Paleomagnetic constraints on the early Miocene closure of the southern Neo-Tethys (Van region; East Anatolia): Inferences for the timing of Eurasia-Arabia collision

Generation of collision-induced Early to Middle Miocene adakitic magmas in Pertek (Tunceli) area from Eastern Anatolia postsubductional setting, Turkey

“…Similarly, Topuz et al (2019) suggested that the Early Miocene represents probably a time of continental extension and exhumation in Eastern Anatolia and NW Iran. However, recent studies (e.g., Karadenizli et al, 2016;Gülyüz et al, 2020) confirm the Miocene time of collision between Eurasian and Arabian plates, which are also consistent with the proposed model of Okay et al (2010) and Cavazza et al (2018).…”

“…The timing of the initiation of continental collision between the Arabian and Eurasian plates is still debated. Contrary to the view of Early to Middle Miocene (Okay et al, 2010;Karadenizli et al, 2016;Açlan and Altun, 2018;Gülyüz et al, 2020) and Middle Miocene periods (Cavazza et al, 2018) for the onset of collision, van Hunen andAllen (2011), McQuarrie andvan Hinsbergen (2013) and Koshnaw et al (2017) advocated that by Middle Oligocene (~ 26 -Ma), Neo-Tethys oceanic crust had been consumed, and the Arabia-Eurasia continentcontinent collision initiated. On the other hand, for the Caucasus-Iran-Anatolia (CIA) collisional zone volcanism, Lin et al (2020), proposed a double subduction scenario (e.g., Skobeltsyn et al, 2014) and double slab break-off model (Erzurum-Kars Suture Zone in Pontide at North, Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone in SE Anatolia at South), and suggested that break-off events occurred at ≈ 17 Ma (Early Miocene) at South (Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone) and ≈ 9 Ma at North (Erzurum-Kars Suture Zone).…”

“…Based on anisotropy data of magnetic susceptibility of the dated sedimentary sequences from East Anatolia, Gülyüz et al (2020) contend that the Early to Middle Miocene period marks the onset of continental (hard) collision between Eurasia and Arabia and the initiation of collision-related uplift in the region. Similarly, Karadenizli et al (2016) suggested the end of Early Miocene time for the collision of Arabian and Anatolian plates, based on the basin analysis of Central Eastern Anatolia.…”

Active tectonic stress field analysis in NW Iran-SE Turkey using earthquake focal mechanism data

“…Sufficient evidences for rotation of a block can conclude by paleomagnetic and GPS studies. The paleomagnetic study carried out in the Van area (Gülyüz et al, 2020) is restricted to Miocene time, and therefore the results of this study cannot handle as evidence for active rotation of the area. Farther west, in the Sivas and Gümüşhane areas, as well as in Kırşehir block, paleomagnetic and GPS studies indicate Ghods et al (2015)].…”

Tuzgölü Havzası’nın Geç Kretase-Günümüz arası kinematik evrimi (Orta Anadolu, Türkiye): Paleostres Çalışması

“…Post-Neotethyan evolution of the Anatolian landmass is characterized by two major tectonic processes. These are on-going convergence of Arabian plate since early?-late Miocene in the east (Burke and Şengör, 1986;Flerit et al, 2004;Gülyüz et al, 2020;Hüsing et al, 2009;Şengör et al, 1985), and a subduction system including a tear along the Hellenic and Cyprus trenches in the West (Le Pichon and Angelier, 1979;van Hinsbergen et al, 2010;Biryol et al 2011). In general, these processes result in extension and contraction in the west and east, respectively (Şengör et al, 1985).…”