This PDF File Is Subject to the Following Conditions and Restrictions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Geological Society of America 3300 Penrose Place P.O. Box 9140 Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 447-2020 • fax 303-357-1073 www.geosociety.org This PDF file is subject to the following conditions and restrictions: Copyright © 2003, The Geological Society of America, Inc. (GSA). All rights reserved. Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in other subsequent works and to make unlimited copies for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and science. For any other use, contact Copyright Permissions, GSA, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, CO 80301-9140, USA, fax 303-357-1073, [email protected]. GSA provides this and other forums for the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society. Geological Society of America Special Paper 373 2003 Ophiolite concept and its evolution Yildirim Dilek* Department of Geology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056, USA ABSTRACT The ophiolite concept, fi rst developed in Europe in the early nineteenth century, went through several phases of evolution. Early studies of ophiolites prior to the plate tectonic revolution emphasized the development of ophiolites as in situ intrusions within geosynclines. The genetic association of mantle peridotites with volcanic and plutonic rocks in ophiolites was not considered in these studies, and the emplacement of serpentinized ultramafi c rocks in orogenic belts remained a topic of debate regard- ing ophiolites among the North American geoscientists. Recognition of extensional sheeted dike complexes, the existence of a refractory mantle unit represented by peridotites with high-temperature deformation fabrics, fossil magma chambers in plutonic sequences, and the allochthonous nature of ophiolites by the mid 1960s was instrumental in the formulation of the ophiolite model and the ophiolite-ocean crust analogy within the framework of the new plate tectonic theory. This analogy was con- fi rmed at the fi rst Penrose Conference on ophiolites in 1972, whereby an ideal ophio- lite sequence was defi ned to have a layer-cake pseudostratigraphy complete with a sheeted dike complex as a result of seafl oor spreading. Ophiolites were interpreted to have developed mainly at ancient mid-ocean ridges through this model. Geochemical studies of ophiolites challenged this view as early as the beginning of the 1970s and suggested the association of magma evolution with subduction zones. This paradigm shift in the evolving ophiolite concept led to the defi nition of suprasubduction zone ophiolites in the early 1980s. Systematic petrological and geochemical investigations of world ophiolites throughout the 1980s and 1990s demonstrated the signifi cance of subduction zone derived fl uids and melting history in development of ophiolitic mag- mas; forearc, embryonic arc, and back-arc settings in suprasubduction zones became the most widely accepted tectonic environments of origin. Major differences in their internal structure and stratigraphy, extreme variations in their chemical affi nities and mantle sources, and signifi cant changes in the mode and nature of their emplace- ment in orogenic belts indicate that ophiolites form in a variety of tectonic environ- ments and that they do not need to have a certain internal stratigraphy to them as defi ned at the 1972 Penrose Conference. A new classifi cation scheme presented in this paper considers seven specifi c types of ophiolites, based on their inferred tectonic set- tings of igneous origin and emplacement mechanisms in different kinds of orogenic belts (i.e., collisional versus accretionary). Application of this new ophiolite classifi ca- tion scheme may prove helpful in recognizing the Archean oceanic crust and in better understanding the crustal and mantle processes in Earth’s early history. Keywords: ophiolite concept, Steinmann trinity, Alpine-type peridotites, ophiolite model for oceanic crust, Hess-type oceanic crust, serpentinites, ophiolite classifi cation. *[email protected] Dilek, Y., 2003, Ophiolite concept and its evolution, in Dilek, Y., and Newcomb, S., eds., Ophiolite concept and the evolution of geological thought: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America Special Paper 373, p. 1–16. For permission to copy, contact [email protected]. © 2003 Geological Society of America. 1 2 Y. Dilek INTRODUCTION In his defi nition of the ophiolite concept, Steinmann pre- sented some salient observations and interpretations that have Ophiolites, and discussions on their origin and signifi cance contributed signifi cantly to our understanding of ophiolites in Earth’s history, have been instrumental in the formulation, and their signifi cance. He indicated that in the Ligurian Apen- testing, and establishment of hypotheses and theories in earth nines serpentinites were predominant, an observation that later sciences. Ophiolite studies have brought together diverse became a major topic of discussion between fi eld geologists (i.e., groups of international scientists on a regular basis far more Hess, 1938, 1955) and experimental petrologists (Bowen, 1927, than any other topic in geology, and the questions and problems 1928) regarding their close spatial association with volcanic and raised and resolved during the course of these studies have made sedimentary rocks (Young, this volume, Chapter 4; Bernoulli signifi cant contributions to the evolution of geological thought et al., this volume, Chapter 7). While explaining the ophiolitic over the years. The topic of ophiolites (their defi nition, tectonic assemblages as a product of magmatic differentiation, Stein- origin, emplacement mechanisms, etc.) has been a dynamic and mann (1927) indicated that the ultrabasic rocks, peridotites, and continually evolving concept since its fi rst introduction in the gabbros are the early phases to solidify with more differentiated geological literature by Alexandre Brongniart (1813). intrusions and volcanic rocks developing later and intruding into This paper provides a synoptic summary of the historical, these already formed denser rocks. He offered this interpretation philosophical, and scientifi c development of the ophiolite con- to refute Staub’s (1922) idea of gravity-driven separation and dif- cept during the last ~200 yr. It is written to present a chronologi- ferentiation of magma during development of ophiolites. cal and conceptual backdrop for the papers on various aspects Although Steinmann considered peridotite, gabbro, dia- of the ophiolite concept in this book, rather than as a compre- base, and volcanic rocks in ophiolites as comagmatic in origin, hensive overview. The papers in this volume capture, accurately his observation that gabbroic and diabasic rocks were intrusive and elegantly, the nature, results, and signifi cance of many bodies in the serpentinized peridotites is an extremely impor- ophiolite studies, as well as the relevant scientifi c inquiries and tant one and differs from the contemporary interpretation of the their contribution to the evolution of geological thought. They layer-cake pseudostratigraphy of the “Penrose-type” ophiolite. also highlight the role played by scientists, institutions, and pro- It implies that, at least in the Apennine ophiolites, the gabbros fessional activities on the evolutionary course of the ophiolite and volcanic rocks are younger than the peridotites. This infer- concept. Thus, the book itself represents science in the making ence has been substantiated by recent petrological and geo- and not just a work of history. chemical studies of the Ligurian ophiolites (i.e., Rampone and Piccardo, 2000) documenting that the peridotites (Permian and EARLY DEFINITION OF OPHIOLITE AND older? in age) and crustal rocks (Jurassic) in these ophiolites do STEINMANN TRINITY not have a simple melt-residue genetic relationship as expected from modern oceanic lithosphere evolved at mid-ocean ridges. The term “ophiolite” was fi rst used in 1813 by a French min- Finally, Steinmann’s observations of the northern Apennine eralogist, Alexandre Brongniart (1740–1847), in reference to ser- ophiolites and associated deep-sea sedimentary rocks are pentinites in mélanges; he subsequently redefi ned (1821) his defi - highly important in that he correctly interpreted them as thrust nition of an ophiolite to include a suite of magmatic rocks (ultra- sheets tectonically overlying the Tertiary sedimentary rocks in mafi c rocks, gabbro, diabase, and volcanic rocks) occurring in the Tuscany (Steinmann, 1913) and in that this interpretation led to Apennines. The coexistence of these rocks in the Alpine-Apennine the delineation of allochthonous nappe sequences in the Alpine- mountain belts was well-recognized by the European geologists Apennine orogenic system. during the nineteenth century (e.g., Lotti, 1886; Suess, 1909); however, it was Gustav Steinmann (1856–1929) who elevated the OPHIOLITE CONCEPT AND ALPINE-TYPE rock term “ophiolite” to a new concept, one that defi ned ophiolites PERIDOTITES as spatially associated kindred rocks originally formed as in situ intrusions in axial parts of geosynclines (Steinmann, 1927; also see The Australian geologist W.N. Benson (1926) interpreted the translation in this volume,