SURGE TECTONICS: A NEW HYPOTHESIS OF GLOBAL …3A978-94... · SURGE TECTONICS: A NEW HYPOTHESIS OF GLOBAL GEODYNAMICS . Solid Earth Sciences Library Volume 9 The titles published

SURGE TECTONICS: A NEW HYPOTHESIS OF GLOBAL GEODYNAMICS

Solid Earth Sciences Library

Volume 9

The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.

Surge Tectonics: A New Hypothesis of Global Geodynamics

by

ARTHUR A. MEYERHOFFt former International Geological Consultant, Tulsa, OK, U.S.A.

IRFANTANER Consulting Geologist, Tulsa, OK, U.S.A.

A. E. L. MORRIS Consulting Geologist, Los Angeles, CA, U.SA.

W.B.AGOCS Consulting Geologist, Allentown, PA, U.S.A.

M. KAMEN-KAYE Consulting Geologist, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.

M.1. BHAT Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehra Dun, India

N. C. SMOOT U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, Stennis Space Center, MS, U.S.A.

DONGR. CHOI Consulting Geologist, Higgins, A.C.T. Australia

edited by

DONNA MEYERHOFF HULL The University of Texas at Dallas, U.S.A.

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS DORDRECHT / BOSTON / LONDON

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN-13: 978-94-010-7278-6 001: 10.1007/978-94-009-1738-5

Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers,

e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-1738-5

P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Kluwer Academic Publishers incorporates the publishing programmes of D. Reidel, Martinus Nijhoff, Dr W. Junk and MTP Press.

Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A.

In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1996

No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.

DEDICATION

Dedicated to Howard A. Meyerhoff, father of the senior author and fonner professor of geology at Smith College, to V. V. Beloussov, fonnerly of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and to Alexander Baird, fonnerly of Pomona College, California; three distinguished geologists who greatly influenced the career of the senior author throughout his life.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface: Tectonics and Physics .............................................. Xlll

Editor's Postscript ........................................................ xv

Acknowledgements .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xvii

Chapter 1: WHY A NEW HYPOTHESIS? ..................................... 1 1. 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 1.2 Former and Current Concepts of Earth Dynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3

l.2.l General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 1.2.2 Contraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 1.2.3 Mantle Convection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 1.2.4 Earth Expansion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 1.2.5 Vertical Tectonics ..................................... 7 1.2.6 Zonal Rotation ........................................ 7 l.2.7 Continental Drift, Polar Wandering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 1.2.8 Seafloor Spreading and Plate Tectonics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 l.2.9 Tectonostratigraphic Terranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 l.2.10 Wedge Tectonics .................................... 10 1.2.11 Plate Tectonics with Fixed Continents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 l.2.12 Zipper Tectonics (Spiral Tectonics) ..................... 11 1.2.13 Viscous Flow Model ................................. 11

1.3 Conclusion ................................................... 11

Chapter 2: UNRAVELING EARTH HISTORY: TECTONIC DATA SETS ......... 12 2.1 Data Availability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 2.2 New Data Acquisition .......................................... 12

2.2.1 Submersibles and Deep-Sea Drilling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 2.2.2 Sonography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 2.2.3 Accurate Bathymetry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 2.2.4 Seismotomography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 2.2.5 Space Geodesy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.2.6 Satellite Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 2.2.7 Satellite Radar Altimetry ............................. 16 2.2.8 Radar Mapping of Venus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 2.2.9 Other Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18

2.3 Data Sets Unexplained in Current Tectonic Models: Foundation for a New Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 2.3.1 Linear Structures ..................................... 18 2.3.2 Lithosphere Diapirs and Lithosphere Magma Chambers ...... 20 2.3.3 Magma Chamber-Related Phenomena. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 2.3.4 Tectonostratigraphic Terranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 2.3.5 Stretching Lineations .................................. 32 2.3.6 Segmentation ........................................ 32 2.3.7 Rift Zone to Verschluckungszone ........................ 33 2.3.8 Hydrothermal Manifestations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36

viii

2.3.9 Reticulate Pattern of High Heat-Flow Bands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 2.3.10 Microearthquake Bands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 2.3.11 Diffuse Plate Boundaries ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 2.3.12 Linear Anorogenic Belts .............................. 41 2.3.13 Continental-Margin Phenomena ........................ 42 2.3.14 Vortex Structures .................................... 43 2.3 .15 Magma Floods ...................................... 46 2.3.16 Seismotomography and Convection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46 2.3.17 Antipodal Positions of Continents and Ocean Basins .,. . . . .. 47 2.3.18 World Evaporite Distribution .......................... 47 2.3.19 Preferential Eastward Flow of the Asthenosphere. . . . . . . . . .. 47 2.3.20 Seismic Studies of Oceanic Crust ....................... 53 2.3.21 Ocean-Floor Bathymetry .............................. 54 2.3.22 Tensile Stress Characterizes the Midocean Ridge Regimes. .. 56 2.3.23 Oceanic Basement ................................... 57 2.3.24 Increasing Age of Oceanic Crust Away from the Midocean-

Ridge Crest ...................................... 57 2.3.25 Mid-Atlantic Ridge Geology North of 37" N Latitude ....... 58 2.3.26 Mid-Atlantic Ridge Geology of the Equatorial Atlantic ...... 60 2.3.27 Linear Magnetic Anomalies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61 2.3.28 Paleomagnetism ..................................... 64 2.3.29 Benioff Zones ....................................... 65 2.3.30 Mechanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67

2.4 Conclusion ................................................... 67

Chapter 3: SURGE TECTONICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68 3. 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68 3.2 Velocity Structure of the Earth's Outer Shells ........................ 69

3.2.1 Basic Framework ..................................... 69 3.2.2 Continents Have Deep Roots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73

3.3 Contraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76 3.3.1 General ........................................... " 76 3.3.2 Contraction Skepticism ................................ 76 3.3.3 Evidence For a Differentiated, Cooled Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77

3.4 Contraction as an Explanation of Earth Dynamics .................... 83 3.4.1 Contraction Acting Alone ............................. " 83 3.4.2 Contraction Acting as the Trigger For Tectogenesis. . . . . . . . .. 85

3.5 Review of Surge and Related Concepts in Earth-Dynamic Theory. . . . . . .. 86 3.5.1 Surge Channels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86 3.5.2 Use of the Surge Concept in Tectonics .................... 88

3.6 Geotectoni9 Cycle of Surge Tectonics .............................. 88 3.7 Pascal's Law---the Core of Tectogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90 3.8 Evidence for the Existence of Surge Channels ....................... 92

3.8.1 Seismic-Reflection Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92 3.8.2 Seismic-Refraction Data ............................... 92 3.8.3 Seismotomographic Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93 3.8.4 Surface-Geological Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94 3.8.5 Other Data .......................................... 95

ix

3.9 Geometry of Surge Channels ..................................... 97 3.9.1 Surge-Channel Cross Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97 3.9.2 Surge-Channel Surface Expression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97 3.9.3 Role of the Mohorovi6c Discontinuity .................... 98 3.9.4 Formation of Multitiered Surge Channels ................. 102

3.10 Demonstration of Tangential Flow in Surge Channels ............... 102 3.10.1 Linear Tangential Flow: Belts of Parallel Faults, Fractures,

andFissures ..................................... 102 3.10.2 Linear Tangential Flow: Elongate Segmentation Parallel with

Tectonic Belts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103 3.10.3 Vortical Tangential Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III

3. 11 Mechanism for Eastward Surge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115 3.12 Classification of Surge Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115

3.12.l Introduction ....................................... 115 3.12.2 Ocean-Basin Surge Channels .......................... 116 3.12.3 Continental-Margin Surge Channels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 117 3.12.4 Continental Surge Channels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118

3.13 K Structures ................................................ 118 3.14 Criteria for the Identification of Surge Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 122

Chapter 4: EXAMPLES OF SURGE CHANNELS ............................. 124 4.1 Ocean-Basin Surge Channels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 124

4.1.l Mid-Atlantic Ridge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 124 4.1.2 East Pacific Rise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 4.1.3 Midocean- Ridge Magnetic Anomalies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 4.1.4Feederchannels ..................................... 129

4.2 Surge Channels of Continental Margins ........................... 129 4.2.1 Breakout Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 130 4.2.2 Active Margin Channels: Western Pacific Basin. . . . . . . . . . .. 132 4.2.3 Active Margin Channels: North American Western

Cordillera ....................................... 133 4.2.4 Passive Margin Channels: Caledonides and Appalachians. . .. 144

4.3 Continental Surge Channels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 146 4.3.1 Lithosphere Thickness and Tectonic Style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 147 4.3.2 Yunnan Himalaya (Hengduan Shan) ..................... 148 4.3.3 Dinarides-Balkanides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 149 4.3.4Alps ............................................... 150 4.3.5 Middle and High Atlas of Morocco .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151 4.3.6 Baykal Rift System ................................... 152 4.3.7 East African Rift System .............................. 153 4.3.8 Mississippi Embayment ............................... 153 4.3.9 Rhine Graben ....................................... 154

4.4 Surge Channels in Zones of Transtension-Transpression . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154 4.4.l San Andreas Fault ................................... 154 4.4.2 North Anatolia Fault .................................. 158 4.4.3 Other Major Strike-Slip Zones .......................... 158

x

Chapter 5: THE TECTONIC EVOLUTION OF SOUTHEAST ASIA--A REGIONAL APPLICATION OF THE SURGE-TECTONICS HYPOTHESIS ........... 159

5.1 Surge Tectonic Framework .............................. 159 5.1.1 The North-South Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 159 5.1.2 Neocathaysian (North-Northeast) Strikes ................. 163 5.1.3 Role and Position of Benioff Zone ....................... 164 5.1.4 Geometric Patterns Formed by Platforms, Massifs, and Surge

Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 167 5.1.5 Overall Eastward-Directed Flow Pattern of Asia ........... 167 5.1.6 Fundamental Elements of the Surge-Tectonic Evolution of

Southeastern Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 168 5.2 Surge-Tectonic History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 168

5.2.1 General ............................................ 168 5.2.2 Pre-Sinian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 170 5.2.3 Sinian-Ordovician (Figs. 5.6,5.8) ....................... 171 5.2.4 Silurian-Devonian (Fig. 5.9) ........................... 173 5.2.5 Carboniferous-Late Pelmian (Figs. 5.10-5.11) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 174 5.2.6 Triassic-Middle Jurassic (Fig. 5.12) ..................... 179 5.2.7 Late Jurassic-Present (Figs. 5.17 -5.18, 5.3) ............... 183

Chapter 6: MAGMA FLOODS, FLOOD BASALTS, AND SURGE TECTONICS. .. 192 6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 192

6.1.1 Significance of flood basalts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 192 6.1.2 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193 6.1.3 The Petrographic Character of Flood-Basalt Provinces ...... 194

6.2 Descriptions of Selected Continental Flood-Basalt Provinces . . . . . . . . .. 194 6.2.1 Keweenawan Flood Basalt (proterozoic), Midcontinent

United States (Linear) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 194 6.2.2 Antrim Plateau (proterozoic-Cambrian), Northern Australia

(Ovate) ......................................... 200 6.2.3 Northern Siberia (permian-Triassic), Siberian Platform

(Ovate) ......................................... 201 6.2.4 Emeishan Flood Basalts (permian-Triassic) of Greater

Southwestern China (Ovate) ........................ 203 6.2.5 Wrangellian (Triassic) Flood Basalts of Western and

Northwestern North America (Linear) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 204 Wrangell Mountains, Alaska ........................ 205 Chichagof Island and Baranof Island, Alaska ........... 206 Queen Charlotte Islands, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 206 Vancouver Island, Canada .......................... 206 Hells Canyon and Wallowa Mountains, Oregon ......... 206

6.2.6 Kirkpatrick Basalt-Fenar Dolerite (Jurassic), Antarctica (Linear) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 206

6.2.7 Kanoo Flood Basalts (Jurassic) of East Southern Mrica (Ovate) ......................................... 208

6.2.8 Ma1aita Island (Cretaceous) (Ovate) ..................... 209 6.2.9 Ontong Java Plateau (Cretaceous) (Ovate) ................ 209 6.2.10 Parana Flood Basalts (Cretaceous) of Greater Southern

xi

Brazil (Linear) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 211 6.2.11 Deccan Flood Basalts (Late Cretaceous-Tertiary), Western

Peninsular India (Ovate) ........................... 213 6.2.12 Flood Basalts of the Argentinian Foreland (Late Cretaceous-

Tertiary) (Linear) ................................. 215 6.2.13 Brito-Arctic (Tertiary-Quaternary) Basaltic Province

(Linear) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 216 6.2.14 Syrian-Arabian-Greater Ethiopian Magmatic Province

(Tertiary-Quaternary) (Ovate) ...................... 217 6.2.15 Tertiary Flood Basalts of Central America (Ovate) ......... 221 6.2.16 Columbia River Flood Basalts (Tertiary-Quaternary),

Northwestern United States (Ovate) .................. 223 6.2.17 Mid-Ocean Ridge Flood Basalts (Linear) ................ 224

6.3 The Use of Geochemistry in IdentifYing Flood Basalts .... . . . . . . . . . . .. 225 6.3.1 Introduction ........................................ 225 6.3.2 Basalt Magmas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 226 6.3.3 Studies of Minor and Rare Earth Elements ................ 228

Midocean-Ridge Basalts (Ocean-Floor Volcanism) ...... 228 Ocean-Island Basalts (Oceanic Intraplate Volcanism) .... 229 Continental Flood Basalts (Continental Intraplate

Volcanism) ............................... 229 Volcanic Arc Basalts ("Subduction" Basalts) ........... 229

Island Arc Basalts Continental Margin Volcanic Arcs

6.4 Geochemical Comparisons among Basalts Erupted in Different Tectonic Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 231 6.4.1 Midocean ridge Basalts ............................... 231 6.4.2 Ocean Island and Continental Flood Basalts ............... 231 6.4.3 Continental Flood and Volcanic-Arc Basalts. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 233 6.4.4 The Lebombo or East Karroo Continental-Flood Basalts ..... 233 6.4.5 Peruvian Andes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 236 6.4.6 Pigafetta Basin, Western Pacific Ocean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 238 6.4.7 Conclusion ......................................... 239

6.5 Duration ofIndividual Basalt Floods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 239 6.5.1 Introduction ........................................ 239 6.5.2 Flood-Basalt Provinces of Long Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 241

Siberian Flood-Basalt Province ...................... 241 Deccan Flood-Basalt Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 241

6.5.3 Flood-Basalt Provinces of Short Duration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 242 Columbia River Flood-Basalt Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 242 Wrangellian Flood-Basalt Province ................... 242

6.5.4 Conclusion ......................................... 242 6.6 Flood-Basalt Provinces and Frequency in Geologic Time. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 242 6.7 Non-Basalt Flood Volcanism in Flood-Basalt Provinces .............. 243 6.8 Flood Basalts or Magma Floods? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 253 6.9 Surge-Tectonics Origin of Magma Floods .......................... 253

Chapter 7: CONCLUSIONS ............................................... 255

xii

Appendix .............................................................. 258

Bibliography ............................................................ .264

Index ................................................................... 318

PREFACE TECTONlCS AND PHYSICS

Geology, although rooted in the laws of physics, rarely has been taught in a manner designed to stress the relations between the laws and theorems of physics and the postulates of geology. The same is true of geophysics, whose specialties (seismology, gravimetIy, magnetics, magnetotellurics) deal only with the laws that govern them, and not with those that govern geology's postulates. The branch of geology and geophysics called tectonophysics is not a formalized discipline or subdiscipline, and, therefore, has no formal laws or theorems of its own. Although many recent books claim to be textbooks in tectonophysics, they are not; they are books designed to explain one hypothesis, just as the present book is designed to explain one hypothesis. The textbook that comes closest to being a textbook of tectonophysics is Peter 1. Wyllie's (1971) book, The Dynamic Earth.

Teachers, students, and practitioners of geology since the very beginning of earth­science teaching have avoided the development of a rigorous (but not rigid) scientific approach to tectonics, largely because we earth scientists have not fully understood the origin of the features with which we are dealing. This fact is not at all surprising when one considers that the database for hypotheses and theories of tectonics, particularly before 1960, has been limited to a small part of the exposed land area on the Earth's surface.

Some unfortunate attitudes have developed within and concerning geology and geologists, largely because geology has not been a rigorous science in the strict meaning of that expression. Many geologists consider geology a science separate from physics because it has its own data sets that distinguish it from physics and other fields. Yet many specialists in fields other than geology often refer to it as an "inexact" science. It is no accident that there is no Nobel Prize in the geological sciences. (It is ironic that the monies for the Nobel Prizes came from sales of the petroleum produced from the Nobel-owned oil fields near Baku along the western margin of the Caspian Sea, fields discovered after 1885 by the Nobel's own geologist, Hjalmar Sjogren [Owen, 1975]!) Nor is this negative attitude toward geologists limited to physicists. The same attitude is common among engineers, and even some chemists and biologists. Such attitudes have become less common, however, since the advent of plate tectonics, which has provided a more quantitative basis to the geological sciences.

Geologists have pointed out that many of the papers published in physics and engineering were quantitative studies that, where applied to Mother Nature, had very little meaning. Most of us, as geologists, pride ourselves on being "practical" scientists rather than the theoretical idealists that others, especially physicists, might be. Be that as it may, it was--and still is--perfectly true that many geologists have two or less years of university-level physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Geologists usually do not have an engineering background except for those who have had petroleum or civil engineering courses.

This is not to say that there never have been scientists who have tried to quantify the earth sciences, especially geology, in some degree. Nor are we saying that quantification can be done easily. What we are saying is that, in order to quantify certain aspects of the earth sciences, structural geology and tectonics in particular, we geologists must make the fullest possible use of the laws of physics, so that, if we are to make any postulates of our own, they will be firmly rooted in those laws. Moreover, as a theoretical science, geology must become wedded thoroughly to classical physics for future progress to be made on a solid foundation. The late Prof. Chester Ray Longwell of Yale and Stanford Universities tried to instill in each student, beginning with the freshman year, a commitment to learning the laws of physics. His was a lone voice in the wilderness.

xiii

xiv

We do take note of the fact that many geologists and geophysicists have tried to instill physical principles in their students and to use them in their own published works. Some of the many names that come to mind include E.M. Anderson, E.V. Artyushkov, M.A. Biot, Hugo Benioff, Walter H. Bucher, L.M. Cathles, J. Goguel, David T. Griggs, Ross Gunn, W. Hafner, J.M. Handin, M. King Hubbert, J.A. Jacobs, J.C. Jaeger, Sir Harold Jeffreys, Konrad B. Krauskopf, RA. Lyttleton, Gordon J.F. MacDonald, John D. Moody, H. Ode, Hans Ramberg, J.G. Ramsey, RD. Russell, w.w. Rubey, Adrian E. Scheidegger, RB. Smith, the Weertmans, and the early work of J. Tuzo Wilson. However, we do not agree with the recent statement by J. Tuzo Wilson that "The Earth is so modest and quiet a fragment of the universe that laws of classical physics can be assumed to control its behavior, but it has not been easy to relate specific laws to geological observations. The explanation is believed to be that due to changes in conditions with depth the layers do not all follow the same laws and their modes of behavior differ. This complicates their interactions" (Wilson, 1990, p. 6611). Rather, we are convinced that the classical laws of physics do indeed find expressions in familiar geological structures under all conditions of pressure, temperature, and depth. Prof. Hans Ramberg has proved this in many tectonic situations (e.g., Ramberg, 1952, 1955, 1960, 1962, 1963a,b, 1967, 1968a,b, 1972a,b, 1973, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1989, and 1991).

We hope that the contents of this book will move geology and tectonics even farther towards a goal of integrating physical laws with our global geodynamics hypotheses.

Arthur A. Meyerhoff Written Summer, 1994 Deceased Sept. 18, 1994

Editor's Postscript

This book and the geodynamic hypothesis that it presents, surge tectonics, are the culmination of a lifetime of geological thinking by Arthur A Meyerhoff, ideas shared and enhanced by his co-authors and colleagues. Although his opposition to the plate-tectonics hypothesis is well­known among earth scientists who started their careers in the 1950s through 1970s, most younger geologists only know of his objections second- or third-hand. Many of the reasons for his objections have been forgotten, dismissed as unimportant, or are believed to be solved, despite the fact that many of his original objections, published in his hallmark paper in 1974 (Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 197 4), still remain unanswered today. Some of the" old" questions are elucidated once again in this text and new questions are asked on the basis of new data collected by more advanced technology during the last two decades. The answers to all of these questions, he believed, lay in the concept of surge tectonics.

As plate tectonics grew in popularity and acceptance, it was commonly thought that Art Meyerhoff had fallen "behind the times". Nothing could have been further from the truth. He devoured current literature, subscribing to no less than 40 geological and geophysical journals in addition to receiving a steady stream of books on every conceivable aspect of geology. Those books and journals did not simply go unread onto a shelf. He took copious amounts of notes, continually compiling infonnation on paper and especially in his mind. His habit of packing papers with references has been overwhelming to some of his reviewers, but the habit was well-acquired. He knew that standing in opposition to the majority would require extra effort and knowledge on his part. Admittedly, he did find delight some days in being the "devil's advocate" and he was an ardent iconoclast. But he did not endure years of criticism for the delight of it; he did so because he did not see 1 00% infallible logic in the concept of plate tectonics. The hypothesis simply was not able to explain a great deal of geological evidence that he had arnassed over the years. During the 1970s, at a conference where he expounded upon the flaws of that hypothesis, one of his fellow earth scientists gave him a sharp rebuke, pointing out that ifhe didn't like the plate tectonics hypothesis, perhaps he ought to come up with something better. It was a comment never forgotten by my father, Art Meyerhoff, and to this end he devoted the last ten years of his life.

His earliest ideas about asthenosphere flow and the "surge" of magma developed during conversations with his fellow geologist and father, Howard A Meyerhoff, during the early 1970s. Their ideas focused on the origin of island arcs, and were presented in a joint paper in 1977 (Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 1977). These ideas then rested for a few years, until the rnid- to late-l980s, when AA Meyerhoff again took up the subject of asthenosphere surge, this time in earnest. As he developed his hypothesis, which he telmed "surge tectonics," he reached out to hundreds of earth scientists, hoping for new ideas and feedback on his own thoughts. Many replied and many did not; many were enthusiastic and encouraging, others silent or sardonic. Familiar with mixed reviews, he continued forward, gathering data, testing his ideas, modifying and strengthening them and always asking more questions of himself and his hypothesis. A few earth scientists (including the co-authors of this text), excited by his ideas, joined him in the development of surge tectonics. Finally the time came to take their ideas "public." In 1990, he and Irfan Taner attended a conference in Washington, D.C., entitled, "New Concepts in Global Tectonics" (organized by S. Chatterjee and N. Hotton, III). There, he presented the surge-tectonics hypothesis for the first time.

xv

xvi

Unfortunately, however, time and health were not on Art Meyerhoff's side, and the symposium in Washington was followed shortly thereafter by the discovery oflung cancer. Not one to be stopped by untimely surgery, he brought his journals to the hospital and continued to read, write, and think about geology during his recovery. In the next few years, he fInished three papers for the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Symposium volume, then began working on several new papers, which included a compendium on the surge-tectonics evolution of southeastern Asia (Meyerhoff, in press), a paper on global paleobiogeography of the Phanerozoic (Meyerhoff et aI., in press; GSA Special Paper 189), short discussions of the Chicxulub proposed impact site (with C. Officer) and are-evaluation of the interpretations of seafloor bathymetric data with N. C. Smoot (Smoot and Meyerhoff, 1995). He also sought, and acquired, a contract to write a book on the surge-tectonics hypothesis. Always energized by thinking and the discovery of new ideas, he worked and wrote steadily until his death in late 1994.

The production of this book has therefore taken a different path than originally envisioned, and has been completed regrettably without the senior author's presence and the mass of detailed information that he can-ied in his mind. The hypothesis itself has been published and is described here once more with specific examples. Sections written by the co­authors before and after Art Meyerhoff s death are combined with his writings and with oral and written communications concerning the surge-tectonics hypothesis which we received during his lifetime. It has been an unexpected challenge in the editor's life, and together with the co­authors, I hope that we have served my father's memory and ideas well with this publication.

Mantle diapirism, bivergent foldbelts, ridge-parallel flow--each of these concepts can be found in the "mainstream" geological literature today. Each of these concepts is part of the foundation of the surge-tectonics hypothesis. The concept is not so far afield as some might think, but it is, undoubtedly, a different approach. It is not flawless. Art Meyerhoff did not believe that his hypothesis was flawless; he was working on it, developing it, and hoped to have the chance to do so for years to come. He encouraged his colleagues to continue thinking about the hypothesis and wanted them to continue to improve it with their own data and ideas. Ifhe were here today, he would ask no less of you, the reader. He also understood the attraction to the hypothesis of plate tectonics, and knew well why it was so popular. His debates grew not out of the questions that plate tectonics can answer, but out of the questions it leaves unanswered.

Among the scientists my father admired most was Sir Harold Jeffreys, who began his 1974 paper entitled "Theoretical Aspects of Continental Drift" ( AAPG Memoir 23 )with the following quotation (p. 395):

"Forty million school books can't be wrong," Grant said after a little. "Can't they?" "Well, can they?" "I used to think so, but I'm not so sure nowadays."

Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Time, p. 92

Perhaps we should never be too sure.

Donna Meyerhoff Hull April 28, 1996

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the following persons for their critiques of parts of the following pUblication, assistance in acquiring literature, maps, charts, and data, and for thoughts and ideas concerning the surge-tectonics hypothesis. Their time, patience, and willingness to be involved in this effort will always be appreciated. They include: K Alam, H.E.F. Amundsen, V. Anfiloff, E. Atalik, D.L. Baars, RN. Bergantino, A Boucot, A Bowsher, H. Duque Caro, S.E. Cebull, RE. Chapman, S. Chatterjee, 1K Davidson, S.B. Devine, 1M Dickins, AT. Donnelly, AK Dubey, Ch. Ducloz, R Freitag, AC. Grant, P.E. Gretener, Mrs. Fu Jing, Y. Fujita, N. Guler-Quazir, AK Hamilton, c.w. Hatten, 1R Hertzler, N. Hotton III, MIlich, MS. Kashfi, T.T. Khoo, K Kis, F.G. Koch, F. Kottlowski, K Krauskopf, H. Le Grand, D. Love, P.D. Lowman, A Lowrie, w.D. Lowry, B.D.A. and M Mantura, Martin, 1C. Meyerhoff, RD. Meyerhoff, P. Miles, MT. Moussa, W. Muehlberger, S. Nagurno, W.W. Olive, V. Raiverman, H. Ramberg, D. Rigassi, T.S.M Ranneft, M Schalk, V.M Seiders, R Shanker, D.R. Shawe, W. Stannage, KM. Storetvedt, P.M Sychev, BK Tan, C. Teichert, W.A Thomas, G.A Thompson, P. Trurnit, T.A Tuezov, G.B. Udintsev, Lee Woodward, C.T. Wrucke, W.L. Youngquist and B. Xingbi. As noted in earlier papers of this hypothesis, our acknowledgment of these colleagues in no way implies agreement with our views, although it is encouraging that some do. A special note of thanks to Barbara M. Christy of the Library of Congress for her moral support and for her help in finding many, many publications over a twenty-year period. We thank Kathryn L. Meyerhoff, Ernestine Voyles, Sally Reid, and Joyce Moon for contributing so much time and energy in the preparation of the manuscript and figures. Enormous thanks to Stuart and Jean Jenness of Ottawa, Canada and to Robert Hull and Suchran Taner for their encouragement and help in the long, final hours of editing.

Because of the death of the senior author in the early stages of the preparation of this book, the remaining authors selected some excerpts and figures from previous publications by AA Meyerhoff and others. Reproduction permission is gratefully acknowledged from the following sources and publishers:

Excerpts and t~gures reprinted from "Origin of midocean ridges," "Reykjanes Ridge: quantitative determinations from magnetic anomalies," and "Surge tectonics: a new hypothesis of Earth dynamics," by A A Meyerhoff and others, In, New Concepts in Global Tectonics, 1992, S. Chatterjee and N. Hotton III, eds.,with permission from Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, USA

Excerpts and figures reprinted from Journal of Southeastern Asian Earth SCiences,"Surge-tectonic Evolution of Southeastern Asia: A Geohydrodynamics Approach" by A A Meyerhoff, in press (1996), with permission from Elsevier Science Ltd, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington OX5 1 GB, UK

Finally, our thanks to Kluwer Academic Publishers for the publication of this book. In doing so, they recognize that new hypotheses based on scientifically sound data deserve and, for the healthy progress of science, need to be heard and discussed, whether they flow with the mainstream of thought, or take a new and controversial approach.

xvii