2019
DOI: 10.1029/2019tc005582
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Back to Normal: Direct Evidence of the Cretan Detachment as a North‐Directed Normal Fault During the Miocene

Abstract: The Cretan Detachment represents a major tectonic contact between an Alpine high‐pressure Lower Nappe System in the footwall and an Alpine unmetamorphosed Upper Nappe System in the hanging wall. Interestingly, the kinematics and the tectonic nature of this contact is still highly controversial and has been interpreted either as a top‐to‐the S thrust or as a normal fault with top‐to‐the N and/or top‐to‐the S displacement sense. Whereas some models suggest exhumation of the high‐pressure rocks synchronous with o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
24
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 85 publications
2
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, we note that ages of ∼15 Ma appear repeatedly in the PQ, for example, rapid near‐surface cooling (Thomson et al., 1999; Thomson, Stöckhert, & Brix, 1998) and the rapid cooling event of Grasemann et al. (2019). Therefore, the 15.4 ± 0.9 Ma age might conceivably date a discrete faulting event.…”
Section: Age Datamentioning
confidence: 64%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…However, we note that ages of ∼15 Ma appear repeatedly in the PQ, for example, rapid near‐surface cooling (Thomson et al., 1999; Thomson, Stöckhert, & Brix, 1998) and the rapid cooling event of Grasemann et al. (2019). Therefore, the 15.4 ± 0.9 Ma age might conceivably date a discrete faulting event.…”
Section: Age Datamentioning
confidence: 64%
“…The latter is regarded as the contact between the Cretan high‐P nappes and the overlying, strongly thinned non‐high‐P nappes (Figure 2), and being active at or soon after the high‐P overprint (Fassoulas et al., 1994; Jolivet et al., 1996; Kilias et al., 1994; Thomson, Stöckhert, & Brix, 1998; Thomson et al., 1999). The Cretan Detachment is either regarded a monovergent top‐to‐the‐N extensional structure (Jolivet et al., 1996), a bivergent extensional fault system (Fassoulas, 1999; Fassoulas et al., 1994; Rahl et al., 2004), a passive normal fault that delimits the upper boundary of an extrusion wedge (Chatzaras et al., 2013; Grasemann et al., 2019; Ring & Yngwe, 2018; Xypolias et al., 2007), or even a Miocene thrust that postdates the exhumation of the high‐P nappes (Klein et al., 2013) (Figure 3). Ring and Yngwe (2018) further proposed a period of out‐of‐sequence thrusting at ∼17–11 Ma following normal faulting at the Cretan Detachment, implying that the Cretan Detachment is a composite structure.…”
Section: Scopementioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations