33

Amphibolite-facies metamorphic complexes in Bulgariaand Precambrian geodynamics: controversiesand “state of the art”

Ivan Zagorchev

Geological Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; E-mail: i_zagorchev@geology.bas.bg(Submitted: ?; accepted for publication: 16.11.2007)

È. Çàãîð÷åâ – Ìåòàìîðôè÷åñêèå êîìïëåêñû àìôèáîëèòîâîé ôàöèè â Áîëãàðèè è ïðå-êàìáðèéñêàÿ ãåîäèíàìèêà: ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ è ñîñòîÿíèå âåùåé. Ýâîëþöèÿ èäåé î êîìïëåê-ñàõ ôóíäàìåíòà íà Áàëêàíñêîì ïîëóîñòðîâå ðàçâèâàëàñü èç íà÷àëüíîé êîíöåïöèè î åäèí-íîì è åäèíñòâåííîì ïðåêàìáðèéñêîì êîìïëåêñå ê äèôôåðåíöèàöèè è ïðèçíàíèè ðàçíûõïðîòîëèòîâ êîòîðûå ïåðåòåðïåëè ïîëèìåòàìîðôè÷åñêóþ è ïîëèäåôîðìàöèîííóþ èñòî-ðèþ. Êîððåëÿöèþ ìåæäó ìåòàìîðôè÷åñêèìè êîìïëåêñàìè îáíàðóæåííûìè â îòäåëüíûõàëüïèéñêèõ è/èëè ãåðöèíñêèõ òåêòîíè÷åñêèõ çîíàõ íàäî äåëàòü òîëüêî êîãäà áûëà áû ïîëó-÷åíà äåòàëüíàÿ õàðàêòåðèñòèêà âñåõ îñíîâíûõ îññîáåíîñòåé ïðîòîëèòîâ è íàëîæåííûõìåòàìîðôè÷åñêèõ è äåôîðìàöèîííûõ ñîáûòèé. Íàñòîÿùàÿ ïåòðîëîãè÷åñêàÿ èíôîðìàöèÿíåäîñòàòî÷íà ÷òîáû ïîëíî ïîíÿòü è îáðèñîâàòü êîìïëåêñíóþ òðèäèìåíñèîííóþ èñòîðèþðåãèîíà.

Abstract. The evolution of the ideas about the basement complexes on the Balkan Peninsula hasdeveloped from the initial attribution to a single and uniform Precambrian complex towardsdifferentiation, and recognition of different protoliths that underwent polymetamorphic and multi-deformational histories. Correlation between metamorphic complexes distinguished in differentAlpine and/or Hercynian tectonic zones should be made only when a detailed knowledge wereobtained on all significant features of the protoliths and the superimposed metamorphic andstructural events. The now available petrologic information is still insufficient to fully understandand outline the complex 3D history of the region.

Zagorchev, I. 2008. Amphibolite-facies metamorphic complexes in Bulgaria and Precam-brian geodynamics: controversies and “state of the art”. — Geologica Balc., 37, 1—2; 33—46.

Key words: polymetamorphic complexes, Bulgaria.

Evolution of ideasThe eightieth anniversary of the first published Ge-ology of Bulgaria (Çëàòàðñêè, 1927) and the sixtiethanniversary of the Geological Institute at the Bul-garian Academy of Sciences are a good occasion tothrow a retrospective glance over the development ofthe ideas on the origin, structure and evolution ofthe “crystalline rocks”, “high-grade metamorphics”(metamorphics of medium pressure and moderatetemperature), or more precisely formulated, the am-phibolite-facies metamorphic rocks and complexes.

The historic part of such study should begin withthe first scientists who started the study of the meta-morphics of European Turkey (Ami Boué and Au-guste Viquesnel), with the basic studies of J. Cvijiæ,G. Zlatarski and G. Bonchev, for to come to our daysof wide and multi-faceted knowledge and variedideas.

The early ideas about the metamorphic complex-es of the Balkans consisted in the recognition of twogroups (“series”) of metamorphic rocks, of higher(amphibolite facies) and of lower (greenschist facies)grade, respectively. Two assumptions have been made.

GEOLOGICA BALCANICA, 37. 1—2, Sofia, Iun. 2008, p. 33—46.

34

The first one may be summarized as “higher grade,older age”. Secondly, it was believed that the com-plexes were of very old (Archean, and Algonkian orPalaeozoic, respectively) age, and that their primaryposition was of normal superposition. There has beenalways some confusion (e.g., s. Äèìèòðîâ, 1939, 1946,1955) about the exact nature of the “younger” com-plexes. Thus, very low-grade to greenschist faciesPalaeozoic complexes, the diabase-phyllitoid forma-tion (complex) and the “upper series of the Rhodopecrystalline” have been often all referred to the upper“series”.

In more modern times, Dimitrov (Äèìèòðîâ,1939) distinguished the diabase-phyllitoid formationas a volcano-sedimentary complex of Palaeozoic (ac-cording to him, most probably Devonian?) age, mostof the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic formations previ-ously ascribed to the “upper series” being success-fully detached from it. It should be emphasized againthat a confusion originated in the implicit assump-tion that only one complex of diabase-phyllitoid com-position had ever existed on the Balkans. Now weknow that several such complexes are exhibited, andthree of them are of Neoproterozoic-Cambrian, De-vonian and Mesozoic (Triassic-Jurassic) age.

At their turn, and following the detailed mappingby the Russian Complex Geological Expedition, twoseries of upwards decreasing grade (but always with-in the amphibolite facies of Barrovian type) have beendistinguished within the high-grade metamorphicsof the Rhodope massif: lower (ultrametamorphic,called also Archean) and upper (“Rhodope series”),of supposed Proterozoic age (Äèìèòðîâ, 1955; Âåð-ãèëîâ è äð., 1963). Further studies (Êîæóõàðîâ,1968, 1984; Èâàíîâ è äð., 1984; Kozhoukharov etal., 1974, 1978; Kozhoukharov in Zoubek et al., eds.,1988; Kozhoukharov, 1986) developed the lithos-tratigraphy and introduced in the formal lithostrati-graphic nomenclature a number of formations.

Although the opinions about the Precambrian ageof most of the high-grade metamorphics (with theexception of the Sakar-type Triassic) have been al-ways dominant, some authors have insisted on amuch younger, Mesozoic and Palaeogene age for theamphibolite-facies metamorphism, and a Mesozoic(and/or Palaeozoic) age, for the protoliths. This opin-ion, first expressed by Yanishevski (ßíèøåâñêè,1947), has found its followers even in latest times(Ricou et al., 1998) when the Precambrian age hasbeen proven at least for a part of the metamorphicrocks and complexes.

Many of the high-grade metamorphics have beencontinuously referred (s. Khain, ed., 1981; Zoubek etal., eds., 1988; Rudakov, 1992; Zagorchev, 1998a) tothe Precambrian (and partially, even to the Archean)based mostly on presence of a presumably uncon-formable Palaeozoic cover. In many cases acceptanceof a Precambrian age was made by intuition ratherthan based on strict evidence. However, new evidenceobtained by modern methods during the last yearshas shown that most of the assumptions made inZoubek et al., eds. (1988) remain valid in our days.

Indications for the presence of Neoproterozoicgranitoids in the Precambrian basement of theSerbo-Macedonian massif have been reported byG. Deleon, who applied for the first time in that areathe Rb-Sr method (s. Zoubek et al., eds., 1988). Ca-domian reworking events have been supposed to beof major importance for the formation of the high-grade metamorphic basement (core complexes) inSouth Bulgaria on the basis of Rb-Sr data (s. Lilov etal., 1983; Zagorchev, Moorbath, 1986; Zagortchev,1994). S. Moorbath (personal communication, 1981)considered the Cadomian metamorphism as the firstmetamorphic event in the Ograzhdenian complex onthe basis of the comparatively low initial 87Sr\86Sr ra-tio obtained. These evidence and interpretations re-mained underestimated mostly due to preconceivedideas (s. criticism by Zagorchev, 2000), and only re-cently, studies by the U-Pb method (Graf, 2001; Car-rigan et al., 2006) confirmed our previous data andideas. The new radiogeochronological and petrolog-ical data allow for a new synthesis to be made.

The present paper aims to expose the basic evi-dence about the Precambrian amphibolite-faciescomplexes in the central and eastern parts of theBalkan Peninsula. The new insight is also addingnew elements in the ideas about the pre-Cadomianand Cadomian palaeogeodynamics of the Peri-Gond-wanan Balkan regions.

A “new” approach

A serious flaw of previous research has been the ten-dency to correlate all Precambrian (or referred to thePrecambrian) rock entities in Bulgaria and on theBalkans to a small number of formal units oftenunderestimating seemingly negligible differences. Thelatter could be in fact related to different geologichistories.

A modest attempt to accentuate on such differ-ences has been made by Kozhoukharov et al. (1978)and D. Kozhoukharov, E. Kozhoukharova, C. Dabov-ski and I. Zagorchev (in Zoubek et al., eds., 1988).Informal units (complexes) have been independentlydescribed and later formalized as supergroups for theRhodope massif [two complexes: lower ultrametamor-phic (Prerhodopian) and upper varied (Rhodopian)],the Serbo-Macedonian massif and the Strouma unit[lower ultrametamorphic Ograzhdenian complex (Su-pergroup) and Osogovo “Formation”], the Srednogo-rie zone [“Precambrian metamorphic rocks in the Ihti-man block”; “Precambrian metamorphic rocks in theSredna Gora block” (subdivided into amphibolitic Ko-privshtitsa “Group” and gneissic Pirdop “Group”)]and the Sakar-Strandzha zone. Further on, Ivanov(1989) formulated the idea about the presence of twotypes of metamorphic complexes: Rhodope type (ex-posed in the Rhodope massif s.s.) and Balkanide type(exposed in the internal Balkanides, i.e., in the Sred-nogorie, Kraishtids and the Ograzhden block). Theseideas have been recently developed (Ãåðäæèêîâ, 2004)with the distinction between 5 types of amphibolite-

35

facies metamorphics (metamorphic units): Sakar, Sred-nogorie, Osogovo-Lisets, Serbo-Macedonian andRhodopian (the latter uniting the Prerhodopian andRhodopian Supergroups of D. Kozhoukharov). Sug-gestions for a new lithostratigraphic approach to themetamorphic complexes have been recently made byKrischev (Õðèñ÷åâ, 2005).

In the Rhodope massif itself, another approach(Ñàðîâ è äð., 2004) is now adopted in the geologi-cal mapping on the scale 1:50 000. It is based uponthe assumption about a single-cycle model with two(compressional and extensional) stages that devel-oped in Alpine times and have been related to theAlpine collision and following extension and exhu-mation (Burg et al., 1996; Ricou et al., 1998). Unfor-tunately, the authors cited have not followed the ba-sic geologic principles, and have consequently fab-ricated a number of “extensional shear zones” and“regional detachments” for to distinguish between“lithotectonic units”.

A new approach should be based on clearly for-mulated principles. Many of the existing controver-sies come from different meaning implied in the ter-minology used by different authors. Hence, the ne-cessity to find the basic features for to obtain soundgeological definitions.

The basic features discussed may be as follows: 1.Protoliths (how many within the complex?; data forinterrelations, ages, primary character, etc.); 2. First

metamorphism (type and time); first exhumation;3. New burial (cover formations); superimposed meta-morphic events leading to tectonometamorphic amal-gamation or to other types of superimpose metamor-phism (new migmatization, metasomatism, etc.);4. New exhumation (geological data, exhumation ageby isotopic data, etc.).

The elucidation of all these features for the meta-morphic rocks and complexes is a difficult task, andsome of the features cannot be firmly recognized dueto incompleteness of the geological record. For someof the complexes the available information is scarceand very old (40—45 years). A very schematic attemptto summarize the evidence is done hereafter.

Basic features of someof the metamorphic complexes (Fig. 1)

Metamorphic complexes of the Sredna goracrystalline block (Sashtinska Sredna goraand Sarnena Sredna gora mountains)(based on Çàãîð÷åâ è äð., 1973; Dabovskiin Zoubek et al., eds., 1988)

Two complexes are distinguished: Koprivshtitsa am-phibolitic complex and Pirdop gneiss-migmatiticcomplex.

Fig. 1. Schematic map of the Alpine tectonic zones (after Dabovski et al., 2002) and the position of the amphibolite-faciesPrecambrian complexes

36

The Koprivshtitsa amphibolitic complex consistsof amphibolites and biotite gneisses, and interbed-ding of biotite and two-mica schists, quartzo-felds-pathic gneisses, sillimanite-biotite and garnet-silli-manite-biotite schists, quartzites (muscovite- andmagnetite-bearing), quartzitic schists. Quartzites formin some places particularly thick layers and packets.Amongst the comparatively rare rock layers and bod-ies, marbles (a single layer observed), plagioclase-garnet-pyroxene calciphyres (containing also horn-blende, zoisite and titanite) and amphibolites andgarnet amphibolites (sometimes with pyroxene orquartz). The protolith is most probably a Precam-brian sedimentary terrigenous formation with rarelimestone beds and basic volcanics. The Cadomianmetamorphism is of Barrovian type. Precambrian(dated at c. 617 Ma, Carrigan et al., 2006) leucocrat-ic granites (Bobevitsa granite) are foliated in the pe-ripheral parts. Superimposed metamorphic (includ-ing contact metamorphism with andalusite and cordi-erite) and deformation events are related to the Ca-domian and Hercynian granites and deformations.The contacts with the Pirdop gneiss complex aresharp (the primary character is not determined) butyounger? migmatization events pass through theseboundaries.

The Pirdop gneiss complex is built of biotite gneiss-es and gneiss-schists. Locally they are muscovite-bearing (passing to two-mica gneisses), garnet- andsillimanite- bearing (to garnet-sillimanite-biotite andsillimanite-biotite gneisses). Amphibolites and horn-blende-biotite gneisses are rarely observed. Lenticu-lar bodies of amphibolite and garnet amphibolite(eclogite-amphibolite?) are rare in the lower parts.The protoliths are not proven – possibly, a Precam-brian terrigenous sequence with scarce volcanics. Ametaserpentinite complex is represented by rootlessbodies of serpentinized peridotites (harzburgites) andpyroxenites. Presence of eclogites has been indicat-ed, too. Thus, it may be inferred that two differentprotoliths (of continental and of oceanic-crust ori-gin, respectively) have been amalgamated. The ageof the first metamorphism (Barrovian type) is pre-Carboniferous (pre-dating the first c. 340 Ma oldgranitoid complex; some c. 450 Ma old zircons havebeen reported from the gneisses), most probably Ca-domian or pre-Cadomian. The contacts with theCadomian(?) greenschist-facies diabase-phyllitoidcomplex are tectonic or tectonized. Multiple super-imposed tectonic and metamorphic (including mig-matization) events in Cadomian and Hercynian times;Late Cretaceous intrusions, Alpine deformations,locally intense.

Metamorphic complexes in the Ihtimanand Verila blocks (based on Êîæóõàðîâ è äð.,1980; Dabovski in Zoubek et al., eds., 1988)

Two complexes (“groups”) are distinguished (Gar-vanitsa and Plana complexes).

The Garvanitsa complex consists of biotite gneiss-es, interbedded with amphibolites, muscovite- andtwo-mica schists, gneiss-schists and gneisses, kyaniteschists and gneisses, biotite schists. The protolith isprobably a predominantly sedimentary formation ofterrigenous composition. Rootless bodies (some ofthem of considerable size) of serpentinized peridot-ites are abundant. Metamorphism of Barrovian type:pre-Hercynian, most probably Cadomian. ProbableCadomian amalgamation of continental and oce-anic crust products. Superimposed Cadomian?, Her-cynian and Alpine tectonic events; contact metamor-phism due to Hercynian intrusions.

The Plana complex consists of two-mica gneissesinterbedded with biotite gneisses, muscovite (oftengarnet-bearing) gneisses, hornblende-biotite gneiss-es and amphibolites. Very rarely, kyanite-stauroliteschists and lenticles of metamorphosed serpentinitesare encountered. Amphibolitized eclogite lenses havebeen found in layers of quartz amphibolites (Äèìè-òðîâà, Áåëìóñòàêîâà, 1982). The pre-Hercynian(Cadomian?) metamorphism is of Barrovian type(amphibolite facies). Possible Cadomian amalgam-ation of continental and oceanic crust products.Superimposed Cadomian?, Hercynian and Alpinetectonic events. Alpine deformations are most intenseat the boundaries (strike-slip faults) of the Ihtimanblock where locally superimposed Late Cretaceousschistosity may develop in greenschist- to amphibo-lite-facies conditions (recorded in Late Cretaceousintrusive bodies along shear zones).

Special attention should be dedicated to the in-terrelations between the Plana complex and theyounger formations: the Neoproterozoic-Cambrian?greenschist-facies diabas-phyllitoid complex, theOrdovician and the Upper Carboniferous. The latter(locally missing – direct cover by Permian and/orLower Triassic) is clearly sealing all previous com-plexes. The Ordovician sediments cover the diabase-phyllitoid complex with a depositional unconformi-ty. The principal problem concerns the boundarybetween the diabase-phyllitoid complex and the Pla-na metamorphic complex, and it will be speciallydiscussed later.

Very similar composition (a complex similar to thePlana complex) and relations (without presence ofOrdovician) exist in the Verila block

Metamorphic complexes in the Strouma unit(after Zagorchev in Zoubek et al., eds., 1988;Zagorchev, 2001; Graf, 2001; Kounov, 2002,and other sources)

These complexes (Fig. 1) are exposed in several coresof Alpine structures, usually of Mid-Cretaceous age.The formations sealing with depositional uncon-formable contact the pre-Alpine structure are ofPermian, Lower Triassic or Middle Jurassic age de-pending on the depth of the post-Hercynian denu-dation.

37

Two amphibolite-facies metamorphic cores cropout in the northern part of the Strouma unit but theyare of small (horizontally and vertically) dimensionsand are poorly studied. Two large cores are exposedin the southern parts of the Strouma unit, and namely,in the Osogovo-Lisets and the Vlahina (Lisiya) domes.

The Osogovo-Lisets dome is cored by biotite andtwo-mica gneisses interbedded with amphibolites andhornblende-biotite gneisses (Osogovo “Formation”,Lisets gneisses). Some parts of the section are almostdevoid of amphibolites, the latter being concentrat-ed in one (middle) member. Orthoamphibolites arealso exposed, amongst them a large body consistingof metagabbroids. Metagranites are often found, onebody being dated at c. 520 Ma by U-Pb studies onzircon. Extensive bodies of granitoids (“Lisets dior-ites”, Bosilegrad granite) have pre-Ordovician age(covered with depositional contact by Ordovicianmetasandstones). The first metamorphism is proba-bly of Cadomian or pre-Cadomian age — Sm-Nd stud-ies suggest an age of the protolith of about 1400—1100 Ma; the metagabbrodiorite is dated at c. 548Ma, and the orthogneiss, at c. 544 Ma (Graf, 2001).These data are consistent with a Cadomian amal-gamation of pre-Cadomian continental crust withmantle-derived gabbroids, and a first late Cambrianexhumation followed by Early Ordovician transgres-sion. A Hercynian greenschist-facies metamorphicevent of c. 343 Ma is roughly coincident with theupper intercept (c. 346 Ma, U-Pb zircon studies) ofthe Osogovo granite. The Palaeozoic history is notyet enlightened (dry land or covered by Palaeozoicsequence later totally eroded during late Hercynianexhumation), and the basement has been afterwardscovered with sediments during the Triassic transgres-sion. The Mid-Cretaceous (Austrian) compressionaldeformations led to the thrusting of the Morava overthe Struma unit, and are partially documented in c.119 Ma old white micas in Permian and Triassic verylow-grade metamorphics. The last exhumation is re-ferred to the Palaeogene uplift: c. 46—30 Ma (Graf,2001).

The Lisiya dome (core of the Vlahina block) con-sists of two complexes: the Troskovo amphiboliticcomplex (Troskovo Supergroup) and a gneiss-mig-matitic complex considered to be a correlate of thegneiss-migmatitic complex (“Maleshevska Group”)of the Ograzhdenian complex (Supergroup). Thepolymetamorphic and polydeformational characterof the two complexes has been documented byZagorchev (1976, 2001; Zagorchev in Zoubek et al.,eds., 1988). The Troskovo complex is built up mostlyof amphibolites, the majority being of ortho-origin(basic metavolcanics), and contains also some root-less lenses of metagabbroids, metapyroxenites andmetaserpentinites. The volcano-sedimentary charac-ter of the protolith is shown by rare thin marble lens-es (ignored by Machev, Kenkmann, 2001). Thegneiss-migmatitic complex is also of a volcano-sedi-mentary origin (layered or lenticular amphibolites)but is dominated by acid metasedimentary rocks (nowtwo-mica and biotite schists and gneisses) with a few

isolated lenses of metaserpentinites, and possibleparticipation of metagranites (gneiss-granites). Ca-domian tectonometamorphic amalgamation is con-sidered as most probable process for the formationof the mixture of petrologies typical for continentalcrust and for oceanic crust (and/or upper mantle)protoliths.

One of the most important and still pending prob-lems concerns the boundaries between the gneiss-migmatitic complex and the Neoproterozoic—Cam-brian diabase-phyllitoid Frolosh Formation. Hayd-outov (1989, 2002 and elsewhere) insists on a sub-duction of the Balkan (Frolosh Formation) underthe Thracian (gneiss-migmatitic complex) terrane anda tectonic contact between the two whereas Zagorchev(1974, 1998a,b, 2001 and elsewhere) describes theopposite primary relations (Frolosh Formation overthe gneiss-migmatitic complex) and inclusion ofgneissic inliers as slices into the Frolosh Formationduring common synmetamorphic (grenschist-facies)folding of the two complexes, most probably in Ca-domian times. The Frolosh Formation itself is a vol-cano-sedimentary complex dated at c. 557 Ma (Razh-davitsa gabbro) that contains besides the abundantbasic metavolcanics, also metatuffs, metaconglom-erates, metasandstones, calcareous schists and im-pure marbles. A few metalherzolite lenticular bodiesare present, and they are considered to be fragmentsfrom oceanic crust (Õàéäóòîâ, 1991, 1994). TheStrouma diorite formation has been formed partiallyat the expense of the metavolcanics of the FroloshFormation, and is regarded as a volcanic arc prod-uct. According to the present author (Zagorchev,1998a), the Neoproterozoic-Cambrian Frolosh For-mation is formed by considerable mantle contribu-tion in conditions of a volcanic arc formed by rift-ing of pre-Cadomian continental lithosphere, crust-al fragments and Neoproterozoic-Cambrian volca-nics, intrusives (with ultrabasic cumulates) and sed-iments being jointly deformed and amalgamated inlate Cadomian times. Palaeozoic exhumation hasbeen followed by deep denudation, coverage by Per-mian and Triassic sediments, and a new exhumationin Palaeogene times.

Metamorphic complexes in the Moravaand Ograzhden units (after Zagorchev, 1976,2001; Zagorchev in Zoubek et al., eds., 1988;Zidarov, Nenova, 1995; and other sources)

The metamorphic complexes of these units are con-sidered as parts of the Serbo-Macedonian massif.

The metamorphic complex (Dragoychintsi com-plex, Dragoychintsi “Formation”) in the Morava unitis similar to that of the Osogovo-Lisets core of theStrouma unit. Pre-Cadomian gneisses and amphib-olites have been intruded by the Cadomian (c. 557Ma – Graf, 2001) Milevets granite (orthogneiss), andlater subject to late Cadomian deformations andmetamorphism (greenschist to lower amphibolite fa-cies). The interrelations with the Cheshlyantsi com-

38

plex (“Formation”) built of metasedimentary rocks(marbles, schists, some lydites and metasandstones; afew basic metavolcanics?; unknown age, probablyCambrian or Ordovician) are not yet clear. After theMid-Cretaceous thrusting of the Morava over Strou-ma unit (probable Palaeozoic and Mesozoic erosionand denudation; oldest cooling age of c. 112 Ma),K-Ar and Ar-Ar data point at a Palaeogene exhu-mation (Graf, 2001; Kounov, 2002).

The metamorphic complexes of Maleshevska andOgrazhden Mountains (Ograzhden unit; for the timebeing, we will refrain from considering the Belasitsablock) have been described as one complex (Ograzh-denian complex, or supercomplex; Ograzhdenian“Supergroup”) consisting of 3 groups. The lattershould be probably described as separate complexes.Later studies by N. Zidarov and collaborators (nowin course) will throw additional light over a numberof pending problems. Here only the upper “Male-shevska Group” (gneiss-migmatitic complex) will bediscussed. The gneiss-migmatitic complex consistsof two-mica and biotite gneisses interlayered withmica schists, hornblende-biotite gneisses and amphib-olites. Some layers of gneisses and schists containgraphite, garnet, kyanite, sillimanite or tourmaline,often in considerable amounts. The protoliths of theserocks are mostly terrigenous sedimentary rocks ofpelitic, psammitic and psephytic character. Amphi-bolite layers are concentrated in packets (members),and are most probably of basic metavolcanic origin.Larger metabasic bodies (metapyroxenites, metagab-broids) occur independently or in relation to themetavolcanic layers, and often are eclogitized (Zi-darov, Nenova, 1995). Several layer-parallel medi-um-sized bodies of serpentinized harzburgites areknown, too. The sequence contains also bodies ofdiatexitic quartz-diorites and of metagranitoidsformed mostly in Cadomian times (according to Rb-Sr whole-rock data, about 540 Ma BP), and numer-ous concordant layers of quartzo-feldspathic gneissesand pegmatoid gneisses that in many cases are prov-en as former aplites and pegmatites affected by lateCadomian deformations and metamorphism. Thus,the whole Ograzhdenian gneiss-migmatitic complexis considered to be a product of Cadomian tec-tonometamorphic amalgamation of pre-Cadomiancontinental crust with oceanic crust fragments. Thepre-Cadomian and Cadomian tectonometamorphichistory is complicated by the presence of pre-Cado-mian or early Cadomian basic intrusions (well-pre-served norite to troctolite with amphibolitizationalong shear zones – s. Zagorchev, 1976, 1996), fol-lowed by the second (Cadomian) migmatization event.Cadomian and post-Cadomian shear zones and fo-liation-parallel extensive shear transpose the initialpre-Cadomian and early Cadomian structures. Thecomplex is intruded by late Hercynian (300—250 Ma)granites. The whole Ograzhden unit has been thrust-ed (greenschist-facies mylonites) over the Pirin (Pi-rin-Pangaion) unit of the Rhodope massif along theStrymon thrust and its ramifications, and further on,intruded by Late Cretaceous (c. 88 Ma) granitoids

and Palaeogene (c. 34 Ma) subvolcanic bodies. Thelast exhumation is considered to be pre-Palaeogeneor early Palaeogene.

Metamorphic complexes of the Rhodopemassif (western part) (after published dataof D. Kozhoukharov, E. Kozhoukharovaand other authors)

The western part of the Rhodope massif consists(Fig. 1) of several Alpine tectonic units (Burg et al.,1996) bounded by thrusts with mylonites formed invery low-grade to greenschist-facies conditions. Aseastern boundary of this large composite unit theKurdzhali fault is considered. This is a large com-posite fault with extensive mylonitization in green-schist-facies conditions.

Two metamorphic complexes (supergroups) havebeen distinguished (s. Kozhoukharov in Zoubek etal., eds., 1988): Prerhodopian (ultrametamorphic)and Rhodopian. The composition of the complexesis well-known (s. also Èâàíîâ è äð., 1984; Êîæó-õàðîâ, 1984). Having in mind some considerationspresented by Kozhoukharov (in Haydoutov et al.,1997) as well as the practice in the adjacent areas ofthe Greek Rhodope, the groups of the PrerhodopianSupergroup described by Kozhoukharov could beregarded as independent complexes, too. Thus, fourcomplexes are distinguished, and namely, the ul-trametamorphic (Prerhodopian, Arda) complex,Roupchos varied complex (corresponding to the Kimicomplex in Greece – s. Mposkos, 2002), Bachkovogneiss complex (Greek equivalent: the Sidironero al-bite-gneiss complex) and Asenovgrad calcareouscomplex (Greek equivalent: Falakron/Pangaion Mar-bles). Extensive descriptions have been made by theauthors cited, as well as in many other publications.Here only some interpretative considerations will begiven.

The Arda complex is exposed in the cores of threedomal structures lately interpreted as Tertiary exten-sional domes: the Vucha, Shiroka-luka and Madan-Davidkovo domes. It consists of biotite and two-micagneisses and schists interlayered with amphibolitesand hornblende-biotite gneisses. The protoliths be-longed to a volcano-sedimentary association. Eclog-ites and metabasic and metaultrabasic rocks arepresent in the Madan-Davidkovo dome, and a poly-metamorphic and polydeformational evolution isproven (published and unpublished data of D. Ko-zhoukharov; s. Zoubek et al., eds., 1988). Most prob-ably, two or more Precambrian tectonometamorphiccycles or composite events finished with a Cadomi-an amalgamation of crustal material with mantle oroceanic-crust products. No isotopic evidence has beenobtained up to now in support of this hypothesis.Scarce data indicate a possible Hercynian overprint,and a very strong Alpine overprint is dated with U-Pb and K-Ar studies on aplite and granite veins alonglate shear zones. The youngest ages of c. 32 Ma are

39

interpreted as exhumation ages of metamorphic corecomplexes (in the domes mentioned above) alongdetachments (e.g., Burg et al., 1996). The alternativeinterpretation considers these domes as thermaldomes that remained at relatively high-temperatureconditions because being deeply buried within thethickened during multiple thickening events (last timeduring the Austrian compressional phase), and dueto heating by increased heat flow during the exten-sive latest Eocene – Early Oligocene volcanic activ-ity (e.g. Zagortchev, 1994).

The other three complexes (groups) are grouped(Kozhoukharov in Kozhoukharov et al., 1978;Êîæóõàðîâ, 1984) into the Rhodopian Supergroup(supercomplex). They represent a sequence of thick(over 2 km each) pile of originally volcano-sedimen-tary and sedimentary formations, this sequence be-ing comparatively stable over the Western Rhodopemassif. This correlation is doubtful in respect of theEast Rila unit, and for some scientists, also for thePirin-Pangaion unit. Although locally of high in-tensity, synmetamorphic deformations have not trans-posed the sequence but the whole section is found inoverturned position and subject of several intensefolding events in the marginal Pirin-Pangaion unit(Zagorchev, 1994). It is also highly tectonized nearthe Bulgarian/Greek border in the Madan-Davidko-vo dome where a deep Rhodope thrust is proposedto explain the position of the marbles under the ul-trametamorphic complex (Ivanov, 1981).

In the geometric section of the Central Rhodope,the three complexes outlined follow from bottom totop in believed-to-be normal superposition. The pro-tolith of the Roupchos complex represented a volca-no-sedimentary association that contains also typi-cal ophiolites. In the midst of the complex (group),the Bogoutevo Formation has a predominantly “gra-nitic” composition but with some amphibolite andrare marble layers, and rootless bodies of amphiboli-tized eclogites dated (Arkadakskiy et al., 2003) asNeoproterozoic (between 700 and 600 Ma). Havingin mind the probable Mesoproterozoic age of the sed-imentary protolith (determinations by B. Timofeyevand M. Konzalova, s. Kozhoukharov, 1986, Zoubeket al., eds., 1988, and later publications), we shouldagain suggest a Cadomian collision with amalgam-ation of continental (gneisses, etc.) and oceanic(eclogites, serpentinites) crustal products. It is alsovery important U-Pb studies on zircons (believed-to-be detrital) of the Kimi complex yielded a high pro-portion (more than 25%) of Archean and Proterozo-ic ages situated between 3200 and about 560 Ma (Li-ati, Gebauer, 2001). Another possible explanationwould be that the oldest part of these zircons (3.2—1.6 Ga) are really detrital and coming from closely-situated protolith source of Archean to Palaeoprot-erozoic age whereas the Neoproterozoic zircons cor-respond to a Cadomian tectonometamorphic amal-gamation.

Considerable controversies exist in respect of theprotolith of the Bachkovo (= Sidironero) complex(in our understanding, grouping the Dobraluk/Boyk-

ovo and the Bachkovo Formations, both consistingof biotite banded gneisses to massive leucocratic(quartzo-feldspathic) gneisses often garnet-bearing.Marble and/or amphibolite interbeds are rarely ob-served. The Dobroluk/Boykovo Formation is subjectof intense shear at low angle to the foliation (prima-ry bedding?) giving the aspect of pencil gneisses orwooden gneisses. The Bachkovo Formation (leptynitesor aplitoid gneisses) bears traces of considerablegranitization (K and Si metasomatosis, studied indetail by V. Vergilov) and partial melting. Small ski-aliths or restites of micaceous rocks (“Glimmerites”)are observed. The protoliths of the two formationsare subject of discussions: from metasedimentaryrocks (arkosic sandstones; E. Kozhoukharova inZoubek et al., eds., 1988) and rhyolitic metavolca-nics and metatuffs (V. Vergilov) to metagranites(Z. Cherneva and others). The metasedimentary ori-gin hypothesis is supported by the constancy of theposition in the section over a considerable region (al-though with thickness variations) impossible in caseof metagranitoid origin. If the complex would beproven to be of metasedimentary (metaconglomer-ates and mature metasanstones) origin, its base maybe an important boundary (sedimentation break andwash-out) within the whole Rhodopian sequence.

The parametamorphic character of most of theAsenovgrad Group (complex) is without doubt, be-ing mostly built of calcareous rocks (marbles andcalcareous schists). In the original scheme ofKozhoukharov, the varied Loukovitsa Formation isreferred to the underlying “Sitovo Group” (here Bach-kovo complex). However, the transitional charactertowards the Dobrostan Marble Formation of the up-per parts of the Loukovitsa Formation, and the fastdecrease of volcanogenic component in the lowerparts (to total disappearance in Northern Pirin) arearguments for to refer it to the Asenovgrad complex.Thus, the Asenovgrad complex (Falakron/Pangaioncomplex in Greece) is a thick predominantly car-bonatic complex of Neoproterozoic age (determina-tions by B. Timofeyev and M. Konzalova, s. Kozhou-kharov, 1986, and elsewhere) similar to many otherthick Neoproterozoic complexes around the world.The age has been confirmed on Problematica deter-mined by P. Tchoumatchenco and I. Sapunov, andthe isolated find of W. Meyer of a “fossil similar totetracoral” could be in fact a single stromatolite.

The timing of the amphibolite-facies metamor-phism (Barrovian type) of the three complexes is sub-ject of controversies. There is no firm evidence aboutit, and speculative hypotheses vary: from polymeta-morphic events of Cadomian age and Hercynian andAlpine overprint, to a single Alpine process of sever-al events of Mid-Cretaceous to Oligocene age. Thepresent author is in favour of the first option (firstCadomian metamorphism with some Cadomianamalgamation, and Hercynian overprint), with astrong compressional Mid-Cretaceous episode (co-eval to Austrian thickening, about 90—100 Ma BP),and prolonged extension and erosional exhumationin Palaeogene times.

40

Metamorphic complexes of the Rhodopemassif (eastern part) (after published dataof D. Kozhoukharov, E. Kozhoukharovaand other authors; s. also Bonev et al., 2006)

Kozhoukharov (in Zoubek et al., eds., 1988; Êîæó-õàðîâ, 1987; Kozhoukharov, 1992) referred the meta-morphic rocks of the Eastern Rhodopes (Kesebir-Kardamos and Byala-reka—Kechros domes) to thePrerhodopian Supergroup and the Roupchos Groupof the Rhodopian Supergroup. The presence of theRoupchos Group (complex) seems without doubt, andis confirmed by the continuation (Kimi complex) inNorthern Greece, although a much greater occur-rence of huge ultramafic (serpentinites) bodies is re-corded here when compared to the Central Rhodope.Substantial differences appear in respect of the “Pre-rhodopian Supergroup”, and here we propose to treatits three “groups” as independent complexes. The threecomplexes are clearly superposed one upon the oth-er in the Byala-reka dome, a detailed lithostratigra-phy being established there by Kozhoukharov (Êîæó-õàðîâ, 1987).

The lower complex (Strazhets Group) is charac-terized by widespread leucocratic muscovite, two-mica and biotite gneisses. Quartzo-feldspathic gneiss-es and Augengneisses are dominant although inter-beds of schists and amphibolites are present, too.Some of the amphibolite layers are interpreted asstrongly sheared metabasic dykes with contacts trans-posed parallel to the foliation. The protolith (yet ofunknown age; upper intercept for U-Pb data on bi-piramidal zircons from one “metagranite” samplefrom the complex is c. 2250 or 1700—1800 Ma —Peytcheva, Von Quadt, 1995) is deduced to be a ter-rigenous sequence with predominance of graywack-es and arkosic sandstones. A part of the granite-gneisses may be of ortho-origin (metagranites) of dif-ferent ages. Barrovian type amphibolite-facies meta-morphism is referred to the Precambrian. Granitiza-tion phenomena are widespread but migmatizationis not typical. Hercynian metagranites identified bothin the Byala-reka and the Kesebir domes were datedat c. 310—330 Ma (Peytcheva, Von Quadt, 1995; VonQuadt, Peytcheva, 1995; Peytcheva et al., 1998), andthese data and the presence of superimposed schis-tosity gave grounds to Von Quadt, Peytcheva (1998)to consider the Rhodope region as a Hercynian oro-genic edifice.

The Botourche Group (complex) has features ofan ophiolite association: huge serpentinite lenticu-lar bodies flowing into a mass of micaschists withtypical white mica of phengitic type. Two formationshave been distinguished by Kozhoukharov (Êîæó-õàðîâ, 1987), the basal Zhultichal Formation beingclearly of parametamorphic or metavolcano-sedi-mentary character: wide presence of kyanite-stauro-lite-garnet muscovite schists, graphite- and magne-tite quartzites, amphibolites and quartzo-feldspathicgneisses. However, in some of the sections serpen-tinites and orthoamphibolites typical for the next

Gnezdare Formation are reported to occupy also mostof the Zhultichal Formation. Serpentinites and am-phibolites have undergone a complex geologic his-tory as reported by Kozhoukharova (Êîæóõàðîâà,1985). After serpentinization, increasing pressure andtemperature progressively have apparently led toamphibolite-facies and eclogite-facies metamor-phism, and metasomatic formation of gabbroidsalong former foliation (path 4 at Fig. 2A).

Although primarily designated as a Tintyava“Group”, the next Tintyava complex has been referredby D. Kozhoukharov to the Arda Group of the Pre-rhodopian Supergroup. However, Kozhoukharov (inÒåí÷îâ, ðåä., 1993, pp. 36, 90—91, 317) introduced 3formations special for the East Rhodopes (Gorsko,Tintyava and Belopoltsi Formation, from bottom totop) evidently appreciating the differences betweenthe Arda complex (in our designation here) of theCentral Rhodope and the Tintyava complex. Thelatter is built mostly of two-mica gneisses and gran-ite-gneisses, with participation of garnet-bearinggneisses, schists and amphibolites. The protolith hasaccording to Kozhoukharov a predominantly meta-sedimentary character whereas other authors favour-ize the hypothesis about predominant metagranitoids.

The late tectonometamorphic history of the East-ern Rhodopes may be illustrated with the sequenceof events proposed for the Kesebir-Kardamos domeby Bonev et al. (2006): crustal shortening and thick-ening (mostly Late Cretaceous, 119—65 Ma), crustalextension (65—53 Ma), exhumation and doming (42—39 Ma). The limited space and the complexity of theproblems do not allow a discussion on some dubiousaspects of this interpretation. Due to the same rea-sons and to lack of sufficient personal experience,other metamorphic complexes (in Sakar and Stran-dzha Mountains, in particular) are omitted in thisreview.

Some aspects of the metamorphismin the amphibolite-facies complexes

A number of authors have discussed during the lasttwenty years different aspects of the metamorphismof the Bulgarian and Balkan high-grade metamor-phic complexes. Great differences exist in respect ofthe age and P-T conditions of the metamorphism. Asummary compilation (Zagortchev, 1994, Text-Fig. 6)of the scarce data existing in that time schematizedfor the Precambrian basement of parts of the Rho-dopes a progressive Barrovian metamorphic pathreaching the boundary area of amphibolite andeclogite facies, migmatization and granite formationin Palaeozoic times due to decompression, a newburial triggered by Mid-Cretaceous (Austrian) deepthrusting, new decompression with crustal meltingand formation of Late Cretaceous granites, and Al-pine retrograde metamorphism related to shear zonesand faulting. Abundant new data obviously have tochange this very simplified picture. When speculat-ing on possible metamorphic paths we should cer-

41

tainly take into account several feeble points in ourdata: i) the imperfectness of the thermobarometers,especially in respect to the pressure determination –for some thermobarometers pressures determined fora very narrow temperature range may vary between 3and 9 kilobars; ii) the incompleteness of the geolog-ical record – intense younger events may greatlyobliterate the traces of earlier events; iii) the com-paratively small number of reliable radiogeochrono-logical data obtained by different methods. Differ-ent metamorphic P-T paths are predicted (Thomp-son, Ridley, 1987, Figs. 2, 3) for rocks buried to dif-

ferent depths (Fig. 2C) during crustal thickening, andfor superimposed metamorphic events during a poly-metamorphic history (Fig. 2D).

Even with the new data, the general trend of themetamorphism remains the path (Fig. 2A, B) of rap-id burial (Barrovian Facies Series near the transitionalboundary to Sambagawa Facies Series: greenschistfacies to amphibolite facies and entering the field ofeclogitic facies, path 2 on Fig. 2A); exhumation withdecreasing pressure still retaining higher tempera-ture, decompression leading to formation of silliman-ite (transition to the Buchan Facies Series) and/or

Fig. 2. Schematic diagrams for the P-T paths of the Precambrian complexes in Bulgaria and Greece (Rhodope massif – A,Sredna gora and Ograzhden units – B) and cartoons (after Thompson, Ridley, 1987) demonstrating possible P-T pathsafter a single thickening event (C; example of coeval rocks buried to different depths) and in polymetamorphic conditions(D). After published data of Z. Cherneva, K. Kolcheva, E. Kozhoukharova, A. Liati, F. Machev, L. Macheva, E. Mposkos,S. Pristavova; diagram setting after Winter (2001) and other sources. Supposed metamorphic paths with dashed lines.Metamorphism of basic and ultrabasic rocks (A): 1 – subduction of oceanic crust (Franciscan facies series to eclogites)to depths exceeding 80—100 km (HP to UHP), or tectonometamorphic amalgamation of mantle and crustal material;2 – crustal subsidence (Barrovian to Sambagawa facies series) to the upper mantle, formation of eclogites near theamphibolite-eclogite facies boundary; 3 – eclogitization of norites and/or ultramafics (subsidence from lower crustal toupper mantle conditions); 4 – formation of metasomatic gabbroids (Kozhoukharova, 1999) at lower depths (uppercrust). Metamorphic paths in Sredna gora and Ograzhden units: Barrovian facies series, amphibolite-facies conditions(dominant); possible eclogitization of basic and ultramafic rocks through subsidence, or tectonometamorphic amalgam-ation of mantle and crustal material.

42

partial melting and granitoid formation. Anothercomplication is introduced when basic magma hasbeen intruded between two tectonometamorphic cy-cles (e.g., Zagorchev, 1976): then, burial of a noritebody (path 3 on Fig. 2A) would lead to its partialeclogitization and amphibolitization without neces-sarily reaching ultra-high pressure conditions. Amechanism (path 4, Fig. 2A) of formation of gabbro-ic rocks by metasomatism of serpentinites at low pres-sures has been proposed by Kozhoukharova (1999).Most important new developments concern the dis-covery of ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) minerals (dia-mond, coesite) in some of the HP rocks of the GreekRhodopes (s. Mposkos, 2002; review in Ãåðäæèêîâ,2002à,á). The corresponding pressures reach 30—70kbars that correspond to depths of more than 100km. The explanation given refers to a fast subduc-tion (path 1 on Fig 2A) of oceanic crust (FransiscanFacies Series) to deep eclogitic facies conditions, andwhen rising towards the surface (possibly togetherwith mantle peridotites), amalgamation with thematerial in the basal parts of the thickened conti-nental crust. These events are up to now referred (Li-ati et al., 2004) to Cretaceous times possibly coincid-ing with the Mid-Cretaceous crustal thickening inthe Rhodope region (e.g., Zagortchev, 1994; Bonevet al., 2006), and the subduction of the Vardar oceanunder the Rhodope.

Geodynamic aspects and conclusions

The finding of relics from HP- to UHP-metamor-phism in the Rhodope and Serbo-Macedonian mas-sifs opens new prospects for the geology of the am-phibolite-facies complexes of the Balkan Peninsula.Special emphasize should be put on the further stud-ies of the basic and ultrabasic rocks that originatefrom different sources (subducted oceanic crust,mantle slices, intrusions of mantle origin, metaso-matic layers into older ultramafics), have differentages, and have undergone different metamorphichistories.

Previous correlations between the metamorphiccomplexes exposed in different Hercynian and Al-pine tectonic units should be reconsidered in the lightof new evidence. Extensive and more precise new pet-rologic and radiogeochronological data are needed.

The available evidence, both geological and iso-topic, points at a pre-Cadomian age of the meta-morphic complexes in the Serbo-Macedonian mas-sif, the Strouma unit, and the Ihtiman and CentralSredna-gora units of the Srednogorie. Geologicalevidence (akritarchs, Problematica) point at Neopro-terozoic (possibly also Mesoproterozoic) age for dif-ferent parts of the Asenovgrad and the Roupchoscomplex, respectively. Cadomian deformations andmetamorphism seem to be the major factor in theprincipal shaping of all Precambrian metamorphiccomplexes on the Balkans.

Although severely criticized, the lithostratigraph-ic subdivision of most of the complexes (especially

those of predominant parametamorphic or mixedcharacter) has no alternative for the moment. Re-cently introduced complexes on Greek territory(Mposkos, 2002, and elsewhere) coincide with equiv-alents in Bulgaria established, subdivided and stud-ied in details (e.g., Zoubek et al., eds., 1988). Follow-ing the rules of priority the names of formations andgroups (complexes) should be preserved as introduced,and with indication of their equivalents on Greekterritory.

The presence of a high percentage of very old(Mesoarchean to Palaeoproterozoic) zircons in thesupposedly Meso- to Neoproterozoic RoupchosGroup (Kimi complex) in the Rhodopes indicated asedimentary origin of the protoliths of that complexin marine basins in or at the periphery of Hudson-land (existing between 1.83 and 1.5—1.25 Ga). Theophiolitic sequences in the varied formations of theRhodopian supercomplex (mostly, the RoupchosGroup and partially, the Loukovitsa Formation) isusually related to oceanic-crust environments; how-ever, the high amount of metacarbonatic rocks couldbe more appropriate for volcanic arc environments.Such environments probably had existed also in theStrouma unit, the Serbo-Macedonian massif and thePelagonian massif. Tholeiitic basalts of the Cumpa-na Group (South Carpathians) dated at c. 1.57 Maare also related to volcanic arc environments (Dra-guºanu, Tanaka, 1999).

The formation of the next supercontinent (Rod-inia) is usually related to continental collision at 1.1—1.0 Ga, i.e., at the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoicboundary. The composition and extent of Rodinia issubject of strong discussion and criticism even inrespect of huge shield areas, and we could hardlybelieve to make serious conclusions about the stronglyreworked in Cadomian, Hercynian and Alpine timesperi-Gondvanan fragments on the Balkan Peninsu-la and Asia Minor. Some authors suppose the pres-ence of a Cadomian microcontinent (Cadomia) atthe periphery of Rodinia in the times of disintegra-tion of the latter. Probably East of that microconti-nent and North of the future Arabian shield severalfragments of continental crust have already existed(Fig. 3), and they gave the beginning of the peri-Gondvanan fragments Pelagonia, Dardania andThracia (Zagorchev in Cavazza et al., eds., 2004). Itshould be also noted that Rudakov (1992) suggesteda Neoproterozoic evolution of the Alpine, Carpathianand Balkan peri-Gondvanan fragments that regard-ed the European Prototethys as narrow seaway withoceanic crust formed in early to middle Neoprotero-zoic times (1000—850 Ma BP). This basin developedas “a mature ocean before the Cadomian events”, i.e.during rifting in the southern parts of the Aegir Seaabout 750 Ma BP (Meert, Torsvik, 2003) that was re-lated also to the disintegration of Rodinia. The wholehistory of the Panafrican (Assyntian, Baikalian, Ca-domian) cycle is outlined as follows: assembling ofRodinia after the Grenvillian phase (1100—1000 MaBP); first rifting events (800—700 Ma BP); late rifting(650—550 Ma BP); collisional events (580—540 Ma

43

BP); late collisional igneous activity (540—520 MaBP). The disintegration of Rodinia before about 750(800) to 600 Ìà puts forward the problem about theplace of the principal peri-Gondvanan fragmentsand the evolution of the Neoproterozoic to Palaeo-zoic terranes outlined (Haydoutov, 1989; Yanev, 1993;Haydoutov et al., 1997; Carrigan et al., 2006). It isclear even from the existing data that the amphibo-lite-facies complexes described in the eastern partsof the Balkan Peninsula fit well into the Cadomianevolution. The principal phase of Cadomian amal-gamation and shaping of these complexes should be

referred to the collisional events (580—540 Ma) andthe late collisional igneous activity.

Another important problem for the future studiesconcerns the very young ages obtained for metamor-phic minerals and rocks in the Rhodope region. Atleast partially, these dates are due to the consider-able crustal thickening in the Rhodope, the effect ofincreased heat flow during the collisional Palaeo-gene volcanism, and the late exhumation and cool-ing. Detailed research will certainly reveal new sidesof the Alpine processes in the Rhodope and the sur-rounding areas.

References

Arkadakskiy, S. V., Bohm, C., Heaman, L., Cherneva, Z.,Stancheva, E., Ovtcharova, M. 2003. Remnants of Neopro-terozoic oceanic crust in the Central Rhodope metamor-phic complex, Bulgaria. — Geol. Soc. Am., Vancouver An-nual Meeting; GS3-62.

Bonev, K., Ivanov, J., Ricou, L.-E. 1995. Tectonic denudationat the roof of the Rhodopian-Macedonian metamorphiccore: The Gabrov Dol ductile normal fault (Bulgaria). —Bull. Soc. geol. France, 166, 1; 49—58.

Bonev, N., Burg, J.-P., Ivanov, • . 2006. Mesozoic — Tertiarystructural evolution of an extensional gneiss dome — theKesebir-Kardamos dome, eastern Rhodope. — Int. J. EarthSci. (Geol. Rundsch.), 95, 318—340.

Burg, J. P., Ricou, L. E., Ivanov, Z., Godfriaux, I., Dimov, D.,Klain, L. 1996. Syn-methamorphic nappe complex in theRhodope massif. Structure and kinematics. — Terra Nova,8; 6—15.

Carrigan, C. W., Mukasa, S. B., Haydoutov, I., Kolcheva, K.2005. Age of Variscan magmatism from the Balkansector of the orogen, central Bulgaria. — Lithos, 82;125—147.

Carrigan, C. W., Mukasa, S. B., Haydoutov, I., Kolcheva, K.2006. Neoproterozoic magmatism and carboniferous high-

grade metamorphism in the Sredna Gora zone, Bulgaria:An extension of the Gondwana-derived Avalonian-Cadomi-an belt? — Precambrian Res., 147; 404—416.

Cavazza, W., Roure, F., Spakman, W., Stampfli, G., Ziegler, P.(eds.). 2004. The Transmed Atlas. Springer, Berlin.

Cocks, L. R. M., Torsvik, T. H. 2006. European geography in aglobal context from the Vendian to the end of the Palaeozo-ic. — In: Gee, D. G., Stephenson, R. A. (eds.). EuropeanLithosphere Dynamics. Geological Society, London, Mem-oirs, 32; 83—95.

Dimitrov, S. 1959. Kurze Ü bersicht der metamorphen Komplexein Bulgarien. — Freiberger Forschungshefte, R. C., Heft 57;62—72.

Dörr, W., Finger, F., Linnemann, U., Zulauf, G. 2004. The Ava-lonian-Cadomian Belt and related peri-Gondwanan terranes.— Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rundsch.), 93; 657—658.

Graf, J. 2001. Alpine tectonics in western Bulgaria: Cretaceouscompression of the Kraiste region and Cenozoic exhuma-tion of the crystalline Osogovo-Lisec Complex. Disserta-tion ETH No 14’238, Zurich; 197 pp.

Haydoutov, I. 1989. Precambrian ophiolites, Cambrian islandarc, and variscan suture in the South Carpathian — Balkanregion. — Geology, 17; 905—908.

Fig. 3. Cartoon for the possible position of the principal Peri-Gondvanan fragments of SE Europe. Revised after Murphy et al.(2002), Cocks, Torsvik (2006), and other authors

44

Haydoutov, I. 2002. Peri-Gondwanan terranes in the pre-EarlyPalaeozoic basement of the region of Bulgaria. — GeologicaBalc., 32, 2—4; 17—20.

Haydoutov, I., Gochev, P., Kozhoukharov, D., Yanev, S. 1997.Terranes in the Balkan area. — In: Papanikolaou, D. (ed.).IGCP Project No 276. Terrane maps and terrane de-scriptions. Annales geologiques des pays helleniques, 37;479—494.

Haydoutov, I., Yanev, S. N. 1997. The Protomoesian micro-continent of the Balkan Peninsula – a peri-Gondwanalandpiece. — Tectonophysics, 272 (2—4); 303—313.

Ivanov, R. 1981. The deep-seated Central-Rhodope Nappe andthe interference tectonics of the Rhodope crystalline base-ment. — Geologica Balc., 11, 4; 47—66.

Ivanov, Z. 1989. Structure and tectonic evolution of the centralparts of the Rhodope massif. — In: Guide to excursion E-3,CBGA- XIV congress, S.; 56—96.

Jolivet, L., Faccenna, C., Goffé, B., Burov, E., Agard, P. 2003.Subduction tectonics and exhumation of high-pressure meta-morphic rocks in the Mediterranean orogens. — Am. J. Sci.,303; 353—409.

Karamata, S., Krstiæ, B. 1996. Terranes of Serbia and neigh-bouring areas – In: Kne•eviæ, V., Krstiæ, B. (eds.). Terranesof Serbia. Belgrade, University of Belgrade; 25—40.

Karamata, S., Ebner, F., Krstiæ, B. 1996. Terranes — definitionof the terrane, and importance for geologic interpretations.— In: Kne•eviæ, V., Krstiæ, B. (eds.). Terranes of Serbia.Belgrade, University of Belgrade; 23—24.

Keay, S., Lister, G. S. 2002. African provenance for the metased-iments and metaigneous rocks of the Cyclades, Aegean Sea,Greece. — Geology, 30; 235—238.

Keay, S., Lister, G., Buick, I. 2001. The timing of partial melt-ing, Barrovian metamorphism and granite intrusion in theNaxos metamorphic core complex, Cyclades, Aegean sea,Greece. — Tectonophysics, 342; 275—312.

Kounov, A. 2002. Thermotectonic evolution of the Kraishte,Western Bulgaria. Ph. D. thesis, ETH-Zurich.

Kozhoukharov, D. 1986. Interregional correlations of the Pre-cambrian in the southern parts of the Balkan Peninsula. —Geologica Carpathica, 37, 3; 317—333.

Kozhoukharov, D. 1992. Lithostratigraphic features and struc-ture of the Precambrian of the Rhodopian Supergroup inthe Ivaylovgrad and Krumovgrad areas, East Rhodope Moun-tains. — Geologica Balc., 22, 3; 3—31.

Kozhoukharov, D., Kozhoukharova, E., Zagorchev, I. 1978. ThePrecambrian in Bulgaria. Materials to the IGCP Project22, Brno; 65 p.

Kozhoukharova, E. 1999. Metasomatic gabbroids – markersin the tectono-metamorphic evolution of the Eastern Rho-dopes. — Geologica Balc., 29, 1—2; 89—109.

Kräutner, H.-G., Krstiæ, B. 2002. Alpine and Pre-Alpine struc-tural units within the Southern Carpathians and the EasternBalkanides. — In: 17th Congr. Carp.-Balk. Geol. Assoc.,Bratislava.

Krstiæ, B., Karamata, S., Milièeviæ, V. 1996. The Carpatho-Balkanide terranes — a correlation. — In: Kne•eviæ, V., Krstiæ,B. (eds.). Terranes of Serbia. Belgrade, University of Bel-grade; 71—76.

Liati, A., Gebauer, D. 2001. Palaeozoic as well as Mesozoicsedimentation and polymetamorphism in Central Rhodope(N. Greece) as inferred from U-Pb SHRIMP-dating of de-trital zircons. — In: EUG11 Strasbourg 2001, SymposiumLS03, Conference Abstracts, WEpo06:PO.

Liati, A., Gebauer, D., Fanning, M. C. 2004. U-Pb zirconSHRIMP geochronology and REE geochemistry in (U)HPterranes: the example of Central Rhodope, N Greece. — In:5th International Symposium on Eastern Mediterranean Ge-ology, Proceedings, vol. 3; 1155—1158.

Liou, J. G., Tsujimori, T., Tzhang, R. Y., Katayama, I., Maruya-ma, S. 2004. Global UHP Metamorphism and Continental,Subduction/Collision: The Himalayan Model. — Intern. Geol.Rev., 46; 1—27.

Machev, Ph., Kenkmann, T. 2001. Orthogneisses from VlahinaMnt. (SW Bulgaria): petrographical and microstructuralstudies. — Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë. ä-âî, 62, 1—3; 65—76.

Milovanoviæ, D., Marchig, V., Dimitrijeviæ, M. 1998. Petrologyand chronology of Vucje gneiss, Serbo-Macedonian massif,Jugoslavia. — Slovak Geol. Mag. 4, 1; 29—33.

Mposkos, E. 2002. Petrology of the ultra-high pressure meta-morphic Kimi complex in Rhodope (N. E. Greece): a newinsight into the Alpine geodynamic evolution of the Rhodope.— Bulletin of Geological Society Greece, 34; 2169—2188.

Murphy, J. B., Eguiluz, L., Zulauf, F. 2002. Cadomian Orogens,peri-Gondwanan correlatives and Laurentia-Baltica connec-tions. — Tectonophysics, 352, 1—2; 1—9.

Neubauer, F. 2002. Evolution of late Neoproterozoic to earlyPaleozoic tectonic elements in Central and Southeast Euro-pean Alpine mountain belts: review and synthesis. — Tec-tonophysics, 152; 87—103.

Neubauer, F., v. Raumer, J. 1993. The Alpine Basement — Link-age between Variscides and East-Mediterranean mountainbelts. — In: v. Raumer, J., Neubauer, F. (eds.). Pre-MesozoicHistory of the Alps. Springer-Verlag Berlin; 641—663.

Peytcheva, I., v. Quadt, A. 1995. U-Pb zircon dating of meta-granites from Byala-reka region in the East Rhodopes, Bul-garia. — In: Proc. 15 Congr. Carp.-Balk. Geol. Assoc., Geol.Soc. Greece, Spec. Publ. No 4; 636—642.

Peytcheva, I., Ovcharova, M., Sarov, S., Kostitsin, Y. 1998. Ageand metamorphic evolution of metagranites from Kessebirreka region, Eastern Rhodope — Rb-Sr isotope data. — In:Carp.-Balk. Geol. Assoc., 16 Congr., Abstracts; 471.

Peytcheva, I., von Quadt, A., Ovtcharova, M., Handler, R.,Neubauer, F., Salnikova, E., Kostitsyn, Y., Sarov, S., Kolche-va, K. 2004. Metagranitoids from the eastern part of theCentral Rhodopean Dome (Bulgaria): U-Pb, Rb-Sr and40Ar/39Ar timing of emplacement and exhumation and iso-tope-geochemical features. — Mineralogy and Petrology,82; 1—31.

Ricou, L.-E., Burg, J.-P., Godfriaux, I., Ivanov, Z. 1998. Rhodopeand Vardar: the metamorphic and the olistostromic pairedbelts related to the Cretaceous subduction under Europe. —Geodinamica Acta, 11, 6; 285—309.

Rudakov, S. G. 1992. Specific features in the evolution of theCarpathians and the Balkan in the confines of the EuropeanPrototethys. — Geologica Balc., 22, 6; 3—20.

Stampfli, G. M., von Raumer, J., Borel, G. D. 2002. The Palae-ozoic evolution of pre-Variscan terranes: From peri-Gond-wana to the Variscan collision. — In: Martinez-Catalan, J. R.,Hatcher, R. D., Arenas, R. and Diaz Garcia F. (eds.). Varis-can Appalachian Dynamics: the building of the Upper Pale-ozoic basement. Geological Society of America SpecialPaper, 364; 263—280.

Thompson, A. B., Ridley, J. R. Pressure-temperature-time (P-T-t) histories of orogenic belts. — Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.,A 321; 27—45.

von Quadt, A., Peytcheva, I. 1995. U-Pb zircon ages of meta-granites from the Byala-reka region — evidence for a Variscanorogen in the Rhodope massif. — Terra Nostra, 7; 103—105.

von Quadt, A., Peytcheva, I. 1998. Multi-element approachfor the Variscan orogen within the Rhodopen Massif (Bul-garia). — In: Carp.-Balk. Geol. Assoc., 16 Congr., Ab-stracts; 503.

von Quadt, A., Peytcheva, I., Haydoutov, I. 1998. U-Pb Zircondating of Tcherny Vrach metagabbro, the West Balkan,Bulgaria. — C. R. Acad. bulg. Sci., 51, 1—2; 81—84.

von Raumer, J., Stampfli, G., Borel, G., Bussy, F. 2002. Orga-nization of pre-Variscan basement areas at the north-Gond-wanan margin. — Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rundschau), 91;35—52.

von Raumer, J., Stampfli, G.M., Bussy, F. 2003. Gondwana-derived microcontinents — the constituents of the Variscanand Alpine collisional orogens. — Tectonophysics, 365; 7—22.

Winter, J. D., 2001. An introduction to Igneous and Metamor-phic Petrology. Prentice-Hall Inc.; 695 p.

Yanev, S. 1993. Gondwana Palaeozoic terranes in the AlpineCollage System in the Balkans. — Journal of HimalayanGeology, 4; 257—270.

Zagorchev, I. 1974a. Ultrametamorphic inliers within the dia-bas-phyllitoid complex, Vlahina block, SW Bulgaria. — C.R. Acad. bulg. Sci., 27, 9; 1255—1258.

45

Zagorchev, I. 1974b. On the Precambrian tectonics of Bulgar-ia. — Precambrian Research, 1; 139—156.

Zagorchev, I. 1975. Phénomènes tectoniques paléozoiques super-posées dans le socle précambrien de certaines parties de larégion Thraco-Anatolienne. — Geologica Balc., 5, 4; 15—28.

Zagorchev, I. 1976. Tectonic, metamorphic and magmaticmarkers in the polycyclic ultrametamorphic Ograzdeniancomplex. — Geologica Balc., 6, 2; 17—33.

Zagorchev, I. 1998a. Rhodope controversies. — Episodes, 21, 3;159—168.

Zagorchev, I. 1998b. Pre-Triassic section and unit in West Bul-garia. — In: Newsletter No 6, IGCP Project 276, Geol. Soc.Greece, Athens, Special Publications No 3; 42—53.

Zagorchev, I. 2000. Rhodope and Vardar: the metamorphicand the olistostromic paired belts related to the Cretaceoussubduction under Europe. Comment: Rhodope facts andTethys self-delusions. — Geodynamica Acta, 1; 55—59.

Zagorchev, I. 2001. Geology of SW Bulgaria: an overview. —Geologica Balc., 21, 1—2; 3—52.

Zagorchev, I. 2002. Radioisotopic data and geodynamic inter-pretations in the eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula. —Geologica Balc., 32, 2—4; 21—26.

Zidarov, N., Nenova, P. 1995. Basic and ultrabasic rocks andrelated eclogites from the Serbo-Macedinian massif (South-Western Bulgaria). — In: Proc. 15 Congr. Carp.-Balk. Geol.Assoc., Geol. Soc. Greece, Spec. Publ. No 4; 619—626.

Zoubek, V., Cogné, J., Kozhoukharov, D., Krautner, H. G. (eds.).1988. Precambrian in Younger Fold Belts. Chichester, JohnWiley & Sons; 885 p.

Àíòîíîâ, Ì., Æåëåâ, Â., Ïðèñòàâîâà, Ñ., Øèïêîâà, Ê. 2001.Ãðàíèöàòà ìåæäó âèñîêîìåòàìîðôíèòå è íèñêîìåòà-ìîðôíèòå ñêàëè â ÷àñò îò Þãîçàïàäíà Áúëãàðèÿ: oáçîðíà èäåèòå è ïðåäâàðèòåëíè ðåçóëòàòè. — Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë.ä-âî, 62, 1—3; 77—86.

Âàñèëåâ, Ë. 1993. Äîãîðíîêðåäíè êîëèäè â Áúëãàðèÿ. —Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë. ä-âî, 54, 3; 1—18.

Âåðãèëîâ, Â., Êîæóõàðîâ, Ä., Áîÿíîâ, È., Ìàâðóä÷èåâ, Á.,Êîæóõàðîâà, Å. 1963. Áåëåæêè âúðõó äîïàëåîçîéñêèòåìåòàìîðôíè êîìïëåêñè â Ðîäîïñêèÿ ìàñèâ. — Èçâ. Ãåîë.èíñò., 12; 187—211.

Ãåðäæèêîâ, ß. 2004à. Àëïèéñêè (ñâðúõ)âèñîêîáàðè÷åíìåòàìîðôèçúì â Ðîäîïèòå — îáùà õàðàêòåðèñòèêà èãåîäèíàìè÷íè ïîñëåäñòâèÿ. — Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë. ä-âî, 65,1—3; 115—123.

Ãåðäæèêîâ, ß. 2004á. Âèñîêîáàðè÷íè ìåòàìîðôíè êîì-ïëåêñè â îðîãåííèòå ïîñòðîéêè. — Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë. ä-âî,65, 1—3; 181—185.

Äèìèòðîâ, Ñ. 1939. Ïîñòèæåíèÿ è çàäà÷è íà ïåòðîãðàô-ñêèòå ïðîó÷âàíèÿ ó íàñ. — Ãîä. Ñîô. ó-òåò, Ôèç.-ìàò.ôàê., ò. 35, êí. 3 — Åñòåñòâåíà èñòîðèÿ; 225—253.

Äèìèòðîâ, Ñ. 1955. Ñîñòîÿíèå è î÷åðåäíûå çàäà÷è èçó÷å-íèÿ ìàãìàòè÷åñêèõ è ìåòàìîðôè÷åñêèõ êîìïëåêñîâÁîëãàðèè. — Èçâ. ÀÍ ÑÑÑÐ, ñåð. ãåîë., êí. 1; 5—15.

Äèìèòðîâ, Ñ. 1958. Î ðàçâèòèè ìàãìàòèçìà è ðàçìåùåíèèñâÿçàííûõ ñ íèì ðóäíûõ ìåñòîðîæäåíèé Áîëãàðèè. —Èçâ. ÀÍ ÑÑÑÐ, ñåð. ãåîë., êí. 8; 3—9.

Äèìèòðîâà, Å., Áåëìóñòàêîâà, Õ. 1982. Ðåëêòû ýêëîãèòîâ âêîìïëåêñå êðèñòàëëè÷åñêèõ ñëàíöåâ ÈõòèìàíñêîéÑðåäíà-ãîðû. — Geologica Balc., 12, 1; 115—120.

Çàãîð÷åâ, È. 1987à. Ðóáèäèåâî-ñòðîíöèåâà ðàäèîãåîõðî-íîëîãèÿ íà ìåòàìîðôíè è ìàãìåíè ñêàëè â Þæíà Áúëãà-ðèÿ. — Ñï. ÁÀÍ, êí. 5; 58—61.

Çàãîð÷åâ, È. 1987á. Ñòðàòèãðàôèÿ Äèàáàç-ôèëëèòîèäíîãîêîìïëåêñà â Þãî-Çàïàäíîé Áîëãàðèè. — Geologica Balc.,17, 3; 3—14.

Çàãîð÷åâ, È., Ëèëîâ, Ï., Ìóðáàò, Ñ. 1989. Ðåçóëüòàòû ðó-áèäèåâî-ñòðîíöèåâûõ è êàëèåâî-àðãîíîâûõ ðàäèîãåîõ-ðîíîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ìåòàìîðôè÷åñêèõ è ìàã-

ìàòè÷åñêèõ ïîðîä Þæíîé Áîëãàðèè. — Geologica Balc.,19, 3; 41—54.

Çàãîð÷åâ, È. 2003. Òåêòîíîìåòàìîðôíî àìàëãàìèðàíå:ïðèìåðè îò Þæíà Áúëãàðèÿ. — Ãîä. ÌÃÓ „Ñâ. ÈâàíÐèëñêè“, 46, ñâèò. I — Ãåîë. è ãåîôèç.; 89—92.

Çëàòàðñêè, Ã. (ðåä. Áàêàëîâ, Ï.). 1927. Ãåîëîãèÿòà íà Áúëãà-ðèÿ. Ñ., Óíèâ. Áèáë. ¹ 65; 268 ñ.

Èâàíîâ, Æ., Ìîñêîâñêè, Ñ., Êîë÷åâà, Ê. 1979. Îñíîâíûå÷åðòû ñòðîåíèÿ öåíòðàëüíûõ ÷àñòåé Ðîäîïñêîãî ìàñ-ñèâà. — Geolîgica Balc., 9, 1, 3—50.

Èâàíîâ, Æ., Ìîñêîâñêè, Ñ., Êîë÷åâà, Ê., Äèìîâ, Ä., Êëàéí,Ë. 1984. Ãåîëîãè÷åñêîå ñòðîåíèå Öåíòðàëüíûõ Ðîäîï.1. Ëèòîñòðàòèãðàôè÷åñêîå ðàñ÷ëåíåíèå è îñîáåíîñòèðàçðåçà ìåòàìîðôè÷åñêèõ ïîðîä â ñåâåðíûõ ÷àñòüåéÖåíòðàëüíûõ Ðîäîï. — Geologica Balc., 14, 1; 3—42.

Êîæóõàðîâ, Ä. 1984. Ëèòîñòðàòèãðàôèÿ äîêåìáðèéñêèõìåòàìîðôè÷åñêèõ ïîðîä Ðîäîïñêîé ñóïåðãðóïïû âÖåíòðàëüíûõ Ðîäîïàõ. — Geologica Balc., 14, 1; 43—88.

Êîæóõàðîâ, Ä. 1987. Ëèòîñòðàòèãðàôèÿ è ñòðîåíèå äîêåì-áðèÿ â ÿäðå Áåëîðå÷êîãî ïîäíÿòèÿ â Âîñòî÷íûõ Ðîäî-ïàõ. — Geologica Balc., 17, 2; 15—38.

Êîæóõàðîâ, Ä., Êîæóõàðîâà, Å., Õðèñòîâ, Ñ. 1980. Äîêàì-áðèÿò îò ñåâåðíèòå îòäåëè íà Ïëàíà ïëàíèíà è Âàêà-ðåëñêèÿ ðèä. — Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë. ä-âî, 41, 3; 211—222.

Êîæóõàðîâà, Å. 1985. Ïðîèñõîæäåíèå è ñòðóêòóðíîå ïîëî-æåíèå ñåðïåíòèíèçèðîâàííûõ óëüòðàáàçèòîâ äîêåì-áðèéñêîé îôèîëèòîâîé àññîöèàöèè â Ðîäîïñêîì ìàñ-ñèâå. III. — Geologica Balc., 15, 5; 53—69.

Êîë÷åâà, Ê., Öîí÷åâà, À. 1993. Ãëàóêîôàíîâè åêëîãèòè îòÈçòî÷íèòå Ðîäîïè. — Â: Íàó÷íà ñåñèÿ „Ðàçâèòèå íàáúëãàðñêàòà ìèíåðàëîãèÿ“, Ðåçþìåòà, Ñîôèÿ; 31—32.

Êðñòè• , Á., Êàðàìàòà, Ñ. 1992. Òåðàíè ó Êàðïàòî-Áàëêà-íèäèìà Èñòî÷íå Ñðáèje. — Çàïèñíèöè Ñðïñêîã ãåîë.äðóøòâà, Jóáèë. Êœèãà (1891-1991); 57—74.

Íèêîëîâ, Ò., Ñàïóíîâ, È. 2002. Ñòðàòèãðàôñêè êîäåêñíà Áúëãàðèÿ. Ñ., Àêàä. èçä. „Ïðîô. Ìàðèí Äðèíîâ“;138 ñ.

Ñàðîâ, Ñ., ×åðíåâà, Ç., Êîë÷åâà, Ê., Âîéíîâà, Å., Ãåðäæè-êîâ, ß. 2004. Ëèòîòåêòîíñêà ïîäÿëáà íà ìåòàìîðôíè-òå ñêàëè îò èçòî÷íèòå ÷àñòè íà Öåíòðàëíîðîäîïñêàòàåêñòåíçèîííà ñòðóêòóðà. — Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë. ä-âî, 65, 1—3; 101—106.

Òåí÷îâ, ß. (ðåä.). 1993. Ðå÷íèê íà áúëãàðñêèòå îôèöèàë-íè ëèòîñòðàòèãðàôñêè åäèíèöè (1882—1992). Ñ., Àêàä.èçä. „Ïðîô. Ìàðèí Äðèíîâ“; 397 ñ.

Õàéäóòîâ, È. 1991. Ïðîèçõîä è åâîëþöèÿ íà äîêàìáðèé-ñêèÿ Áàëêàíî-Êàðïàòñêè îôèîëèòîâ ñåãìåíò. Ñ., Èçä.ÁÀÍ; 179 ñ.

Õàéäóòîâ, È. 1991. Òðàêèéñêàòà õåðöèíñêà ñóòóðà è ñâúð-çàíèÿò ñ íåÿ ìàãìàòèçúì. — Ãåîòåêò., òåêòîíîôèç. èãåîäèíàì., 23; 3—25.

Õàéäóòîâ, È., Êîë÷åâà, Ê., Äàèåâà, Ë. 1994. Ñòðóìñêàòàäèîðèòîâà ôîðìàöèÿ îò Âëàõèíñêèÿ áëîê, ÞÇ Áúëãà-ðèÿ. — Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë. ä-âî, 55, 3; 9—35.

Õàéäóòîâ, È., Êîë÷åâà, Ê., Äàèåâà, Ë. 1997. Ïðàçèíèòîâà-òà ôîðìàöèÿ îò Çàïàäíîòî Ñðåäíîãîðèå. — Ñï. Áúëã.ãåîë. ä-âî, 58, 2; 71—82.

Õðèñ÷åâ, Õ. 2005. Ëèòîñòðàòèãðàôèÿ è êàðòèðàíå íà åäè-íèöè îò ìåòàìîðôâíè, âóëêàíñêè è ñìåñåíè ñêàëè (äèñ-êóñèÿ). — Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë. ä-âî, 66, 1—3; 127—143.

×åðíåâà, Ç., Àðíàóäîâà, Ð., Èëèåâ, Ö., Ðåêàëîâ, Ê. 1997.Ôåëäøïàòîâà òåðìîìåòðèÿ íà ìèãìàòè÷íè îáðàçóâà-íèÿ îò Öåíòðàëíèòå Ðîäîïè. — Ñï. Áúëã. ãåîë. ä-âî, 58,3; 139—156.

ßíèøåâñêè, À. 1947. Ê âîïðîñó î âîçðàñòå êðèñòàëëè÷åñ-êèõ ñëàíöåâ è èçâåðæåííûõ ïîðîä Þæíîé Áîëãàðèè èîñíîâíûå ÷åðòû åå ãåîëîãè÷åñêîãî ñòðîåíèÿ. — Ñï. Áúëã.ãåîë. ä-âî, 15—19; 107—148.

46

È. Çàãîð÷åâ – Ìåòàìîðôíèòå êîìïëåêñè àìôèáîëèòîâ ôàöèåñ â Áúëãàðèÿ è ïðåêàì-áðèéñêàòà ãåîäèíàìèêà:ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ è ñúñòîÿíèå íà ïðîáëåìà. Åâîëþöèÿòà íà èäåèòåçà õàðàêòåðà è âúçðàñòòà íà ìåòàìîðôíèòå êîìïëåêñè îò ôóíäàìåíòà íà Áàëêàíñêèÿ ïîëó-îñòðîâ ñå ðàçâèâà îò ïúðâîíà÷àëíîòî ïðè÷èñëÿâàíå êúì åäèí åäèíñòâåí ïðåêàìáðèéñêèêîìïëåêñ êúì äèôåðåíöèàöèÿ è ðàçïîçíàâàíå íà ðàçëè÷íè ïðîòîëèòè, êîèòî ñà ïðåòúðïåëèïîëèìåòàìîðôíà è ïîëèäåôîðìàöèîííà èñòîðèÿ. Ïîäõîäúò çà îòäåëÿíå íà ìåòàìîðôíèêîìïëåêñè áè òðÿáâàëî äà áúäå ïîä÷èíåí íà ÿñíî îïðåäåëåíè ïðèíöèïè, òúé êàòî êîðåëà-öèèòå ìåæäó ðàçêúñàíè è îòäàëå÷åíè ðàçêðèòèÿ ìîãàò èçêóñòâåíî äà îáåäèíÿò ñêàëè ñðàçëè÷íî ãåîëîæêî ðàçâèòèå. Îñíîâíèòå îñîáåíîñòè, íà êîèòî áè òðÿáâàëî äà ñå îñíîâàâàîòäåëÿíåòî íà êîìïëåêñèòå ñà: 1) Ïúðâè÷åí õàðàêòåð, âúçðàñò è âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿ íà ïðî-òîëèòèòå; 2) Òèï è âðåìå íà ïúðâèÿ ìåòàìîðôèçúì è ïúðâàòà åêñõóìàöèÿ; 3) Íîâî ïîãðåá-âàíå (ïîêðèâàùè ôîðìàöèè), íàëîæåíè ìåòàìîðôíè ÿâëåíèÿ, âîäåùè äî òåêòîíîìåòàìîð-ôíî àìàëãàìèðàíå èëè äðóãè òèïîâå íàëîæåí ìåòàìîðôèçúì; 4) Íîâà åêñõóìàöèÿ (ãåîëîæ-êè äàííè, âúçðàñò ïî èçîòîïíè äàííè è ïð.). Èçÿñíÿâàíåòî äàæå íà ÷àñò îò òåçè îñîáåíîñòèå òðóäíà çàäà÷à ïîðàäè íåïúëíîòàòà íà ãåîëîæêàòà ëåòîïèñ è îñòàðÿëàòà èíôîðìàöèÿ.

Âúç îñíîâà íà íàëè÷íàòà èíôîðìàöèÿ áè ñëåäâàëî äà ðàçëè÷àâàìå ñëåäíèòå îñíîâíèòèïîâå ïðåêàìáðèéñêè ìåòàìîðôíè êîìïëåêñè (àìôèáîëèòîâ ôàöèåñ).

1) Ìåòàìîðôíè êîìïëåêñè îò Ñðåäíîãîðñêèÿ êðèñòàëèíåí áëîê (Ñúùèíñêà è ÑúðíåíàÑðåäíà ãîðà): Êîïðèâùåíñêè àìôèáîëèòîâ è Ïèðäîïñêè ãíàéñîâî-ìèãìàòèòîâ êîìïëåêñ.

2) Ìåòàìîðôíè êîìïëåêñè îò Èõòèìàíñêèÿ è Âåðèëñêèÿ áëîê: Ãàðâàíèøêè ãíàéñîâî-àìôèáîëèòîâ è Ïëàíñêè ãíàéñîâ êîìïëåêñ.

3) Ìåòàìîðôíè êîìïëåêñè îò Ñòðóìñêàòà åäèíèöà: Îñîãîâñêè êîìïëåêñ (â Îñîãîâñêî-Ëèñåöêîòî ïîäóâàíå), Òðîñêîâñêè àìôèáîëèòîâ è Ìàëåøåâñêè ãíàéñîâî-ìèãìàòèòîâ (â Ëè-ñèéñêîòî ïîäóâàíå).

4) Ìåòàìîðôíè êîìïëåêñè â Ìîðàâñêàòà è Îãðàæäåíñêàòà åäèíèöà: Äðàãîé÷èíñêè êîì-ïëåêñ (â Ìîðàâñêàòà åäèíèöà), Ìàëåøåâñêè êîìïëåêñ (â Îãðàæäåíñêàòà åäèíèöà, êúäåòî åâúçìîæíî îòäåëÿíåòî è íà äðóãè êîìïëåêñè â ðàìêèòå íà Îãðàæäåíñêèÿ ñóïåðêîìïëåêñ).

5) Ìåòàìîðôíè êîìïëåêñè îò çàïàäíèòå ÷àñòè íà Ðîäîïñêèÿ ìàñèâ: Àðäåíñêè óëòðàìå-òàìîðôåí êîìïëåêñ, Ðóï÷îñêè ïúñòúð êîìïëåêñ (ãðúöêè åêâèâàëåíò – êîìïëåêñ Êèìè),Áà÷êîâñêè ãíàéñîâ êîìïëåêñ (îòãîâàðÿ íà Ñèòîâñêàòà ãðóïà, íî áåç Ëóêîâèøêàòà ñâèòà;ãðúöêè åêâèâàëåíò – êîìïëåêñ Ñèäèðîíåðî) è Àñåíîâãðàäñêè êîìïëåêñ (âêëþ÷âà â îñíîâà-òà Ëóêîâèøêàòà ñâèòà; ãðúöêè åêâèâàëåíò – ìðàìîðè Ôàëàêðîí/Ïàíãåéîí).

6) Ìåòàìîðôíè êîìïëåêñè îò èçòî÷íèòå ÷àñòè íà Ðîäîïñêèÿ ìàñèâ: Ñòðàæåöêè ãíàéñîâ,Áîòóð÷åíñêè ìåòàîôèîëèòîâ è Òèíòÿâñêè ãíàéñîâ êîìïëåêñ.

Âúïðåêè ÷å â ïîñëåäíèòå ãîäèíè å ïîäëîæåíà íà ñåðèîçíà êðèòèêà, êëàñè÷åñêàòà ëèòî-ñòðàòèãðàôñêà ïîäÿëáà íà òåçè ìåòàìîðôíè êîìïëåêñè, êîèòî ñå ñúñòîÿò ïðåäèìíî îò ïà-ðàìåòàìîðôíè è/èëè ñìåñåíè ñêàëè îñòàâà çàñåãà áåç àëòåðíàòèâà. Íàñêîðî âúâåäåíèòåêîìïëåêñè íà òåðèòîðèÿòà íà Ñåâåðíà Ãúðöèÿ ñúâïàäàò ïî îáåì ñ âå÷å âúâåäåíè åêâèâàëåí-òè íà áúëãàðñêà òåðèòîðèÿ. Ïîðàäè òîâà íå å ïðàâîìåðíî ïðåíàñÿíåòî íà íîâîâúâåäåíèòåèìåíà íà òåðèòîðèÿòà íà Áúëãàðèÿ.

Ïðîòîëèòèòå íà êîìïëåêñèòå ñà ñ äîêàçàíà ïðåêàìáðèéñêà (äîêàäîìñêà) âúçðàñò, íîïîëèìåòàìîðôíàòà èñòîðèÿ íà âñåêè îò òÿõ ïîêàçâà çíà÷èòåëíè ðàçëè÷èÿ. Ïîðàäè òîâà åíåîáõîäèìî ïðåðàçãëåæäàíå íà ïðåäèøíèòå êîðåëàöèè â ñâåòëèíàòà íà íîâèòå äàííè, êàêòîè íà áúäåùèòå ïåòðîëîæêè è ðàäèîãåîõðîíîëîæêè èçñëåäâàíèÿ.

Ïàëåîãåîäèíàìè÷íèòå èíòåðïðåòàöèè, êîèòî ñà î÷åðòàíè â ïîñëåäíèòå ãîäèíè, çàñåãàñå îñíîâàâàò íà òâúðäå ìàëêî äàííè îò íàøèÿ ðåãèîí. Ïîðàäè òîâà ðàçëè÷íèòå ïðåäëîæåíèâàðèàíòè (âêëþ÷èòåëíî è òîçè îò íàñòîÿùàòà ñòàòèÿ) ñà ñàìî ïúðâè îïèòè ïî ïîñîêà íàåäèí ïî-ãëîáàëåí ïîäõîä êúì ïðåêàìáðèéñêàòà èñòîðèÿ.