The Earth Inside and Out phần 6 ppt

This page intentionally left blank Russian geology and the plate tectonics revolution VICTOR E. KHAIN & ANATOLY G. RYABUKHIN M. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Vorobiovy Gory, Moscow, Russia Abstract: The suggestion of the concept of 'scientific revolution' by Thomas Kuhn in 1962 was, in itself, a significant event in the history of science, and 'crucial' episodes or 'para- digm shifts' have come to be of special interest in the history of geology (as in other sci- ences). The appearance of a new paradigm is commonly associated with attempts by the most talented and well-established practitioners to consolidate or sustain the position of the previously prevailing paradigm. For almost 40 years, global theories in geology have been developing under the influence of mobilist ideas. It is no secret that in Russia the mobilist school initially met with serious opposition, and that even up to the present it has had numerous opponents. However, Western, and especially popular, scientific literature usually exaggerates the intensity of the situation and underestimates the contribution of Russian geologists and geophysicists to the development of mobilism and plate tectonics. The present paper describes some of the debates in Russia concerning mobilist doctrines, the work done in that country in the last three decades of the twentieth century from a mobilist perspective, and various theories that had currency in Russia at the end of that century. In Russia, discussion of the principal factors of tectogenesis has had many vicissitudes in the twentieth century. During the first 70 years of the century, the dominance of vertical, as opposed to horizontal, motion of the Earth's crust was considered self-evident, and the con- trary view was regarded as merely the next step in the progress of science. Nevertheless, at present, plate tectonics occupies a defining pos- ition in Russian models of tectogenesis - though there are also alternative mobilist concepts that attract support in that country. The aim of this paper is to show the true state of affairs in this field in a retrospective sense, and the conceptual design and principal directions of the ideas that have been developed in Russia in the second half of the twentieth century, and which have adherents there at the end of the century. The beginnings The idea of continental drift formulated by Alfred Wegener reached Russia only after World War I, when the Russian version of his famous book Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane was published first in 1922 in Berlin, then in 1925 in Moscow, and more recently in 1984 in Leningrad. The forewords and commen- taries to the second and third editions were written by famous Russian geologists (Profes- sors Georgy Mirchink, Peter Kropotkin and Pavel Voronov). Wegener's publication was received with interest and even sympathy by several eminent Russian Earth scientists includ- ing the geologist Aleksey Pavlov, the palaeon- tologist and stratigrapher Aleksey Borissyak, the leading palaeobotanist African Krishto- fovich, and several others. In 1931, Boris Lichkov from Leningrad University even pub- lished the title, Movements of Continents and Climates of the Earth's Past, based on the notion of continental drift. Borissyak considered that revising of an actual material within the framework of the hypothesis of continental drift on fold belts and especially the circum-Pacific one represented weighty argument in favour of Wegener's theory. He wrote that: 'it is necessary to recog- nize, that the little done in this line has already given brilliant results, and that this theory is born powerfully armed' (cited after Borissyak 1922, p. 102). Mobilist reconstructions were used in the lectures on palaeobotany by Krishtofovich to account for plant distributions and the migra- tions of flora. Meanwhile, prior to the mid-1930s, a number of the fold-belts in Russia (then USSR) were explored, and the existence of nappe structures was established in the Northern and Central Urals, in the Greater Caucasus and in Trans- baikalia. Mobilist works, such as those of Emile Argand and Rudolf Staub, were translated and published in Russia. But this trend was reversed at the end of the 1930s, mainly under the influence of Michael Tetyayev, an influential and eloquent professor at the Leningrad Mining Institute. He strongly criticized not only continental drift, but also the Suessian contraction hypothesis, and in general the assumption of any major role for horizontal From: OLDROYD, D. R. (ed.) 2002. The Earth Inside and Out: Some Major Contributions to Geology in the Twentieth Century. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 192,185-198. 0305-8719/02/$15.00 © The Geological Society of London 2002. 186 VICTOR E. KHAIN & ANATOLY G. RYABUKHIN movements in the history of the Earth's crust. He considered vertical, oscillatory movements to be the principal type of tectonic movements and horizontal ones as merely subsidiary to, and derivative from, vertical movements. He quickly found a powerful supporter in his disciple Vladimir Beloussov. But it was not only Tetyayev and Beloussov who criticized the mobilistic theories at that time. The leader of the Moscow school of tec- tonicians, Nikolay Shatsky, presented a paper to the Geological and Geophysical Sections of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1946 which argued strongly against Wegener's hypothesis. Shatsky's main arguments had to do with what he took to be the contradictions between Wegener's theory and the concept of geosyn- clines and platforms. He pointed to the existence of deep faults, apparently crossing both the crust and upper mantle and acting over several geo- logical periods, with the consequent inheritance of older structures by younger ones. Specifically, he was concerned that if Wegener's theory were correct the suture between the Andean geosyn- cline and South American platform would now be in the area of the Atlantic Ocean, so that deep earthquakes would be expected to occur there, contrary to what is known to be the case. The head of the third, Siberian, school of Russian tectonicians, Michael Usov, was also amongst Wegener's opponents. After the basic work by Alexander Peive was published in 1945, the idea of deep-seated faults became popular in Russia (USSR). This concept considered such faults as passing from the crust directly into the mantle, which suggested a close and fixed connection between these two layers such as to exclude any possible 'slippage' or lateral movement of the crust with respect to the mantle. As mentioned, Shatsky's arguments depended on the idea of faults extending from the crust into the mantle. In consequence, at the beginning of the 1950s practically all the leading geologists and geo- physicists in Russia were opposed to continental drift. This position was expressed in a document published in 1951 on behalf of a group of eminent Moscow Earth scientists, which, after discussion, came to the conclusion that the 'fundamental and most universal tectonic move- ments of the Earth's crust are vertical (oscilla- tory) movements' and the 'large horizontal displacements of continents suggested in the light of Wegener's ideas definitely have not occurred' (cited after Yury Kossygin 1983, p. 9). It is rather curious that among the proponents of this document were Kropotkin and Peive, who not long after became supporters of mobilism. In this period of 'fixist reaction', as it has been called by Rudolf Triimpy (1988) who noticed its manifestation also in Western countries, there was a definite tendency to denigrate or deny the existence of nappe structures, previously identi- fied in some of the fold belts of the USSR. More- over, when Soviet geologists began the exploration of the Ukrainian Carpathians, which became part of the Soviet territory, they reached the conclusion that the nappes sug- gested earlier by their predecessors from Poland and Czechoslovakia did not exist. Only Profes- sor Oleg Vyalov from Lvov opposed this view. But Beloussov, who obtained permission to visit the Austrian Alps during the Soviet occupation, co-authored a paper with his disciples Michael Gzovsky and Arcady Goriachev in which he rejected the 'nappist' interpretations of the structure of the Alps, declaring that the expo- sure of rocks in this region was insufficient to allow identification of such complicated struc- tures, owing to the extensive glacial deposits. It was only many years later during an excursion in the Swiss Alps under the leadership of Triimpy - in which Victor Khain (one of the authors of the present paper) participated - that Beloussov accepted the nappe interpretation of the Alpine structures. The tectonists Alexei Bogdanov and Mikhail Muratov, when visiting the Western Carpathians in 1956, arrived at the same con- clusion concerning the Carpathian fold system after having previously denied it when working in the Ukrainian Carpathians. First steps That was how matters stood by the end of the 1950s. But then the trend of thought changed again, though at first only for a minority of geologists. Russian geology displayed a ten- dency towards a closer and more accurate obser- vation of phenomena that implied horizontal displacements in the Earth's crust, such as over- thrusts (nappes) and large transcurrent faults. The important role of strike-slip faults and over- thrusts was stressed by Peive (1960) in his report to the 21st International Geological Congress in Copenhagen. These observations resulted in the publication of a volume entitled Faults and Hori- zontal Movements of the Earth's Crust, edited by Peive (1963), as well as a book by Kropotkin and Kseniya Shahvarostova (1965) entitled Geo- logical Structure of the Pacific Mobile Belt. Still earlier, in 1958, Kropotkin had published a paper with a reviewing palaeomagnetic investi- gations, noting their importance in evaluating horizontal displacements of the continents. Thus Kropotkin (1958, 1969) was the first Russian (Soviet) scientist to employ palaeomagnetic RUSSIAN GEOLOGY AND PLATE TECTONICS 187 data as an indication of continental drift and he pointed to their correlation with palaeoclimatic data. Then followed the works by the first Russian (Soviet) explorers of Antarctica (Pavel Voronov 1967, 1968; Sergey Ushakov & Khain 1965), who revived the concept of Gondwana in its mobilistic version. After visiting the Balkan countries and impressed by the role of ophiolites in their struc- ture, Peive published in 1969 a famous article entitled 'Oceanic crust of the geological past'. This proved to be a turning point in the study of the structure and evolution of the fold systems of the USSR. Recognition of ophiolites, large over- thrusts and nappes followed one after another in the various fold edifices of the vast country, from the Carpathians to Kamchatka and Sakhalin. The best examples of ophiolites were found and described by Andrey Knipper in the Lesser Cau- casus (Knipper 1983) and by a group of researchers in the Urals (Savelieva & Saveliev 1977). In 1967-1968 the neo-mobilistic concept of plate tectonics was definitively formulated in the famous set of papers in the Journal of Geophys- ical Research (translated and published in Russia in 1974) and the no less famous paper on the revolution in Earth sciences by J. Tuzo Wilson (1968), But Beloussov (1970) promptly replied to this paper, strongly opposing the new ideas. This polemic was discussed by Khain (1970) in the Soviet magazine Priroda (Nature). Though he had some reservations, Khain shared Wilson' s perspective and in the same year he published the basic postulates of plate tectonics models for the first time in the Soviet literature (Khain 1970). Meanwhile, two geophysicists, Sergey Ushakov and Oleg Sorokhtin, became the first adherents of the new concept among Russian specialists in this field of research (their activity successfully continues at a very high level even today, see below). Sorokhtin's PhD thesis on the global evolution of the Earth in 1972 was the first of its kind and was published in 1974 (Sorokhtin 1974). The same year saw the publication of Ushakov's first monograph: Structure and Evol- ution of the Earth (Ushakov 1974). These were the first important works in the Russian literature in which plate tectonics ideas were further developed and connected to those of the global evolution of the Earth. Sorokhtin argued that the tectonic evolution of the Earth, manifested in the lithosphere by plate tectonics, is based on differentiation of the material at the mantle/core boundary, with iron oxide flowing down into the core and silicate melt ascending into the asthenosphere. The layering of the Earth within the mantle and the core was further analysed mathematically by Vladimir Keondjian and Andrey Monin (1976). Sorokhtin also attempted to estimate the duration of a com- plete convection cycle in the mantle and he identified this cycle with tectonic cycles. This convection was considered as not purely a thermal process but included a chemical-density component. Sorokhtin was also the first to put forward the idea of two types of mantle convec- tion - one-cellular and two-cellular phases - regularly alternating in the course of the Earth's history. The first type of phase was thought to be associated with the formation of the Pangaea super-continent. Subsequently, this idea became widely accepted, both in Russia and in the Western literature (see, for instance, Nance et al. 1988). Among Russian geologists Lev Zonenshain, who was already well known for his work on the tectonics of Siberia and Mongolia, became one of the first and most active proponents of plate tectonics. In the years after he joined the Insti- tute of Oceanology of the Academy of Sciences he assumed a real leadership in this field. In 1976, together with Mikhail Kuzmin and Valery Moralev, he published Global Tectonics, Mag- matism and Metallogeny, and in 1979 with Leonid Savostin Geodynamics: An Introduction, the first detailed exposition of plate tectonic principles in the Russian literature. Two research groups at the geological faculty of the M. Lomonosov Moscow University were particularly concerned with developing and applying plate tectonics theory. One was organ- ized in the department of geophysics under Vsevolod Fedynsky, and the other in the museum of Earth sciences under the leadership of Sergey Ushakov. The first group concentrated its efforts on developing physical models of the internal development of the Earth, defining the mechanism of motion of lithospheric plates (Fedynsky, Sergey Ushakov, Yury Galushkin, Evgeny Dubinin, Alexandr Shemenda); on global palaeoclimatic reconstructions in the context of plate tectonics, but with special refer- ence to the USSR (Nicolay Yasamanov, Ushakov); and on the development of geody- namic models to account for the distribution of mineral deposits (Alexandr Kovalev, Ushakov, Galushkin). The second group was organized in the department of dynamic geology under the leadership of Khain. The members of this group chiefly gave their attention to the role and value of plate tectonics in the formulation of a general theory of tectogenesis (Khain, Mikhail Lomize, 188 VICTOR E. KHAIN & ANATOLY G. RYABUKHIN Mikhail Volobuev, Nicolay Bozhko), studying the evolution of the main structural elements of the Earth's crust and the regional application of plate tectonics theory (Khain, Lomize, Volobuev, Bozhko, Nicolay Koronovsky, Anatoly Ryabukhin), and also in applying this concept to petroleum geology (Khain, Boris Sokolov). Resistance to plate tectonics and its reasons But the expansion of new mobilist ideas in geology met strong opposition in Russia (USSR), mainly from the influential scientists of the older generation - academicians, professors and heads of geological surveys. There were different reasons for such opposition, both objective and subjective. One of them was the popularity of the fixist concept of the evolution of the Earth's crust, elaborated by Vladimir Beloussov, who continued to defend it resolutely and ingeniously until his last days. It is necessary to remark that Beloussov's scientific authority and influence were great not only in Russia. In memoirs about Beloussov, Tuzo Wilson has described him as an inspirational figure: the man 'who at one time headed the Russian scientific collective, who proposed the Upper Mantle Project, who presided at the World Geophysics Congress in 1963 in California, and who . became one of the most imaginative members of the international community of scientists' (Wilson 1999, p. 192). Another reason for the success of fixist ideas in Russia was that they could be applied rather successfully to the vast platform regions of that country, where the role of vertical movements was much more evident than that of horizontal movements. Third, the fact that the plate tec- tonic theory was born in the West and not in the USSR caused some Soviet geologists to be prej- udiced against it, since they had been brought up in the conviction that every progressive step in science had first been accomplished in their own country. But the Western origin of plate tec- tonics was quite natural, for Western scientists were the first to obtain access to new data con- cerning oceans, whereas Soviet science devel- oped in relative isolation for quite a long period of time. And fourth, the majority of the old generation of the leading Soviet scientists, with their steady fixist mentality, not only never sought to stimulate interest in the new ideas, but actively opposed them. Even so, vigorous discussions broke out between defenders and opponents of plate tec- tonics. The first such discussion was organized in 1972 by the department of geology, geophysics and geochemistry of the USSR Academy of Sci- ences. Kropotkin and Khain spoke in favour of plate tectonics, and Beloussov against it. Other meetings and discussions followed. The number of people adopting plate tectonics steadily grew, but at each annual session of the National Tec- tonic Committee, plate tectonics was vigorously attacked. Zonenshain organized special confer- ences, but they only attracted those who were already believers in plate tectonics. The first conference took place in 1987 and five others followed within a two-year interval. In fact, these conferences were quite successful. The number of participants reached 300 and the second and following meetings were attended by several leading figures from the international community. Yet while the world community of geologists celebrated the 'silver anniversary' of plate tec- tonics in 1988, a number of papers appeared in our literature which not only posed doubt on the philosophy, but denied the very idea of large horizontal motion of the Earth's crust. The dis- putes went on at the 'All-Union' tectonic con- ferences, and at meetings at M. Lomonosov Moscow State University. Within the framework of conferences on the 'Main problems of geology' held at the geological faculty of the M. Lomonosov Moscow University there were lec- tures by the proponents and opponents of plate tectonics, and theoretical discussions that attracted a large audience from amongst the students. The main theoretical discussion became heated: between Beloussov and his fol- lowers, advocates of the orthodox fixist idea, and Khain and his supporters, developing mobilist model of evolution of lithosphere. The debates attracted considerable interest and attention and were not confined to within the walls of the university, being reflected in numerous publi- cations (e.g. Vladimir Smirnov 1989; Evgeny Milanovsky 1984). Vladimir Legler (1989) has made an interesting analysis of the publications in two popular Russian geological journals, Geo- tectonics and the Bulletin of Moscow Society of Naturalists, Geological Section for the years 1970-1979. During this period, 443 articles were published about theoretical problems of geotec- tonics and historical geology in Geotectonics, of which 400 (90%) were anti-plate tectonics; while of 154 articles in the Bulletin, 148 (97%) were opposed to the theory. The new 'splash' of discussion was expressed in the publication of a number of critical articles by the professors of leading Russian geological Hochschulen. Several professors from the RUSSIAN GEOLOGY AND PLATE TECTONICS 189 Moscow Geo-exploration Institute and the M. Lomonosov Moscow University, pointed to difficulties and inconsistencies that were found in the detailed application of the plate tectonics model, casting doubt on the theoretical validity of the concept and the possibility of its appli- cation (Vladimir Karaulov 1988; Oleg Mazarovich et al 1988-1989). Koronovsky (1989) and Khain (1990) from M. Lomonosov Moscow University responded, acknowledging that there were difficulties in the implementation of the model in the investi- gation of complicated tectonic structures, but pointed to the inconsistencies in the methodical and methodological approaches of their oppon- ents in the solution of the main theoretical prob- lems of geology. The principal value of this discussion, in our view, was that the participants were educating not just one generation of geolo- gists, but were influencing the outlook of the new generation of geologists, which in turn should determine the future progress of geology in Russia. Plate tectonic reconstructions, global and regional Despite these not very favourable conditions, mobilism in general, and the plate tectonics concept in particular, kept attracting more and more workers. As soon as Zonenshain joined the Institute of Oceanology, he and his team started working on global and regional palinspastic reconstructions. Global reconstruc- tions for the whole of the Phanerozoic and for the Late Precambrian were published (Zonen- shain & Gorodnitsky 1977). A series of recon- structions for the USSR territory was completed and partly published. Zonenshain initiated the work on the Geodynamic Map of the USSR, on the scale of 1:2 500 000, one of the first of its kind in the world. It was presented at the 28th Inter- national Geological Congress in Washington DC in 1989. It was also Zonenshain who pub- lished a scheme of the modern plate tectonics of the USSR and adjacent regions, in which a series of small plates and microplates was featured, south and east of the Eurasian plate. A similar pattern is shown in the map of the recent tec- tonics of China, published by Ma Xingyuan (1988). The propagation of mobilist views on the structure and evolution of fold belts of the USSR and Eurasia was promoted by a group of tectonicians of the Geological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Peive, Knipper, Yuri Pushcharovsky, Alexander Mossakovsky, Sergey Samygin, Andrey Perfiliev, Sergey Ruzhentsev, Sergey Sokolov, and others). The same group published the Tectonic Map of Northern Eurasia on a scale of 1: 5 000 000, and the Tectonic Map of the Urals and Central Kaza- khstan on a larger scale. At the present time, nappes have been recognized in all fold-belts of Russia (USSR), and even in the platform base- ment. Among works worth mentioning there are also regional plate tectonic reconstructions on the Caucasus (Khain, Shota Adamiya, Irakly Gamkrelidze, Manana Lordkipanidze, Lomize, and others), on the Urals (Svyatoslav Ivanov, Victor Puchkov, Zonenshain, and others), and on the NE USSR (Nikita Bogdanov, Solomon Tilman, Leonid Parfenov, and others). Later Zonenshain, together with Victor Koro- teev, organized a collective study of the history of the Urals. It was the world's first palaeo- oceanological expedition on a continent. The results were summarized in Zonenshain et al. (1984). An even larger project was realized by a group of Russian and Georgian geologists together with a French team, having as its aim a compilation of a series of palinspastic maps of the Tethys. Leaders of this project were Xavier Le Pichon from the French side, and Zonen- shain and Vladimir Kazmin from Russia; the map atlas and the explanatory text were pub- lished simultaneously in both countries, and in the international journal Tectonophysics (Aubouin et al. 1986). At the same time and subsequently, plate tec- tonic models were elaborated for other fold systems of the USSR - Tian Shan (Vitaly Burtman et al.), Verkhoyansk Chukchi (Leonid Parfenov), Koryak Upland (Sergey Ruzhentsev, Sergey Sokolov), Transbaikalia and Mongolia (Ivan Gordienko), and for the Arctic region as a whole (Zonenshain and Lev Natapov). All these regional works were summarized in a mono- graph on the plate tectonic synthesis of the terri- tories of the USSR, published simultaneously in our country and in the USA by Zonenshain, Kuzmin, and Natapov (Zonenshain et al. 1990). Alexander Karasik (1980) deciphered the linear magnetic anomalies of the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean. Palinspastic reconstruc- tions were largely favoured by palaeomagnetic studies made by Alexandr Kravchinsky (1977), Alexey Khramov (1982) and Diamar Pechersky. Using palaeomagnetic data, Mikhail Bazhenov & Burtman (1982; Burtman 1984) demonstrated the secondary nature of the Carpathian and Pamir arcs. Khain (1985) provided evidence to show that the opening of Meso-Cenozoic oceans proceeded not gradually but stepwise, segment 190 VICTOR E. KHAIN & ANATOLY G. RYABUKHIN by segment, these segments being separated from each other by large transform faults which he called 'magistral'. Important conclusions were drawn concern- ing the connection between magmatism and metamorphism and plate tectonics. Contri- butions include the works by Nikolay Dobretsov (1980), Oleg Bogatikov et al. (1987) and Koronovsky & Diomina (1999). Alexander Lisitsin (1988) established general regularities of the sedimentation in oceans, connected with plate tectonic activities, including the avalanche sedimentation of turbidites on continental margins. Development of the plate tectonic concept In the 1980s, Russian mobilists started concen- trating their efforts on as yet unsolved problems of plate tectonics. One of these was the question of 'plate tectonics manifestations' in the Pre- cambrian, especially in the Early Precambrian. As is well known, opinions on this issue are still divided. While some scientists suggest that plate tectonics phenomena were active already in the Early Precambrian and even in the Archaean, others maintain that its manifestations began only with the Late Precambrian. In the Soviet literature, the first point of view found such advocates as Chermen Borukayev (in his mono- graph Precambrian Structures and Plate Tec- tonics, 1985) and Andrey Monin (The Early Geological History of the Earth, 1987). A some- what different interpretation is presented in the book by Khain & Bozhko (Historical Geotec- tonics: The Precambrian, 1988). The authors of this latter book point to the evolution of plate tectonics itself during the Precambrian period: from the embryonic stage in the Archaean through a phase of small-plate tectonics in the Early Proterozoic to full-scale plate tectonics in the Late Proterozoic. Recently, the very early stages of the Earth's evolution have been con- sidered in the works of Sorokhtin who, together with Ushakov (1988), has analysed the history of the formation of the World Ocean along with the Earth's crust. According to the calculations by these authors, plate tectonic activity started in the Early Proterozoic. The Archaean was a period of intense spreading, with the piling up of water-rich basalt plates, from which the tonalite-trondhjemite magma fused out to form the cores of Archaean shields, playing the role of subduction. Mikhail Mints (1999) analysed lithospheric parameters of the Earth and plate tectonics in the Archaean and showed that lithospheric state parameters of the Earth are characterized on the basis of geochronological data. The simatic and sialic segments of the Archaean crust were formed by 3.9-3.8 Ga BP. The Earth's surface physiography was essentially similar to that of the present, but with temperatures several tens of degrees higher than at present. Deep oceanic basins bounded segments of emergent continen- tal areas, with rugged topography. The Early Archaean 'continents' were originally small but rapidly increased in size. Approximately 3.3-3.0 Ga BP, the lithosphere beneath the major cratons (>0.5 X 10 6 km 2 ) was up to 150-200 km thick. The thickness and temperature distri- bution within the continental crust and subcon- tinental lithospheric mantle as well as the temperature of descending mantle flows were close to those at present. At least 3.0 Ga BP, the Archaean continents were characterized by rigidity comparable to that of the present-day continental plates. The mafic-ultramafic compo- sition of the 'oceanic' segments of the litho- sphere and the low temperatures of the Earth's surface probably gave rise to a varying buoyancy of the 'oceanic' segments that was necessary for drawing them into mantle convection. By 3.8 Ga BP, the summits of volcanic edifices in the oceans remained below sea level, which accounts for the hydration of rocks in the oceanic lithosphere. These assumptions suggest that plate tectonics had been under way since 3.9-3.8 Ga BP, with the exception of intraconti- nental processes, which cannot be confidently recognized before 3.1-2.9 Ga BP. Another issue is intra- and inter-plate tec- tonics. Khain (1986) showed that the forms in which this tectonic activity (and magmatism) is manifested are various and are not confined to a single mechanism, e.g. the mechanism of mantle plumes and hot spots. In the work by Zonen- shain and Kuzmin (1983), the above concept was enlarged to that of 'hot fields'; in an article by Zonenshain (1988), their origin was suggested to be connected to convection in the lower mantle. In this context, of special interest is the origin of the Central Asian intracontinental mountain belt. Fixist- or 'semi-fixist'-minded geophysicists associate this origin with the ascent of 'anomal- ous', that is, heated-up and low density, mantle, whereas mobilists interpret this belt as a product of the interaction of the large Eurasian and Indian lithospheric plates with a piling up of intermediate small plates and microplates. A noteworthy contribution has been made by Leopold Lobkovsky (1988) who suggested 'two- layer plate tectonics'. According to this theory, when large plates collide, the material of the lower, viscoplastic part of the crust is forced into the zone of collision, with simultaneous RUSSIAN GEOLOGY AND PLATE TECTONICS 191 disintegration of the upper, brittle part of the crust into smaller plates, which are thrust over one another. One of the important phenomena of intra- plate tectonics is continental rifting. For the last ten years, its study has become a major geotec- tonic problem. The most important work on this topic in this country has been accomplished by Milanovsky (1983a,b, 1987a,b), Kazmin and Andrey Grachev. The works of Kazmin, who had studied the East African rift system for many years, form one of the most extended studies from the plate tectonics point of view. Eugeny Mirlin (1985) analysed the whole trend of the evolution of rift zones from narrow downwarps of continental crust to the formation of mature ocean basins with mid-ocean ridges, in connection with the kinematics of lithospheric plates. He stated that the peculiarities of the morphology and deep structure of mid-ocean ridges depend on the uneven rate of the ascent of mantle material during the divergence of plates, which, in turn, depends on the variation of the spreading rate, but this dependence has a non-linear character. A series of studies by geophysicists from M. Lomonosov Moscow State University has been devoted to the mathematical and physical simu- lation of zones of divergence and convergence of lithospheric plates. These works concern, in par- ticular, overlapping spreading centres (She- menda & Grokholsky 1988), transform faults (Dubinin 1987), and intra-plate deformations of the Indian Ocean (Shemenda, 1989). The origin of marginal seas is a special problem that has been speculated upon in a monograph by Nikita Bogdanov (1988), in the works of Sorokhtin, and in some works of the aforementioned physical group in Moscow State University. Opinions on the evolution of marginal seas are divided, just as they are elsewhere in the world. Zonenshain and Leonid Savostin (1979) link the formation of marginal-sea basins to the movement of the overhanging plates above the subduction zones anchored in the mantle. Meanwhile, Anatoly Sharaskin, Zuram Zakariadze and Nikita Bog- danov point to a certain independence in time of the opening of marginal seas and the process of subduction, which should also imply the auton- omy of the mechanism of formation of these basins. In recent years, the attention of researchers has been increasingly focused on problems of deep-Earth dynamics, mainly under the influ- ence of results of seismic tomography. Zonen- shain, in a work together with Kuzmin and Natalia Bocharova (1991), examined the problem of hot spots and proposed to distin- guish also 'hot fields' using the Pacific Ocean area as an example. He expressed the view that plume tectonics in the context of the whole solar system is more important than plate tectonics, as plume tectonics are manifest in all the planets. Nikolay Dobretsov with Anatoly Kirdyashkin (1994) elaborated a theory of layered mantle convection, supporting it by modelling. Dobretsov also pointed out the periodicity of tectonic and magmatic activity. Khain has tried to demonstrate the evolution of the plate tectonics concept through the course of its application over a quarter of century (Khain 1988). In another paper (1989) he expressed the view that the time is ripe for the replacement of plate tectonics by a more uni- versal model of global geodynamics, taking into account the processes in the deep interior of our planet and their different manifestations in different Earth layers. A similar opinion was also put forward by Zonenshain and Pushcharovsky. These researchers are con- vinced that we are on the verge of a new para- digm in the Earth sciences. On the basis of analysis of global geological processes and interpretation of the results of numerical experiments, Valery Trubitsyn has developed new concepts of global tectonics, updating generally accepted ideas about the neotectonics of oceanic lithospheric plates by attachment of continents. In the modern plate tectonics theory the continents are regarded as passive elements included in oceanic plates, and without an essential influence on global geody- namic processes. But numerical experiments have also shown how the 'floating' continents control global geological processes in forming the 'face of the Earth'. Trubitsyn (1998) analysed this process and compared the Earth to a heat engine, in which the mantle plays the role of the boiler; the oceanic plates have the role of movable parts; and continents act like floating valves regulating heat loss. Very recently, Mikhail Goncharov (2000) has proposed a 'multi-order level' model for the evolution of the Earth. He distinguishes a hier- archical schema for the convective processes in the mantle. Large-scale convection of the 'first order' occurs within the bulk of the mantle; meso-scale convection of the 'second order' takes place within the upper mantle; while small- scale convection of the 'third rank' takes place within the uppermost mantle. Global ('first order'-convection) is responsible for the move- ment of continents (with their c. 400 km roots) and for the creation and break-up of Pangaea. 'Second order' convection occurs only beneath oceans and is responsible for spreading and 192 VICTOR E. KHAIN & ANATOLY G. RYABUKHIN subduction. 'Third order' convection takes place as two-stage convection in the asthenosphere + lithosphere, and is held responsible for the generation of systems of transversal rises and depressions in spreading zones - rises being cut by rift valleys and troughs coinciding with trans- form faults - and of systems of longitudinal rises and depressions in collision zones. In both cases, rises are accompanied by roots, and there are thought to be 'anti-roots' beneath depressions. Third order' convection is also held responsible for mantle diapirism beneath back-arc basins and intercontinental ones (Goncharov 2000). As in other countries, plate tectonics was soon successfully applied in Russia to other branches of the Earth sciences and in particular to petrol- ogy and sedimentology. In petrology, the works of Oleg Bogatikov and his team (Bogatikov et al. 1987) should be noted, and in sedimentology the fundamental monographs of Alexander Lisitsin (1988) on oceanic sedimentation have been par- ticularly significant. Plate tectonics applied to mineral deposits A major connection in the distribution of mineral deposits with plate tectonics has attracted the attention of Soviet and Russian geologists. Alexander Kovalev was a pioneer and active contributor to this problem. His first article on this subject appeared in 1972, and his monograph Mobilism and Criteria of Geological Prospecting was published in 1978 (2nd edition, revised and supplemented, 1985). Global Tec- tonics, Magmatism, and Metallogeny by Zonen- shain, Kuzmin, and Moralev appeared somewhat earlier in 1976. Andrey Monin and Sorokhtin (1982) described the mechanism of formation of Early Proterozoic iron-ore deposits from the plate tectonics point of view. The same plate tectonics interpretation has been deployed in the work by Sorokhtin (1987), regarding the origin of diamond-bearing kimberlites, as well as alkaline-ultramafic complexes and associated mineral deposits. It is worth mentioning, however, that the majority of leading Russian metallogenists were for a long time biased against the idea of plate tectonics. Along with the general reasons men- tioned above, their attitude towards this theory was much influenced by specific features of regional metallogeny, such as the order of concentration of certain metals in tectonic com- plexes occurring in certain regions. This sequence was considered to be suggestive of the absence of large horizontal displacements, and the importance of deep faults and block struc- tures in the distribution of deposits was inter- preted as evidence of the domination of vertical movements. Actually, neither of these aspects was in contradiction with mobilism, and the manifest zoning in the distribution of certain groups of metals in the Pacific belt, noted by Sergey Smirnov (1955), is well explained from a plate tectonics perspective. The introduction of new mobilistic ideas has been particularly successful in the field of oil and gas geology. Sorokhtin, Ushakov, and Vsevolod Fedynsky (1974) supported the ideas of Hollis Hedberg about the generation of hydrocarbons in subduction zones. Other studies in this field were focused on the important role of zones of rifting, with their elevated heat and fluid flows. A geodynamic classification of oil and gas basins in general, and of those of the USSR in particu- lar, was proposed by Boris Sokolov & Khain (1982), Evgeny Kucheruk & Elizaveta Alieva (1983) and Kucheruk & Ushakov (1984). The idea of possible oil and gas potential in over- thrust zones started to attract adherents with the work of Khain, Konstantin Kleshchev, Sokolov & Vasily Shein (1988). Starting with the early 1980s, the plate tec- tonics concept has been progressively applied to the analysis of seismicity in subduction zones. Lobkovsky, Sorokhtin & Shemenda (1980) and Lobkovsky & Boris Baranov (1982, 1984) have studied the seismotectonic phenomena of the inner slopes of deep-sea trenches. These studies have revealed, in particular, possible reasons for tsunamigenic earthquakes. A so-called 'key- board' (Klaviatur} model to account for the most violent earthquakes was put forward by Lobkovsky as a clue to understanding the nature of seismic cycles in subduction zones. He envis- aged subduction occurring in front of an island arc, the region between the subducting plate and the islands existing as separate blocks, divided by faults perpendicular to the line of the islands. As subduction proceeded, the blocks act separ- ately from one another, are individually sub- merged, and sequentially yield to the pressure, each eventually being repulsed from, or spring- ing back from, the island arc. The model was developed in his subsequent works, together with Boris Baranov (1982, 1984: seismotectonic aspects), and Vladimir Kerchman (1986, 1988: mathematical modelling). Plate tectonics in geological education For many years, teaching of the geological disci- plines in all Russian educational institutions was based on the concept of the geosynclinal evol- ution of the Earth's crust so that even now mobilist ideas have not found support among RUSSIAN GEOLOGY AND PLATE TECTONICS 193 the majority of high school teachers of the country. Formerly, the course on geotectonics at the M. Lomonosov Moscow State University was read for the geology students by Beloussov. In his lectures all mobilist ideas were referred to as an amusing historical episode in the develop- ment of geology, and plate tectonics theory was just a temporary phenomenon in the evolution of our science. But at the same time and in the same faculty Khain presented mobilist ideas to students of geophysics and geochemistry. The position radically changed after the 27th Inter- national Geological Congress in Moscow (1984). A special conference of the geological faculty of the M. Lomonosov Moscow State University revised the curriculums of the fundamental geo- logical disciplines and the programmes of all the fundamental disciplines of the geosciences were reworked. Courses in 'general geology', 'his- torical geology', 'geotectonics', 'history and methodology of geologic sciences' and others all included plate tectonics. Beloussov refused to read his course according to the new pro- gramme; and so Khain began to read the lectures on geotectonics for the geologists instead of him (Ryabukbin 1993). In 1985, a textbook entitled General Geotec- tonics by Khain and Alexander Mikhaylov was used along with the earlier empirical concepts of evolution of structures of the Earth and expounded the modern mobilist ideas in detail. In subsequent years the new textbooks for the main geological disciplines were published, which are now used in all higher educational institutions of the country: General Geology (Alexandra Yakushova, Khain & Vladimir Slavin, 1995); Geotectonics with Basic Principles of Geodynamics (Khain & Lomize, 1995); His- torical Geology (Khain, Nicolay Koronovsky & Nicolay Yasamanow); History and Methodology of Geological Sciences (Khain & Ryabukhin, 1997); Geology of Mineral Resources (Victor Starostin & Peter Ignatov, 1997). Some alternative views As a result of the growing evidence for, and the rising number of advocates of, plate tectonics, the number of Russian scientists taking the fixist stance has sharply decreased. The most active supporters of fixist ideas are confined to a group of scientists who were former co-workers of Beloussov at the Institute of Physics of the Earth of the USSR Academy of Sciences. This group also includes some university professors and scientists working at research institutes. However, there are now many scientists who recognize the essential role of horizontal move- ments in the evolution of the Earth's crust, and of oceanic spreading in particular. They are mobilists but do not accept the plate tectonics theory as a whole or accept it only with serious reservations. This group is quite numerous, but their views are diverse. The fruitful idea of the tectonic delamination of the lithosphere was developed in the 1980s at the Geological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It was initiated by Peive and devel- oped further by Pushcharovsky, with the active participation of Vladimir Trifonov (1990), Sergey Ruzhentsev, and others. Peive did not oppose the concept of plate tectonics, but con- sidered the idea of tectonic delamination as its useful supplement. Some of his followers attempted to find a contradiction between these two ideas, though without valid arguments. In fact, the concept of tectonic delamination of the lithosphere is gaining more and more support from seismic and magnetotelluric data. At present, this concept, which distinguishes a brittle upper over a ductile lower crust, is developing both abroad and in Russia (the works on two-layer plate tectonics by Lobkovsky and Nikolayevsky). Another concept set forth as an alternative to plate tectonics was elaborated at the Ail-Union Geological Institute in St Petersburg by Lev Krasny & Sadovsky (1988): it is the concept of 'geoblocks'. Later it converged with the notion of the fractal structure of the lithosphere, advanced in the Moscow Institute of Physics of the Earth (Mikhail Sadovsky & Valery Pis- arenko 1991). The essence of the 'geoblock' theory is very simple. It assumes that the litho- sphere is divided into a large number of blocks experiencing both vertical and horizontal move- ments with respect to each other. The latter assumption refers this theory to the mobilistic trend. It is sufficiently clear that this model is compatible with plate tectonics. The litho- spheric plates are, in a way, 'geoblocks', and initially W. J. Morgan called them so. In addition, Krasny singles out a large number of smaller 'geoblocks', many of which are sepa- rated by ancient sutures and were independent lithospheric plates in the past, especially those 'geoblocks' that formed part of the basement of old cratons. Subsequently, they could experi- ence differential movement along their border- line sutures. As for oceans, these are taken to be large segments of lithospheric plates, separated by magistral transform faults, which are inter- preted as independent 'geoblocks'. So, the ques- tion is about the actually observed divisibility of the lithosphere (which is nevertheless subordi- nate to the principal divisibility into lithospheric [...]... understanding and describing the workings of the Earth' s outer shell or, as one influential textbook (Wyllie 19 76) was titled, The Way the Earth Works,3 From one perspective, it constituted only the culmination of a series of theories of global mobilism originating with Alfred Wegener in the early years of the twentieth century Wegener, Alexander du Toit and others over a period of half a century had gathered... relationships in the British Caledonides, Scottish Journal of Geology, 35, 145-1 56 THOMPSON, M L., WHEELER, H E & DANNER, W R 1950 Middle and upper Permian fusilinids of Washington and British Columbia Contributions of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminfera Research, 1(3-4), 46- 63 WILSON, J T 1 966 Did the Atlantic close and then reopen? Nature, 211, 67 6 -68 1 WILSON, J T 1 968 Static or mobile Earth: the current... in the era's exciting discoveries; and her contributions were acknowledged While their data-gathering activities and analyses stimulated change and contributed to the revolution in the Earth sciences, Heezen and Tharp were not directly involved in the plate-tectonics revolution, but favoured expanding -Earth theory This paper examines the empirical and cartographic work relating to the ocean floors, and. .. rifting) and compression (subduction, mountain building) of the lithosphere And, speaking about the long-term tendency of change of the Earth' s volume, there is more evidence for the increase of compression rather than extension (Aslanyan 1982; Kropotkin 1971) However, the hypothesis of an expanding Earth is rather popular among certain Russian geologists RUSSIAN GEOLOGY AND PLATE TECTONICS Conclusions The. .. and the ideas of Marie Tharp (b 1920) and Bruce Heezen (1924-1977), with particular emphasis on the work of the former It details their contributions to the Earth sciences revolution of the 1 960 s, through the provision of fresh empirical information and its presentation in a form that, in itself, led to new ways of thinking about the Earth The collaborators: Tharp and Heezen Marie Tharp, one of the. .. TECTONICS AND TERRANES problems The social interests of those who had achieved positions of authority through their work on continental features might well lead them to oppose extrapolations from the sea floor to the continents These land-based Earth scientists had invested years in meticulous local mapping, fieldwork and analysis, and ever more refined synthesizing and theorizing They had thereby achieved... completely Nevertheless, progress has been made, not only in the application of plate tectonics theory to the deciphering of the geological history and structure of the territory of Russia and adjacent seas and oceans, but also in the development of the theory itself In fact, the alternative geodynamic models can be interpreted as a side-effect of the general revival of studies in the field of theoretical... Palaeozoic and Triassic, Central Metamorphic, and Eastern Klamath Each had distinctive rocks and fossils and, as one moved to the west, the belts appeared to be progressively younger Irwin recollects that it seemed clear the belts 'hadn't grown together there, they were pieces that had formed somewhere else and been brought together, I didn't know whether they were formed ten miles or a thousand miles... caused by the appearance of plate tectonics It must be acknowledged that plate tectonics represents only the tectonics of the upper parts of the solid Earth, and probably is applicable in its classic version only to our planet The present challenge is to create an authentic global geodynamic model of the Earth, and establish its place in the evolution of the planets The authors thank D Oldroyd (The University... However, neither the rocks nor other facts speak for themselves: it is the geologist who makes 'the mute stones speak' for one or another side in a controversy It is only after a controversy is settled that the 'facts of the matter' are agreed What is at the centre of arguments over the terrane concept is not a clash between rival theories but rather preferred means of extending the global theory of . flowing down into the core and silicate melt ascending into the asthenosphere. The layering of the Earth within the mantle and the core was further analysed mathematically by . forming the 'face of the Earth& apos;. Trubitsyn (1998) analysed this process and compared the Earth to a heat engine, in which the mantle plays the role of the boiler; the . for most Earth scientists the theoretical framework for understanding and describing the workings of the Earth& apos;s outer shell or, as one influential textbook (Wyllie 19 76) was