GEOTECTONIC THEORY OF THE SELF-DEVELOPMENT OF EARTH’S MATTER

Acad. M. A. Usov.

1. Foundations of the geotectonic theory of the self-development of Earth’s matter.

The unsatisfactoriness of existing geotectonic theories: their inconsistency with the facts and their incorrect methodological premises, namely—the one-sided development of the Earth, or the autonomy of the part.

The life of the Earth as a celestial body under the conditions of the existence of the Earth’s crust. Geotectonic theory as a theory of the self-development of Earth’s matter. The expression of attraction and repulsion, as the basic forms of motion of matter, in the form of compression and expansion of the Earth (165)¹⁾. The adaptation of the Earth’s crust to these changes in the Earth’s volume by special movements, tectonic movements, manifested in different ways depending on the phase of the process and on the properties of the corresponding parts of the crust.

The historical connection of the geotectonic theory of the self-development of Earth’s matter with the contraction theory, once the two principal and closely interconnected shortcomings of the latter are eliminated: development through cooling and the manifestation only of compression.

The distinction of two principal phases in the cyclical self-development of Earth’s matter, as in any natural process: the phase of relatively calm quantitative development and the phase of a leap-like transition of quantity into a new quality. The continuous-discontinuous character of the development of Earth’s matter and, consequently, of geotectogenesis.

The convenience of a further exposition of the theory with a parallel critique of geologists’ views on the corresponding questions.

2. The leading role of compression in the development of the Earth.

The opinion of Tetyaev, who, simultaneously with Usov, was developing a geotectonic theory of the self-development of Earth’s matter, that folding, as a leap-like phase of geotectogenesis, is an expression of the expansion of the body of the Earth—the leading aspect

¹⁾ F. Engels. Dialectics of Nature. 1930.

in the struggle between compression and expansion after the formation of the Earth’s crust. This opinion is substantiated in the following way.

After the formation of the Earth’s crust, radial emission, as a form of repulsion, ceased, and the interaction of attraction and repulsion assumed a qualitatively different form, with the manifestation of the contradiction between the Earth’s crust and the Earth’s internal mass, which continues its development, where, as a result of compression, various kinds of energy accumulate. Consequently, if earlier compression had been dominant, now expansion became dominant, and the “material system of the Earth passes into the stage of dispersion.”

But it is not true that, in the stellar stage, the celestial body had repulsion only in the form of radial emission; according to astrophysical data, it was also expressed in expansion, in the “swelling” of the star. Further, a different qualitative expression of repulsion in the presence of a crust still does not signify the transfer of the leading role to expansion; moreover, at the present time the material system of the Earth has by no means passed into the stage of dispersion in comparison with the stellar stage, when this dispersion was constant, and compression was nevertheless dominant. The evolution of the Earth as a celestial body, expressed in its compaction, is still far from complete, and compression is dominant. Consequently, the phase of tectogenesis is expressed above all in a leap of compression. But now, more than in the stellar phase, expansion too must manifest itself, as the necessary companion of compression. The struggle between compression and expansion is accompanied by their variable success, with compression playing the leading role. This is the distinctive feature of the dialectic of geotectonics.

3. Folding as a manifestation of compression, not expansion.

The theory of Tetyaev, just as one-sided as the contraction theory, had to derive folding from expansion in a very artificial way. The process of the “ascent of masses” at the beginning of the phase of tectogenesis is universal for the whole Earth (274), but it is differentiated according to its principal structural forms.^1 It is unknown why this ascent is not assigned to the geoanticlines, where uplift occurred during the evolutionary epoch. No, the ascending masses climb into the geosynclines, despite the fact that here they meet the greatest resistance from the continuing compression, for here the maximum subsidence had taken place. Under the influence of this resistance, the sedimentary masses spread out toward the neighboring platforms, producing folds and thrusts, with general swelling in the central part of the geosyncline.

These arguments are as though based on an analysis of existing structures: in well-studied folded zones, the overturning of folds onto the platform is indeed observed, with the manifestation of a zone of “mutual transition”; likewise, toward the cent—

^1 Prof. M. M. Tetyaev, Foundations of Geotectonics.—1934.

more ancient series emerge in the central part of the folded zone.

However, all of Tetyayev’s attempts, as well as those of some of his predecessors, to derive folding from expansion are unsuccessful. First, it is entirely unclear why the ascent of masses at the beginning of the expansion phase is confined precisely to geosynclines, where, according to the author, the greatest compression from the preceding phase of evolution is assumed—moreover, without any basis. And the mechanism by which ascending motion is transformed into folded displacements in the horizontal direction is altogether unclear.

The confinement of compressed folding to geosynclines is entirely natural for the theory of compression. The overturning of folds onto the platform, even with an annular arrangement of the folded zone, as well as other properties of these principal structures and their mutual relations, developed in Geotectonics of the USSR, in no way contradict the formation of folding as a result of compression. The appearance of ancient formations among folded zones is usually the result of the complexity of the process of formation of these zones, with ancient formations being assigned to “intermediate massifs” or to mega-anticlines.

4. The impossibility of inversion of folded and wave forms.

The schematic character of Tetyayev’s construction is the cause of incorrect conclusions that have great theoretical and practical significance. The idea of the ascent of masses in geosynclines led to the conclusion that synclinal forms invert into anticlinal ones and vice versa. This is a transformation into a morphological opposite, a turning of oneself inside out. The example of the Donbass and of the southern mega-anticline in fact contradicts the inversion of forms.

There is an undoubted inheritance by folded forms of the forms of preceding wave development. Consequently, a folded zone is a mega-syncline, and a geoanticline is a mega-anticline.

The uplift of a mega-syncline as a result of folding, apart from the subsequent general uplift of the region. The clear increase in the total thickness of the folded sequence, naturally expanding upward. The increase in the visible thickness of the basement formations as a result of the manifestation of tangential disjunctions and schistosity of flow, while preserving the general aspect of the folded structure. The contradiction of the vertical zonality of folded belts, with the steep position of structures at depth, to the possibility of the manifestation of folding as a result of expansion.

5. The intrusive process as an expression of the alternation of expansion and compression in the phase of tectogenesis.

The question of the connection of the intrusive process with folding is natural for Tetyayev and is accepted by almost all geologists who consider folding to be an expression of compression.

In reality, intrusion corresponds to expansion, with the formation of gaping conduits and cavities in the mass of rocks. This is evident from the following.

With the exception of abyssal intrusives, which crystallized approximately in the zone of magma generation, intrusives of intermediate depths and hypabyssal intrusives have supply channels and develop in the upper formations along already prepared structures. Consequently, magma is introduced into the subphase of expansion following the subphase of compression of the general phase of tectogenesis.

The multiplicity of individual intrusions and emanations indicates repeated alternation of compression and subsequent expansion in the abrupt phases of tectogenesis, as a feature of the dialectical manifestation of the self-development of the Earth’s matter under the conditions of the Earth’s crust. Consequently, geologists who connect intrusive activity with phases of folding are both right and wrong.

The necessity of an acid composition of magma and its intrusive character in geosynclinal folded zones. The sinking of the essentially acid Earth’s crust in geosynclines to the depth of magma formation occurs in the subphase of expansion. The wedging open of feeding fissure-channels in the upper, still flexible, folded formations, with rare emergence of magma onto the surface.

The manifestation of volcanism—or, more precisely, of fissures supplying magma—into the phase of tectogenesis, substantially in folded zones, as a result of the preparation of fissures in them during the preceding development of geosynclines and in the subphase of compression.

6. Forms of Manifestation of Folding

Normal small and complex folding naturally appears in geosynclinal zones prepared for this by their previous development, generally uneven, with the differentiation of waves of various orders, including the sub-geosynclines and sub-geoanticlines of Tetyayev. And folding develops on this basis, which already contained elements of a new structure—namely, a folded structure.

However, the manifestation of the subphases of compression is not limited to geosynclinal flexible strata. For all their thickness, the fundamental part of these zones of the Earth’s crust is the basement of ancient, previously consolidated rocks. They are easily involved in folding because they had been prepared, loosened, and even broken by fissures during the epoch of development of the geosynclines. As is clearly seen in regions that have preserved the roots of the folded mass in the basement, the folding of the latter naturally has a block character (plis de fonds), with the manifestation of disjunctives, which usually pass into the geosynclinal mass, developing within it up to gently dipping nappe surfaces of dragging.

Obviously, block-type folding may also appear in zones where the sedimentary cover was absent or was weakly represented. This includes the cover folding of the Argand.

Its study shows that here the main movements develop on geoanticlines or uplifts, which even before the phase of tectogenesis had a tendency toward uplift. Owing to this, frequent overthrusts of uplifts onto the sedimentary formations of the basin are formed, for example—in the Kuzbass. The Tertiary and Cenozoic mountains of Siberia arose as a result of block folding outside connection with the preceding sedimentation, with the manifestation of bilateral nappes, sometimes onto continental, for example—glacial deposits. Along the faults that arose during these movements, in the subphases of extension, magmatic solutions were used for mineralization, for example—barite deposits along the periphery of the Middle German mountains or cinnabar deposits of Southwestern Altai¹.

Thus, folding, as an expression of compression, is not the privilege of geosynclinal zones. True, it is expressed vividly here, is clearly noticeable in the sedimentary sequence, and is usually accompanied by intrusions. Therefore a folded zone is a conditional concept in opposition to a platform. Obviously, it is a geosynclinal folded zone. But in that case Tetyaev is not right when he outlines his Alpine folded zone, for example, including in it the Altai system.

7. Epeirogenesis in the phases of tectogenesis.

The folding of the phase of tectogenesis, manifested in a number of subphases, is accompanied by subphases of extension, the intensity and forms of manifestation of which change with time. In the first subphases, compression is confined mainly to prepared geosynclinal zones, where extension also appears as a reaction in the form of intrusions. After the consolidation of geosynclinal zones, and partly also during this consolidation, extension, owing to the accumulation of energy, takes hold of ever more considerable areas, which are uplifted, and moreover they are mainly confined to zones of folding of various types. Finally, in the arches of the uplifts, collapses occur, sometimes with volcanism, yielding magma of different composition depending on the area in which fault zones are manifested. Effusive volcanism also appears in the non-collapsed parts of the folded zone.

Agreement with Tetyaev’s views for the second half of the complex phase of tectogenesis. His good elaboration of this question with respect to the USSR. The carrying out of a cycle of denudation, with the formation of peneplanation surfaces before the collapses, continuing together with the uplifts of epeirogenic positive waves even into the modern epoch.

8. Content of the Cycle of Geotectogenesis.

The composition of the cycle of geotectogenesis. The quiet development of uplifts and depressions, in particular—geosynclines and the geoanticlines associated with them, formed in the preceding phase of tectogenesis. Frequently the appearance of effusives at the base of a new formation. Repetition of effusions also in other horizons of the formation, with a sharp manifestation of expansion during the continuing struggle of this expansion against compression. Of course, effusions appear only in separate regions or parts of the area with the formation. The manifestation also of a temporary victory of compression in the form of subordinate, weakly expressed folding.

In general—an infinite number of small jumps also in the deposition of the continuous thickness of a formation, which is divided into beds and horizons, sometimes with the drying-up of the sea or—otherwise—the cessation of sedimentation. Episodes of volcanism and slight folding in the formation of the formation.

The relative subsidence of depressions and uplift of prominences, as a manifestation of the continuing, slow emergence of energy from the Earth, or expansion, with the gradual slowing of this process by small onsets of compression, as a quantitative change in the internal structure of earthly matter.

The principal jump in the change of this matter toward compression, and the onset of the revolutionary phase of tectogenesis, which has a complex character, with an alternation of compression and expansion, producing new structures, although already laid down in the preceding epoch, and also, at times and in places, intrusions. The transition of victory to the side of expansion after the consolidation of folded zones, and the emergence of the principal epeirogenic waves, ultimately complicated by collapses and volcanism in a suitable case of intensity of the process. Formation of new geomorphological elements and the beginning of a new cycle of geotectogenesis. The proximity of this theory to the conception of Tetyaev, who errs only in the interpretation of the first part of the phase of tectogenesis because of the desire to achieve a “single” geotectonic process.

9. Criteria for Identifying the Phases of Tectogenesis.

The convenience of distinguishing cycles of geotectogenesis by phases of folding, or by unconformities in the rock mass—always angular ones. These are tectono-denudational breaks, as distinct from a temporal break inherent in the very type of rocks: continental and shallow-water sediments, phases of volcanic eruptions, and so forth.

The poverty of the criteria usually employed by geologists for distinguishing tectono-denudational breaks or formations of sediments: angular unconformity in an outcrop and conglomerates. The author’s elaboration of this question in a number of articles. The possibility of dwelling here only on the most characteristic points.

The absence of the necessity of conglomerates at the base of for—

formations during a rapid advance of the sea over a peneplainized lowland landmass. The frequent expression of the basal horizon of formations by limestones. The special significance of residual tectonic structures in fragments of rocks of the basal horizon of formations.

The insufficiency of visual observations of angular unconformity in outcrops. In general, an insignificant angle of unconformity in calmly deposited formations, the recognition of which is necessary for a number of reasons. The constant manifestation of hidden unconformity in the hinges of folds, especially synclines, of formations that have experienced very widespread posthumous or inherited folding.

The principal criterion is a good geological map, like an enormous section, revealing all relationships among rocks. The usual change of facies: the restructuring of everything.

An example of a hidden unconformity is the relationship of \(D_3\) to \(D_2\) in the Barzas district. The apparent conformable bedding of these suites in the outcrops of the district. The laying of exploratory rotary borehole No. 1 to detect oil in \(D_2\) on the Nevskaya brachyanticline of \(D_3\). The borehole exposed \(D_2\) in a steep position. The discovery of angular unconformity between \(D_3\) and \(D_2\) also on the geological map.

10. The Number of Cycles of Geotectogenesis.

The identification of a significant number of phases of tectogenesis, in particular 54 phases in Western Siberia from the Algonkian to the present day. An increase in this number with more detailed investigations. Does each phase correspond to a special cycle of geotectogenesis? The recognition by all geologists of only a limited number of real, universal phases of tectogenesis, or folding.

The most zealous adherent of this tendency is Tetyaev, who, given the present state of knowledge (276),¹ recognizes only four principal revolutionary stages: the aggregate Precambrian, Caledonian, Hercynian, and Altai stages. The recognition of other phases of folding and volcanism as preliminary flashes of a future revolutionary period (278).¹ For independent stages of geotectogenesis he considers two principal conditions necessary: the universality of folding for the entire globe and the independence of its manifestation.

Universality is a conditional concept. First, typical geosynclinal folding appears only in folded zones. Second, in a number of such zones even generally accepted stages are weakly manifested; for example, Caledonian folding proper in Western Siberia and—according to Tetyaev—in the (southern) Urals. On the other hand, from the standpoint of our theory, every serious phase of movements, as reflecting a leap in the self-development of the matter of the Earth, cannot but be universal, manifesting itself in different ways in its various structural elemen-

¹ Prof. M. M. Tetyaev. Foundations of Geotectonics. 1934.

Thus, this criterion is insufficient for the inference of Tetyaev.

The independent manifestation of folding, i.e., in special zones and of special extent, is also not a characteristic feature of a universal independent phase of tectogenesis. More often—on the contrary—by virtue of inheritance, the folded zones of generally recognized stages prove to be more or less parallel or are superposed one upon another. Such, for example, is the structure of the Caucasus, with its Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Meso-Cenozoic groups of formations that underwent the corresponding stages of geotectogenesis. Bucher’s testimony is to the same effect. The significance of this criterion for distinguishing stages of geotectogenesis is small.

More essential is the manifestation of intrusive volcanism in geosynclinal zones, although this is only an expression of the intensity of tectogenesis, i.e., of quantity and not of quality. But now a connection has been established between intrusive volcanism and a whole series of phases of tectogenesis. In particular, for Western Siberia I have established 16 independent cycles of intrusive volcanism. And this is not the limit. The independence of the magma of phases of tectogenesis; its polyphilitism.

11. Stages of Geotectogenesis.

It must be recognized that the cycle of geotectogenesis—the deposition of formations and their folding, irrespective of the presence of intrusions, and also of collapses and effusive volcanism at the end of a phase of tectogenesis—is only quantity, not quality; these elements may occur in other regions. The practical significance of any phases of folding, and even of formations of small thickness, may be great as a result of deformational denudation. The possibility of speaking of incomplete cycles of geotectogenesis, as of incomplete cycles of erosion and denudation.

The rejection of the former conception of the scope of the cycle of geotectogenesis is like a tribute to former views and assumptions. There is no doubt that the intensity of movements and the duration of cycles differ in connection with the uneven development of the matter of the Earth. The possibility of a certain regularity in the course of the process of the Earth’s development. An attempt to reveal it in my diagram for Western Siberia. The roughly empirical derivation of Tetyaev’s “stages” is generally insufficient, for example—because of the absence of an explicit Salair stage, and also of a Telbes stage. A possible reflection of actual stages in geological periods, owing to the clear dependence of the development of the organic world on the development of the whole Earth.

12. Development of the Earth Along a Spiral.

The dependence of tectonic movements on the self-development of the matter of the Earth and—consequently—the closeness of all synchronous forma-

formations of the same facies over the entire Earth. The stratigraphic significance not only of fossil organisms, but also of rocks—in particular intrusives and the useful minerals associated with them. This is a conclusion from the fundamental theory, supported by an ever increasing number of facts.

Examples of the identity of sedimentary formations of different countries. Proterozoic jespilites of the Lake Superior and Krivoi Rog region. Algonkian carbonaceous limestones and dolomites of the Kuznetsk Alatau and the southern part of Africa. Peculiar Cambrian limestones of the geosynclinal strata of the Altai-Sayan region, the Urals, and the Caucasus. Oil-bearing Lower Carboniferous limestones of the epicontinental facies of the central states of North America, the Second Baku, and Kuzbass.

The same with respect to magmatic rocks. The charnockite series of the Archean of India and the South-Yenisei taiga. Lower Paleozoic (specifically Middle Cambrian) hyperbasites and serpentinites of the Sayan-Altai region, Scotland, and Sweden. Permian quartz porphyries of Saxony and Tarbagatai. Variscan granites with rare-metal mineralization of the Ore Mountains of Germany, the Urals, and Altai. Adamellites of the Middle Devonian of Scotland and the Kuznetsk Alatau.

The indisputable manifestation of petrogenetic, metallogenic, and tectonic provinces and epochs, with the close connection of these forms of expression of movements of the matter of the Earth’s crust, as a regular result of the universal manifestation of movements during the self-development of the Earth’s condensation of matter, apart from small movements, often local—for example, as a result of crystallization of intrusive magma. Broad prospects for generalizations and prediction, in particular of useful minerals, now merging with rocks.

13. Neolyaellism in Geology

The continuously intermittent course of the Earth’s development, as a synthesis of the preceding phases in the development of geotectonics: the catastrophes or cataclysms of the beginning of the nineteenth century and the gradual development of Lyell’s actualism. Stille’s derivation of the synthesis, but from the standpoint of contraction theory and therefore erroneous. The essence of Stille’s errors: the sharp separation of epeirogenic and orogenic (folded) movements by phases of geotectogenesis, the schematic nature of phases of folding, as instantaneous or very rapid and single movements, neglect of the independent significance of expansion, and the weak linkage of the phases of geotectogenesis.

The reaction to Stille among a number of geologists, especially Schatsky, who attacked the theory of the spasmodic development of the Earth as neocatastrophism and preached an entirely gradual development of the Earth, with the manifestation of folding during and in connection with sedimentation and explaining angular unconformity by the superposition of positive epeirogenic waves upon the sedimentation-folding process, with great slowness of all mov—

developments. Shatsky’s denial also of universal movements of the Earth’s crust.

A return of this theory, which traces its origin from Bertrand back to Lyell, to an indifferent, slow, and calm development of the Earth. The unacceptability of this theory from the methodological point of view. Its lack of prospects also in the sense of identifying and using regularities in the history of the Earth, as well as in the sense of finding mineral resources.

14. The basic structural units of the Earth’s crust.

The essence of the theory of the neo-Lyellists: folding proceeds together with sedimentation. The grounds for such a proposition: the thickness of horizons, series, and even formations is greater in synclines than in anticlines. Continuing this thought logically, one may say that in synclinoria or megasynclines it is greater than in anticlinoria or mega-anticlines. But all this is entirely natural.

Plotting to scale shows that the change in the thickness of sediments is caused by wave-like movements that have nothing in common with folding. Later folding merely inherited these waves, converting them into folds. Thus, here the structure developed against a background laid down in the preceding calm phase of the cycle of geotectogenesis.

The great thickness of sediments, when formations are superposed upon one another, precisely in synclinoria is conditioned by the inheritance of both epeirogenic and later folded movements; moreover, the sedimentary mass here may be continuous, but may also be divided into formations.

However, the development of geosynclines by no means proceeds according to this bare scheme: it is enough to look at the outlines of the modern continents, formed in the Quaternary, to see that new geosynclines are laid down in places across the folding of the preceding cycles of geotectogenesis. Indeed, it would be impossible to expect that the Earth’s crust, having such an insignificant thickness in comparison with the volume of the Earth (1.5% R), could everywhere preserve its basic structure while reacting to movements connected with the self-development of all terrestrial matter.

Therefore Shatsky’s proposition concerning the gradual increase in the area of platforms at the expense of synclines is incorrect from the methodological point of view and does not correspond to reality. And in general the geosyncline is excessively hypertrophied by him, as by the majority of geologists; some mystical capacity for self-development is ascribed to it, whereas the development of geosynclines is the expression of the self-development of terrestrial matter in the Earth’s crust.

1. ...............................................................

....................................................................

1. In the original the author then crossed out the following paragraph: “Moreover, in the subphases of compression, movements of an epeirogenic character occur everywhere, in the form of large waves, against the background of which normal folding itself develops.” ↩