@article{CetinkaplanPourteauCandanetal.2016,
  author    = {Cetinkaplan, Mete and Pourteau, Amaury and Candan, Osman and Koralay, O. Ersin and Oberh{\"a}nsli, Roland and Okay, Aral I. and Chen, Fukun and Kozlu, Huseyin and Sengun, Firat},
  title     = {P-T-t evolution of eclogite/blueschist facies metamorphism in Alanya Massif: time and space relations with HP event in Bitlis Massif, Turkey},
  series = {International journal of earth sciences},
  volume    = {105},
  journal   = {International journal of earth sciences},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1437-3254},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00531-014-1092-8},
  pages     = {247 -- 281},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {The Alanya Massif, which is located to the south of central Taurides in Turkey, presents a typical nappe pile consisting of thrust sheets with contrasting metamorphic histories. In two thrust sheets, Sugozu and GundogmuAY nappes, HP metamorphism under eclogite (550-567 A degrees C/14-18 kbar) and blueschist facies (435-480 A degrees C/11-13 kbar) conditions have been recognized, respectively. Whereas the rest of the Massif underwent MP metamorphism under greenschist to amphibolite facies (525-555 A degrees C/6.5-7.5 kbar) conditions. Eclogite facies metamorphism in Sugozu nappe, which consists of homogeneous garnet-glaucophane-phengite schists with eclogite lenses is dated at 84.8 +/- A 0.8, 84.7 +/- A 1.5 and 82 +/- A 3 Ma (Santonian-Campanian) by Ar-40/Ar-39 phengite, U/Pb zircon and rutile dating methods, respectively. Similarly, phengites in GundogmuAY nappe representing an accretionary complex yield 82-80 Ma (Campanian) ages for blueschist facies metamorphism. During the exhumation, the retrograde overprint of the HP units under greenschist-amphibolite facies conditions and tectonic juxtaposition with the Barrovian units occurred during Campanian (75-78 Ma). Petrological and geochronological data clearly indicate a similar Late Cretaceous tectonometamorphic evolution for both Alanya (84-75 Ma) and Bitlis (84-72 Ma) Massifs. They form part of a single continental sliver (Alanya-Bitlis microcontinent), which was rifted from the southern part of the Anatolide-Tauride platform. The P-T-t coherence between two Massifs suggests that both Massifs have been derived from the closure of the same ocean (Alanya-Bitlis Ocean) located to the south of the Anatolide-Tauride block by a northward subduction. The boundary separating the autochthonous Tauride platform to the north from both the Alanya and Bitlis Massifs to the south represents a suture zone, the Pamphylian-Alanya-Bitlis suture.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{PourteauOberhaensliCandanetal.2016,
  author    = {Pourteau, Amaury and Oberh{\"a}nsli, Roland and Candan, Osman and Barrier, Eric and Vrielynck, Bruno},
  title     = {Neotethyan closure history of western Anatolia: a geodynamic discussion},
  series = {International journal of earth sciences},
  volume    = {105},
  journal   = {International journal of earth sciences},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1437-3254},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00531-015-1226-7},
  pages     = {203 -- 224},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {This paper addresses the lithosphere-scale subduction-collision history of the eastern termination of the Aegean retreating subduction system, i.e. western Anatolia. Although there is some general consensus on the protracted subduction evolution of the Aegean since the early Cenozoic at least, correlation with western Anatolia has been widely debated for more than several decades. In western Anatolia, three main tectonic configurations have been envisaged in the past years to reconstruct slab dynamics during the closure of the Neotethyan oceanic realm since the Late Cretaceous. Some authors have suggested an Aegean-type scenario, with the continuous subduction of a single lithospheric slab, punctuated by episodic slab roll-back and trench retreat, whereas others assumed a discontinuous subduction history marked by intermittent slab break-off during either the Campanian (ca. 75 Ma) or the Early Eocene (ca. 55-50 Ma). The third view implies three partly contemporaneous subduction zones. Our review of these models points to key debated aspects that can be re-evaluated in the light of multidisciplinary constraints from the literature. Our discussion leads us to address the timing of subduction initiation, the existence of hypothetical ocean basins, the number of intervening subduction zones between the Taurides and the Pontides, the palaeogeographic origin of tectonic units and the possibility for slab break-off during either the Campanian or the Early Eocene. Thence, we put forward a favoured tectonic scenario featuring two successive phases of subduction of a single lithospheric slab and episodic accretion of two continental domains separated by a continental trough, representing the eastern end of the Cycladic Ocean of the Aegean. The lack of univocal evidence for slab break-off in western Anatolia and southward-younging HP/LT metamorphism in continental tectonic units (from similar to 85, 70 to 50 Ma) in the Late Cretaceous-Palaeogene period suggests continuous subduction since similar to 110 Ma, marked by roll-back episodes in the Palaeocene and the Oligo-Miocene, and slab tearing below western Anatolia during the Miocene.},
  language  = {en}
}