Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T06:59:02.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Stratigraphical inversion in the Sulitjelma Area, Central Scandinavian Caledonides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

A. P. Boyle
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
A. J. Griffiths
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
R. Mason
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT

Summary

Major stratigraphical inversions are recognized in two parts of the Sulitjelma area, on the border of Norway and Sweden. In the Otervatn area, inversion is directly demonstrated by way-up structures in pillow lavas of the Sulitjelma Amphibolite Group. The porphyritic amphibolites of the group belong to a penecontemporaneous sheeted intrusive complex which originally underlay the pillow lavas. The other inversion, S of Sorjusjaure, is proposed in order to simplify the stratigraphical succession of the area. The inversions are both thought to belong to the inverted limb of the Gasak Nappe, which is the upper tectonic unit at Sulitjelma. Folding associated with the inversion could cause tectonic repetition of the strata-bound Sulitjelma ore horizon.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Binns, R. E. 1978. Caledonian nappe correlation and orogenic history in Scandinavia north of lat. 67 °N. Bull. geol. Soc. Am. 89, 1475–90.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gayer, R. A. 1973. Caledonian geology of Arctic Norway. In Arctic Geology (ed. Pitcher, M. G.). Oklahoma: Amer. Ass. pet. Geol.Google Scholar
Graham, C. M. 1976. Petrochemistry and tectonic significance of Dalradian metabasaltic rocks of the S.W. Scottish Highlands. Jl geol. Soc. Lond. 132, 6184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henley, K. J. 1970. The structural and metamorphic history of the Sulitjelma region, Norway, with special reference to the nappe hypothesis. Norsk geol. tidsskr. 50, 97136.Google Scholar
Kautsky, G. 1953. Der geologische Bau des Sulitelma-Salojauregebietes in den nordskandinavischen Kaledoniden. Sveriges geol. undersökning C 528 (English summary).Google Scholar
Mason, R. 1967. The field relations of the Sulitjelma gabbro, Nordland. Norsk geol. tidsskr. 47, 237–48.Google Scholar
Mason, R. 1971. The chemistry and structure of the Sulitjelma gabbro. Norges geol. undersøkelse. 269, 108–41.Google Scholar
Mason, R. 1978. Petrology of the Metamorphic Rocks. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Nicholson, R. 1971. The sedimentary breccias of the Sorjusvann region on the Norwegian-Swedish border north of Sulitjelma. Norsk geol. tidsskr. 51, 149–60.Google Scholar
Nicholson, R. & Rutland, R. W. R. 1969. A section across the Norwegian Caledonides: Bodø to Sulitjelma. Norges geol. undersøkelse. 260.Google Scholar
Roberts, D., Springer, J. & Wolff, F. C. 1972. Evolution of the Caledonides in the northern Trondheim region. Geol. Mag. 109, 133–45.Google Scholar
Strand, T. 1972. Scandinavian Caledonides. Pt. I. The Norwegian Caledonides. London: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Vogt, J. H. L. 1890. Salten og Ranen. Norges geol. undersøkelse. 3.Google Scholar
Vogt, Th. 1927. Sulitjelmafeltets Geologi og Petrografi. Norges geol. undersøkelse. 121.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. R. 1971. The timing of orogenic activity in the Bodø-Sulitjelma tract. Norges geol. undersøkelse. 269, 184190.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. R. 1973. The geological setting of the Sulitjelma ore bodies, Central Norwegian Caledonides. Econ. Geol. 68, 307–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. R. & Nicholson, R. 1973. The structural setting and geochronology of basal granitic gneisses in the Caledonides of part of Nordland, Norway. Jl geol. Soc. Lond. 129, 365–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar