History of Stratigraphical Research in Northern Finland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Radiometric age determinations from Finnish Lapland and their bearing on the timing of Precambrian volcano-sedimentary sequences Edited by Matti Vaasjoki Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 33, 15– 43 , 2001. HISTORY OF STRATIGRAPHICAL RESEARCH IN NORTHERN FINLAND by Eero Hanski Hanski, Eero 2001. History of stratigraphical research in northern Finland. Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 33,, 15–43.15–43. 66 figures.figures. AnAn overview overview on on the the results results of of stratigraphical stratigraphical research research carried carried out in northern Finland (Central Lapland, the Kuusamo and Peräpohja schist belts) since the early 20th century is presented. The traditional stratigraphical names, Lapponian and Kumpu and their derivatives, which have been widely used in northern Finland, were defined in the 1920s and 1930s when the stratigraphical interpretations were based on establishing cycles of sedimen- tation separated by diastrophisms and intrusions of granites with then unknown ages. Later results of isotopic and geological work have forced the investigators to revise their stratigraphical schemes and regional correlations, but the nomenclature rooted to the traditional names has continued their life until recently. Particularly, the chronostratigraphical position of the Lapponian and Kumpu rocks and their lithostratigraphical correlation with the traditional Karelian formations have been a controversial issue over the years. The review illuminates the reasons that led to this long-lasting lack of consensus and explains why the abandonment of the old names along with the adoption of the formal lithostratigraphical nomenclature was still neces- sary as late as in the 1990s. Key words (GeoRef Thesaurus, AGI): stratigraphy, lithostratigraphy, chronostratigraphy, greenstone belts, schist belts, metamorphic rocks, Paleoproterozoic, Archean, research, history, Kuusamo, Peräpohja, central Lapland, northern Finland Eero Hanski, Geological Survey of Finland,P.O. Box 77, FIN-96101 Rovaniemi, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] INTRODUCTION We have all been hopelessly wrong at one time posed Archean and Paleoproterozoic terranes, field or another, and it would ill behove us to hold the investigations alone have not always produced unam- great pioneers of the Precambrian in any the less biguous results concerning the order of supracrustal esteem because we have the advantage of tech- sequences and their regional correlations. In the niques undreamt of by them. absence of fossil-bearing strata in the early Pre- cambrian, radiometric datings have become invalu- Arthur Holmes, 1963 able in providing indirect or direct age information for supracrustal rocks. It is obvious that the first U-Pb Field studies are the cornerstone of all stratigraphical zircon ages obtained in Finland quickly brought about interpretations and models of geological evolution. fundamental changes in the conceptual framework of However, in structurally complicated and poorly-ex- the Precambrian geology within the Fennoscandian 15 Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 33 Eero Hanski Shield (Kouvo 1958, Wetherill et al. 1962). However, but this was not regarded as satisfactory by everyone despite the increasing number of radiometric data as reflected, for example, by the following statement produced since then, their major impact on solving by Marmo and Ojakangas (1984): “Division of the stratigraphical problems in northern Finland took place rock sequences on the Baltic Shield into groups relatively late. and formations apparently has not been done as The Precambrian rocks in Finland are divided into rigorously as the Code of Stratigraphic Nomen- three main units: 1) the Svecofennian terrane in the clature prescribes for North American rock se- southwest representing a juvenile Paleoproterozoic quences.” Nevertheless, this seemed to remain as a arc complex, 2) the Archean granite-gneisses and temporary practice before shifting to the more strict greenstone belts in the northeast, and 3) the lithostratigraphical system based on international re- Paleoproterozoic supracrustal sequences, assigned commendations in which the stratigraphical names commonly to the Karelian formations, which overlie are formed by combining local geographic names of and, at least for the most part, were originally depos- the type areas with the proper rank terms (Hedberg ited on the Archean sialic basement. The focus of this 1976, Salvador 1994). Applying this procedure, clas- paper is on the third unit, particularly the Karelian sification of the Karelian formations into formal metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks occurring lithostratigraphical groups and formations gradually in Central Lapland and the Peräpohja and Kuusamo took over in the Kainuu and northern Karelia schist schist belts. belts in central and eastern Finland (Kontinen 1986, The Karelian supracrustal successions reach sev- Gehör & Havola 1988, Strand 1988, Laajoki 1991, eral kilometres in total thickness, are spread intermit- Pekkarinen & Lukkarinen 1991, Kohonen & Marmo tently over an area occupying the northeastern half of 1992). Lately, the same classification system has also the Fennoscandian Shield and record a geological been applied to rock successions in northern Finland, evolution of several hundreds of millions of years. Due both in the Peräpohja area and in Central Lapland to their wide development in space and time, the (Perttunen et al. 1995, Räsänen et al. 1995, Lehtonen stratigraphy of the Karelian formations and their et al. 1998). Most geologists now prefer to restrict the correlation between different areas have drawn much use of the traditional names to broad, informal discus- attention since the beginning of the 20th century. The sions only or, as done by Laajoki (1988, 1990), to the Karelian stratigraphy has often been described in concepts of tectofacies. terms of adjectival names such as Sariolian, Jatulian Besides the lithological correlation with traditional and Kalevian (e.g., Meriläinen 1980a,b). These poorly- Karelian stratigraphical units, the interpreted defined, informal names, derived from the Karelian geochronological position of the supracrustal rocks in folklore, are deeply ingrained in the Finnish geological Lapland has varied much, from Archean to Proterozoic, literature, but have been used in an inconsistent man- in the articles by different researchers. This has ner and have also turned out to be insufficient for evidently caused confusion among Finnish geologists accurate correlations (e.g., Laajoki 1986, 1988). The as well as foreign investigators trying to make a historical background of the definitions and subse- synthesis on the geological evolution of northern part quent development of these commonly used of the Fennoscandian Shield (e.g., Pharaoh & Brewer stratigraphical terms are not explained here, accounts 1990, Brewer & Pharaoh 1990, Goodwin 1991). One of that can be found in Simonen (1955, 1986) and of the reasons for differing views is the geological Laajoki (1986) and references in them. For the partly diversity of rocks in Lapland, making them partly different nomenclature used in the eastern part of the similar to other Karelian formations, but on the other Fennoscandian Shield, the reader is referred to Rus- hand, there exist some rock units, for instance thick sian papers such as Kratts et al. (1984), Zagorodny et piles of komatiites, which hardly have any counter- al. (1986) and Semikhatov et al. (1991). In northern parts in Karelian formations in eastern or central Finland, additional terms, the Lapponian and Kumpu Finland. Until recently, there has been a lack of formations and their derivatives, have been widely reliable geochronological data to constrain the ages of employed, and on their relation to other Karelian certain sedimentary and volcanic rock units, but the formations, several differing opinions have been pre- situation is gradually improving as shown, for example, sented in the geological literature over the years. by the accompanying articles in this volume. In the 1980s, there was a tendency in Finland to At this stage, when the new lithostratigraphical combine the traditional (mythological) names with names have just been adopted and consequently more lithostratigraphical rank terms (e.g., Marmo et al. perplexity may still arise, it is prudent to review the 1988, Luukkonen & Lukkarinen 1986, Silvennoinen development of stratigraphical concepts in northern 1985, Geological Map, Northern Fennoscandia 1987) Finland over the past century. It is hoped that this will 16 Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 33 History of stratigraphical research in northern Finland lead to a better understanding of the reasons for in the Kuusamo schist belt because these two entities difficulties whichwhich werewere encountered encountered by by the the previous previ- form geographically distinct areas and have usually investigatorsous investigators and andhindered hindered the achievementthe achievement of the of been described separately using different stratigraphi- endurable and uniformly accepted stratigraphical cal terms. It is assumed that the reader has basic schemes in Lapland. In the following treatise, the knowledge of the geology of northern Finland, as it is Peräpohja schist belt is dealt with separately from the beyond the scope of this paper to present any detailed Central Lapland Greenstone Belt and its continuations geological review. HISTORY OF STRATIGRAPHICAL STUDIES IN CENTRAL LAPLAND AND KUUSAMO