Previous Page  53 / 352 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 53 / 352 Next Page
Page Background

Zircon crystals extracted from an amphibo-

lite sample show large cores surrounded by new

recrystallized rims with irregular morphology

(Fig. 15a). They yielded two groups of concor-

dant U-Pb ages (Fig. 15b), which were treated

separately according to their different

176

Yb/

177

Hf

ratios (Fig. 15c). The first group has an average

age of 495 ± 2 Ma, interpreted as the age of the

gabbroic protoliths. The second group shows an

average age of 475 ± 2, thought to account for the

high-T metamorphism (Sánchez Martínez

et al.

,

2012). At variance with the rest of the ophiolites,

the Hf isotopic signature of zircons plus the ab-

sence of inherited grains point to a juvenile na-

ture of the mafic protoliths of the Bazar Ophiolite

as well as an apparent lack of interaction with

continental crust (Fig. 15d). These data and the

trace element composition suggest that the pro-

toliths of the mafic rocks were generated in an

oceanic context.

Taking into account the age, composition and

tectonothermal evolution of the Bazar Ophiolite,

it seems likely that this unit represents a litho-

spheric section of a peri-Gondwanan Cambrian

ocean. Although its tectonic setting is yet uncer-

tain, the N-MORB compositions shown by the

gabbros indicates participation of a mid-ocean-

ridge. The development of low to intermediate-P

granulitic metamorphism can be explained by

overheating related to the accretion of this units

to the base of a magmatic arc.

Based on the small

gap (

c.

20 Ma) between the formation of mafic

protoliths and the high-T metamorphism, it can

be suggested that the oceanic lithosphere pre-

served in the Bazar Ophiolite was remarkably

buoyant and prone to escape from accretion.

Alternatively, such high-T event could also result

from an ephemeral opening of an asthenospheric

window after subduction of a mid-ocean-ridge

(Fig. 16).

37

3. GEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Fig. 16.

(

a

) Paleogeographical reconstruction and (

b, c

) two plate sections for the Cambrian-Ordovician boundary. Based

on Winchester

et al

. (2002), Arenas

et al.

(2007b), Gómez Barreiro

et al.

(2007) and Sánchez Martínez

et al.

, (2013).