrusting and accretion of units). The ongoing closure, shortening, convergence sensu the Apulia/Adria microplate with south European and late Alpine nappe stacking of this rather peculiar foreland allowed the formation of a West Balkan western branch of Tethyan ocean ejected distal e.g Dinaric-hellenic orogen, a branch of the Alpi ne-hi - margin of this short-lived ocean – highly-deformed malayan belt. This accretionary orogen largely thick-skinnedokoVIć Drina–Ivanjica cry stalline slice ( reconfigured and obscuredorNSIEPEN the predating earlyAAS Al pine Đ , 1985), a segment of Apulia/Adria micro plate. configurationPAhIć ( ., D et al., 2001; h et al., The initial ocean–micro plate convergence was re - 2019; S et al., 2020), a successor of the late placed by a micro plate-microplate collision allow ing a rearrangement of the ori - ginal Neotethyan confi gura- tion by juxtaposing the afo- rementio ned thick-skin ned fragment along the mildly deformed Ja dar block of in tri - guing pa leo geographical af f- inity (Eu ropean or Afri can?). This highly complex pre-Al- pine to Neo tethyan ag glome - sen su ration is positioned to the southwest of Belgrade, in west - ern Serbia, and eastern BosniaILIPo e.g VIćand her zegoILIPoVIć vina ( f - , 1974; f et al., 2003; fig. 1). Despite a conside rableImI TrIJEVIćeffort of the local ( ILIPoVIć., D - , 1997,r VAToVIć 2001; f etA Fig. 1. Main tectonic units of central-western Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina: SMCT- The rAal., mATA 2003; h oLAr, 2005;urkoVšEk k - Serbian-Macedonian composite terrane; VZCT- The Vardar Zone composite terrane; JBT- The , 2006; k -J Jadar Block terrane; DIT- The Drina-lvanjica terrane; DOBT-The Dinaric Ophiolite Belt et al., 2019) and the interna - terrane; EBDT- The East Bos-nian-Durmitor terrane; CBMT- The Central Bosnian Mts. tional community, a very signi- terrane; DHCT- The Dalmatian-Herzegovinian composite terrane. Thick line denotes the cf. ficant but poorly cor related position of the ‘Zvornik suture’. 1. Fault, 2. Thrust (nappe), 3. Tectonic boundary, unspecified issue is the role of the Jadar (modified after KaraMaTa, 2006). block (or ‘Jadar–meChmID d vednica– Bükk’; S et al., 2020) 2 duringGeol. an. the Balk. Late poluos., Jurassic 2020, 81 – Early(1), 1–9 Cretaceous Neotethyan closure. Reconsidering Paleozoic differences between the Jadar block and the Drina-Ivanjica unit The current controversial paleogeographic mo - Paleozoic–mesozoic surface and subsurface con - e.g dels of the investigated NE segment Apulia/Adria straints of this former Apulia/Adria accretionary e.g indenter revolve around the emplacement of the wedge has increasingly becoming a topic of interest cross-lithospheric hanging wall mainly comprised for both,ChmID geological and geophysicalAJSToroVIć communities of the West VANVardarNEN ophiolites (mainChmID NW Neotethyan ( uBAšIć., S et al., VAN2008;NEN m etChmID al., 2017; VANocean;INSBErGEN ., u et al., 2019; S et al., 2020; S VANet al.,INSBErGEN 2017; u et al., 2019; S et al., h et al., 2020), positioned above the 2020; h et al., 2020). Its (former) distal two distinctive assemblages referred to as the Dri - passive margin block (thick-skinned slice) is referred na–Ivanjica block and Jadar terrane. mainstream to as the Drina–Ivanjica block. The adjoin ing crustal e.g. explorers impose the model of extended across slice, referred to as the Jadar block is accommodated strike-width of the Jurassic oceanic crust (West across the narrow fault zone re ferred as theImITrIJEVIć ‘Zvornik Vardar ultramafic massifs), fingerprinting a singleChmID suture’ –ArAmATA a segment of theErZINA Vardar Zone (D , sensu Neotethyan oceanAffIoNE (‘singleVAN ocean’INSBErGEN model; , S 1997; k , 2006; G , 2010; fig. 1). The e.g et al., 2008; m & h , 2019). how - ‘Zvornik suture’ separates the two major fragments: ever, earlier, dominantly local authors favour several (i) Jadar block (cha racterized by theILIPoVIć preserved Peri-NeotethyanhANNEL oceansoZur or ‘multipleImITrIJEVIć oceans’ modelA Devonian–Triassic sequence; f et al., rAmATA( , C & kAITh , 1997; D , 2001; k - 2003) and (ii) folded greenschist-facies Drina–Iva nji - , 2006; f et al., 2017). Those favouring ca block (NeoproPAhIć terozoic – Lower Paleozoic and Car- sensu ‘single ocean’ concept often neglect or disregard boniferous; S et al., 2018 and references therein). essential Late Paleozoic contrarieties separating the As mentioned earlier, ‘single ocean’ model places sensu two footwall crustalokoVIć slices,EšIć Drina-Ivanjica- and Jadar the “Jadar–kopaonik unit” as a segment of the block ( Đ & P , 1985). Jadar block or Apulia/Adria microcontinent bordering to the Dri - “Jadar–kopaonik unit” is attributed eitherImITrIJEVIć as a seg - na–Ivanjica block. Accordingly, the Jadar block is cf. ment of the main Vardar Zone ( D , sandwiched between the main Vardar Zone (fig. 1) 1997, 2001) or as a mesozoic distal-most Adriatic and Drina-Ivanjica block (footwall position) repre - margin emplacedSoNToS on top oföröS Drina–IvanjicaChmID block, senting the farthermost cross-lithospheric footwall respectively (VANC INSBErGEN& V , 2004; S et al., segment beneath the formerly overlaying West 2008, 2020; h et al., 2020; fig. 2). Vardar ophiolites. According to the ‘single ocean’ The following juxtaposition of these two base - model, these West Vardar ophiolites produced a ment systems emphasizes the differences in the Late geologic segmentation reaching hypothetically over Paleozoic – Early mesozoic (including overlapping 100 km of across strike-width. A deep-seated ba - Eocimmerian-) developments. The results suggest a sement thrust transported thick ultramafic crust possibility that the Jadar block may have had a over the (former) continental margin or Drina– different (pre)Neotethyan paleogeographic position Ivanjica block into what is now denominated as the relative to the approaching Apulia/Adria leading Inner Dinaridic ophiolite Belt (fig. 1). edge. The following late Variscan – early Alpine com -