Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic tectonic and ...metcalfeian.com/web-data/s/Metcalfe 2009 Geol Soc.pdfof the tectonic and palaeogeographical evolution of SE Asia in the Late Palaeozoic

Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic tectonic and palaeogeographical

evolution of SE Asia

IAN METCALFE

School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale,

NSW 2351, Australia (e-mail: [email protected])

Abstract: SE Asia comprises a collage of continental terranes derived directly or indirectly fromthe India–Australian margin of eastern Gondwana. The Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic evolution ofthe region involved the rifting and separation of three elongate continental slivers from easternGondwana and the successive opening and closure of three ocean basins, the Palaeo-Tethys,Meso-Tethys and Ceno-Tethys. The Sukhothai Island Arc System, including the Linchang,Sukhothai and Chanthaburi terranes, is identified between the Sibumasu and Indochina–EastMalaya terranes in SE Asia and was formed by back-arc spreading in the Permian. The Jinghong,Nan–Uttaradit and Sra Kaeo sutures represent the closed back-arc basin. The Palaeo-Tethys is rep-resented to the west by the Changning–Menglian, Chiang Mai/Inthanon and Bentong–Raubsuture zones. The West Sumatra and West Burma blocks rifted and separated from Gondwana,along with Indochina and East Malaya in the Devonian, and together with South China formeda composite terrane ‘Cathaysialand’ in the Permian. They were translated westwards to their posi-tions outboard of the Sibumasu Terrane by strike-slip tectonics in the Late Permian–Early Triassicat the zone of convergence between the Meso-Tethys and Palaeo-Pacific plates. SW Borneo is ten-tatively identified as possibly being the missing ‘Argoland’ that separated from NW Australia inthe Jurassic. Palaeogeographical reconstructions for the Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic illustratingthe tectonic and palaeogeographical evolution of SE Asia are presented.

SE Asia is a unique natural laboratory for studyingcollisional plate tectonics, suture formation andmountain building (Hall 2002, 2009). The regionis also one of the best for studying long-livedterrane dispersion and accretion processes (Metcalfe1999) and the effects of rapid changes in continent–ocean configurations on biogeographical patternsand ecosystems (Hall & Holloway 1998; Kershawet al. 2001; Metcalfe et al. 2001). The tectonic evol-ution, terrane accretion, and assembly of SE Asiaduring the Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic hasresulted in complex changes in the palaeogeographyof SE Asia and in the juxtaposition of contrastingbut temporally coincident palaeo-ecosystems inthe region. Changing continent–ocean configur-ations, palaeogeography and climate changes inthe Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic of what is nowSE Asia have resulted in complex patterns of bothmarine and terrestrial ecosystems of SE Asia bothin space and time. This paper presents an overviewof the tectonic and palaeogeographical evolution ofSE Asia in the Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic.

Tectonic framework of SE Asia

SE Asia is located at the zone of convergencebetween the Eurasia, Pacific and Indo-Australianplates (Fig. 1). The region comprises a complexassemblage of continental terranes (bounded by

suture zones or other major tectonic features),island arcs and small ocean basins. The olderPalaeozoic and Mesozoic portions of the regioncomprise allochthonous continental terranes (smallto medium-sized allochthonous continental blocksthat have distinctive tectonostratigraphic histories)that were assembled prior to the current collisionof Australia with the region. The Cenozoic evolut-ion of the region has been well studied, and the evol-ution and reconstruction models of Hall (2002) areconsidered the most reliable. This paper focuseson the Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic evolution.

Continental terranes and their origins

The principal continental terranes and sutures of SEAsia are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Terranes aregrouped according to their interpreted origins andare discussed briefly under these origin groupingsbelow. Descriptions of the terranes have beengiven by Metcalfe (2006). All the continental ter-ranes of East and SE Asia are interpreted to havebeen directly or indirectly derived from the easternGondwana margin at different times and somesmall terranes were subsequently derived indirectlyfrom larger Gondwana-derived terranes or compo-site terranes (see Metcalfe 1986, 1988, 1990,1991, 1993, 1996a, b, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005,2006; Table 1). I have previously described thesuccessive rifting and northwards drift of three

From: BUFFETAUT, E., CUNY, G., LE LOEUFF, J. & SUTEETHORN, V. (eds) Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Ecosystemsin SE Asia. The Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 315, 7–23.DOI: 10.1144/SP315.2 0305-8719/09/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2009.

Gondwana-derived continental slivers (now dis-rupted into various terranes), with the successiveopening and closure of the Palaeo-Tethys,Meso-Tethys and Ceno-Tethys ocean basins. Thisbroad scenario is still advocated here (Fig. 4), butrecent new data demand modification of theterrane make-up of these continental slivers, andalso reinterpretations of the origins and boundariesof some of the terranes in the region.

Terranes derived from Gondwana in the Devonian.A group of East and SE Asian terranes are inter-preted to have rifted and separated from Gondwanaas an elongate continental sliver in the Devonian(Fig. 4) and comprise North China, South China(including Hainan), Indochina–East Malaya(including the Qamdao–Simao/Simao and dis-rupted West Sumatra and West Burma terranes)and Tarim (including the disrupted Kunlun,Qaidam and Ala Shan terranes). The WestSumatra terrane was proposed by Hutchison(1994) and Barber & Crow (2003), and is interpretedto have been translated westwards from ‘Cathaysia-land’ (combined South China–Indochina–EastMalaya composite terrane in Permo-Triassictimes) as suggested by Barber et al. (2005) andMetcalfe (2005). A Devonian separation of theseterranes from Gondwana is still advocated herebased on palaeomagnetic and biogeographical datafrom the terranes themselves and also from Devo-nian age data for oceanic radiolarian cherts in the

Palaeo-Tethys (for details, see Metcalfe 1988,1990, 1998, 2005). Jablonski & Saitta (2004) have,however, on the basis of transgressive–regressivesequences in western Australian basins, argued fora later Early Carboniferous (Visean) separation ofSouth China, Indochina and Simao terranes. Thistiming seems too young in view of the fact that thePalaeo-Tethys suture zone includes oceanic sedi-ments of Devonian age and no post-Devonian Gond-wana biota is reported from the terranes in question.

Terranes derived from Gondwana in the EarlyPermian. The second continental sliver that riftedand separated from Gondwana in the EarlyPermian (with opening of the Meso-Tethys) wasthe Cimmerian continent of Sengor (1979, 1984),which included the Sibumasu terrane (Metcalfe1984) of SE Asia and the Baoshan and Tengchongterranes of Yunnan in western China. I havepresented evidence for the NW Australian originand Early Permian rifting and separation of theSibumasu portion of the Cimmerian continentfrom Gondwana in a series of papers (e.g. Metcalfe1986, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1996a, b, 1998,2001, 2002, 2005, 2006) and this will not berepeated here. Recent studies (Sone & Metcalfe2008) have led to the recognition of an island arcsystem, the Sukhothai Island Arc system, throughSE Asia (Fig. 5) situated between Sibumasuand Indochina–East Malaya (from which it wasderived by back-arc spreading). This interpretation,

Fig. 1. Principal tectonic plates of SE Asia. Arrows show plate motions relative to Eurasia.

I. METCALFE8

together with recognition of the West Sumatraterrane and extension of the Bentong–Raub suturethrough the tin islands of north Sumatra, dictatessome modification of the boundaries of the Sibu-masu Terrane (Figs 2 and 3). The newly proposed

Sukhothai Island Arc system includes the Linchang,Sukhothai and Chanthaburi terranes (Sone &Metcalfe 2008) and is broadly equivalent tothe ‘Sukhothai zone’ originally defined as the‘Sukhothai fold belt’ by Bunopas (1982, fig. 139)

Fig. 2. Distribution of principal continental terranes and sutures of East and SE Asia. WB, West Burma; SWB, SWBorneo; S, Semitau Terrane; L, Lhasa Terrane; QT, Qiangtang Terrane; QS, Qamdo–Simao Terrane; SI, SimaoTerrane; SG, Songpan Ganzi accretionary complex; KL, Kunlun Terrane; QD, Qaidam Terrane; AL, Ala Shan Terrane;LT, Linchang Terrane; CT, Chanthaburi Terrane.

TECTONIC AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHICAL EVOLUTION 9

in Thailand. The previously recognized InthanonZone (¼ Inthanon Fold Belt of Bunopas) in Thai-land is here interpreted as part of the Palaeo-Tethyssuture Zone (Fig. 5) following Sone & Metcalfe(2008).

Use and abuse of the terms ‘Shan-Thai’ and‘Gondwana–Tethys/Cathaysia Divide’. The Sibu-masu Terrane (Metcalfe 1984) is the Gondwana-derived terrane in SE Asia that included partsof western Thailand, Burma, western Peninsular

Malaysia and NW Sumatra, characterized by thepresence of late Carboniferous and early Permianglacial–marine diamictites (Fig. 6) and late Palaeo-zoic strata with Gondwana affinity faunas and floras.This terrane, as defined, is not equivalent to theShan-Thai Terrane of Bunopas (1982), which wasdefined as including ‘eastern Burma, western Thai-land and northwestern Malay Peninsula’, but someworkers have equated, and continue to equateShan-Thai with Sibumasu. It is here stressed thatthese are not equivalents and the terms should not

Fig. 3. Distribution of continental blocks, fragments and terranes, and principal sutures of SE Asia. 1, East Java;2, Bawean; 3, Paternoster; 4, Mangkalihat; 5, West Sulawesi; 6, Semitau; 7, Luconia; 8, Kelabit–Longbowan; 9, SpratlyIslands–Dangerous Ground; 10, Reed Bank; 11, North Palawan; 12, Paracel Islands; 13, Macclesfield Bank; 14, EastSulawesi; 15, Bangai-Sula; 16, Buton; 17, Obi-Bacan; 18, Buru-Seram; 19, West Irian Jaya; LT, Lincang Terrane; SI,Simao Terrane; ST, Sukhothai Terrane; CT, Chanthaburi Terrane; C-M, Changning–Menglian Suture; C.-Mai, ChiangMai Suture; Nan-Utt., Nan–Uttaradit Suture.

I. METCALFE10

be used interchangeably. Matters have been madeworse recently with some proposals to apply theterm ‘Shan-Thai’ to include Cathaysian elementsof Thailand (e.g. Hirsch et al. 2006; Ishida et al.2006; Ferrari et al. 2009), introducing furtherconfusion of the originally defined GondwanaShan-Thai Terrane. The ‘Shan-Thai Block’ ofHirsch et al. (2006) and Ferrari et al. (2009) infact includes both continental terranes and suturezones (see Hirsch et al. 2006, fig. 2; Ferrari et al.2009, fig. 5), which is an unacceptable oversimplifi-cation and composite grouping of very differenttectonic units.

Confusion has also arisen relating to the majorLate Palaeozoic biogeographical boundary recog-nized through East and SE Asia that separatesGondwana faunas and floras from Cathaysian

faunas and floras. This major biogeographicaldivide has been termed the ‘Gondwana–TethysDivide’ or ‘Gondwana–Cathaysia Divide’ bysome workers and has been used to mark the bound-ary between Gondwana-derived continental terranesin the west, with Early Permian cold- or cool-climate sediments and biota, from warm-climateequatorial Cathaysian continental terranes to theeast (Ueno 2003; Metcalfe 2005). It was therecognition of this major biogeographical divide,coupled with Late Carboniferous–Early Permiandiamictites interpreted to be of glacial–marineorigin, that led to models of Gondwana dispersionand Asian accretion of terranes derived from Gond-wana (e.g. Metcalfe 1988, 1990). The Gondwana–Cathaysia biogeographical divide has been takenby some workers to indicate the boundary between

Table 1. Suggested origins for the East and SE Asian continental terranes

Terrane Origin

North China N. AustraliaSouth China Himalaya–Iran region of GondwanaSibumasu NW AustraliaIndochina Eastern GondwanaEast Malaya Eastern GondwanaWest Sumatra Eastern Gondwana (Cathaysialand)West Burma Eastern Gondwana (Cathaysialand)Lhasa Himalayan GondwanaQiangtang Himalayan GondwanaSimao Eastern Gondwana: South ChinaLincang Indochina–East Malaya (Cathaysialand)Chanthaburi Indochina–East Malaya (Cathaysialand)Kunlun NE Gondwana? Originally part of Tarim?Qaidam NE Gondwana? Originally part of Tarim?Ala Shan NE Gondwana? Originally part of Tarim?Tarim Australian Gondwana?Hainan NE Gondwana?Kurosegawa (Japan) Australian Gondwana?South Kitakami (Japan) North China marginEast Java NW Australia (Argoland)Bawean NW Australia (Argoland)Paternoster NW Australia (Argoland)West Sulawesi NW Australia (Argoland)Mangkalihat NW Australia (Argoland)East Sulawesi New Guinea region of the Australian marginBanggai-Sula New Guinea region of the Australian marginButon New Guinea region of the Australian marginObi-Bacan New Guinea region of the Australian marginBuru-Seram New Guinea region of the Australian marginWest Irian Jaya New Guinea region of the Australian marginSW Borneo Cathaysialand or NW Australia (Argoland)?Semitau Cathaysialand (South China–Indochina margin)Luconia Cathaysialand (South China–Indochina margin)Kelabit–Longbowan Cathaysialand (South China–Indochina margin)Spratley Islands–Dangerous Ground Cathaysialand (South China–Indochina margin)Reed Bank Cathaysialand (South China–Indochina margin)North Palawan Cathaysialand (South China–Indochina margin)Paracel Islands Cathaysialand (South China–Indochina margin)Macclesfield Bank Cathaysialand (South China–Indochina margin)


Gondwana terranes and Cathaysian terranes (e.g.Ueno 1999; Ueno & Hisada 1999, 2001) and alsoused to identify the position of the Palaeo-Tethyssuture as corresponding to the Mai Yuam Fault inThailand (Ueno & Hisada 2001; Ueno 2003). Thisis an unfortunate interpretation, because Cathaysianfaunal elements in seamounts occurring within thePalaeo-Tethys suture zone have been misinterpretedto indicate that the suture lies further to the west.This was particularly illustrated by Hirsch et al.(2006, fig. 2), who placed the Gondwana–Tethysdivide in Peninsular Malaysia west of stable conti-nental margin limestones (Kanthan Limestone,Kinta Valley) that contain Gondwana faunas.Hirsch et al. also showed a ‘Pattani Suture’ in theGulf of Thailand and extending into PeninsularMalaysia delineating the eastern margin oftheir ‘Mae Sariang Zone’ yet did not provide anydescription of or justification for this suture zone.

Terranes derived from Gondwana in the LateTriassic–Late Jurassic. Metcalfe (1990) interpretedwestern Burma, which was named the Mount Vic-toria Land block, as a terrane derived from NWAustralia that represented the missing ‘Argoland’continental fragment that must have rifted from

that region in the Jurassic. This terrane was laternamed West Burma (Metcalfe 1996a, b) to avoidnomenclatural confusion with Mount Victoria inAntarctica. Correlation of the Mogok Belt inBurma (which forms the boundary betweenSibumasu and West Burma) with the MedialSumatra Tectonic Zone separating Sibumasu fromthe Cathaysian West Sumatra Block suggests thatthe West Burma terrane represents a continuationof the West Sumatra Block (Barber & Crow2009). Barber & Crow (2009) also pointed out thatMiddle Permian fusulinids from Karmine, Burma(Oo et al. 2002) are Cathaysian in nature andsimilar to Middle Permian faunas of the WestSumatra Block, supporting their interpretation.The West Burma Block is therefore here regardedas a Cathaysian terrane that was derived from theCathaysialand superterrane together with the WestSumatra Block in the Permian. If this interpretationis accepted, then the West Burma Block must havebeen derived from Gondwana in the Devonian aspart of the Indochina–East Malaya terrane. Thisleaves the identity of ‘Argoland’ yet to be estab-lished. One possibility (A. J. Barber, pers. comm.;Hall 2009; Hall et al. 2009) is that SW Borneomight be a candidate. I previously considered this

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram showing times of separation and subsequent collision of the three continental slivers orcollages of terranes that rifted from Gondwana and translated northwards by the opening and closing of three successiveoceans, the Palaeo-Tethys, Meso-Tethys and Ceno-Tethys.

I. METCALFE12

but ruled it out on the basis that Cathaysian faunaswere known from the Carboniferous–LowerPermian Terbat Limestone on the Sarawak–Kalimantan border. If, however, these limestonesform part of the Kuching zone (accretionary

complex) or the small Semitau Block, and not thecore of the SW Borneo Block, then SW Borneobecomes a candidate for the ‘Argoland’ block.This would be supported by the occurrence of dia-monds in headless placers (placer diamond deposits

Fig. 5. Tectonic subdivision of mainland SE Asia proposed by Sone & Metcalfe (2008), showing the Sukhothai IslandArc System, Palaeo-Tethys and Sukhothai back-arc sutures, and occurrence of deep-sea sediments in each local suture.C-M S. Z., Changning–Menglian Suture Zone; BKK, Bangkok. After Sone & Metcalfe (2008).


without any obvious local or regional diamondsource) in SW Borneo (Fig. 6), which could wellhave been derived from NW Australia. New infor-mation is also now available on the small Gond-wana-derived continental fragments located ineastern Indonesia. Recent provenance studies haveidentified an Australian Gondwana-derived EastJava terrane (Smyth et al. 2007). The BaweanArch and Paternoster Platform pre-Cenozoic conti-nental blocks (Manur & Barraclough 1994) arealso possibly of Australian Gondwana origin buthard data supporting this are at present lacking.Other small continental blocks postulated tohave had their origin on the Mesozoic margin ofAustralian Gondwana include the West SulawesiBlock (which has been linked with the East Java

terrane) and the Mangkalihat Block in NE Borneo.It is possible that these microcontinental blocks(numbered 1–5 in Fig. 3) may in fact represent asingle disrupted terrane derived from NW Australia(Hall 2009).

Tectonic and palaeogeographical evolution

Late Palaeozoic

Palaeomagnetic, biogeographical and tectonostrati-graphic data suggest that a continental sliver com-prising North China, Indochina (including EastMalaya, West Sumatra and West Burma), Tarimand South China rifted and separated from eastern

Fig. 6. Map of mainland SE Asia, showing the distribution of Late Carboniferous–Early Permian glacial–marinesedimentary rocks and major alluvial diamond deposits. Inset photograph shows dropstone in glacial–marine diamictiteoriented vertical to bedding, Singa Formation, Langkawi Islands, Peninsular Malaysia. Abbreviations as in Figure 2.

I. METCALFE14

Gondwana in the Devonian, and Palaeo-Tethysopened between this sliver and Gondwana(Metcalfe 1996a, b). By Late Devonian–Early Car-boniferous times, significant spreading had occurredin the Palaeo-Tethys ocean but some connectionwith Gondwana probably remained in the east(Metcalfe 2001) and endemic shallow-marinefaunas characterized by Chuiella developed on thewestern portion of this separating continentalsliver (Chen & Shi 1999; Fig. 7). Tarim collidedwith Siberia in the Late Carboniferous to EarlyPermian and was firmly welded to Asia by theMiddle Permian (Carroll et al. 1995). Late EarlyCarboniferous floras of Indochina–East Malayaand South China are very similar (Laveine et al.1999), suggesting a continental connectionbetween these terranes at that time. Tectonostrati-graphic data also indicate that these terranes col-lided and fused in the Carboniferous along theSong Ma Suture (Metcalfe 2001) to form a super-terrane, here termed Cathaysialand (Fig. 8). Palaeo-magnetic data indicate that North China remained inequatorial to low northern latitudes during theCarboniferous–Permian between Cathaysialandand NE Pangaea (Nie 1991). During the Permian,Cathaysialand and North China, which were situ-ated within the Tethys ocean and largely isolatedfrom the rest of Pangaea, developed the characteri-stic terrestrial flora and shallow-marine faunasof the Cathaysian biogeographical province. The

Cathaysian equatorial flora is distinctly differentfrom the cooler climate contemporaneous northernAngara and southern Gondwana floras, and coevalequatorial American and Euramerican floras ofPangaea (Fig. 9). Shallow-marine faunas are alsodistinctive and include endemic forms (e.g. theconodont Pseudosweetognathus; see Fig. 8b).

During the Permian a second continental sliver,the Cimmerian continent (Sengor 1979, 1984), theeastern portion of which is the Sibumasu Terrane,rifted and separated from eastern Gondwana anddrifted northwards to collide with Cathaysialand(Fig. 8). As this terrane separated and moved north-wards, it exhibits a progressive change in marineprovinciality from peri-Gondwanan Indoralian Pro-vince faunas in the Asselian–Sakmarian to endemicSibumasu Province faunas in the middle Permian toCathaysian Province faunas in the Late Permian(Shi & Archbold 1998; Ueno 2003). The northwardslatitudinal change, isolation from Gondwana, thenamalgamation with Cathaysialand is reflected inthe change from cool-climate or -water conditionsto warm-wate or -climate conditions and in thechanging biogeographical affinities of faunas andchanging ecosystems. During the northwards driftof Sibumasu, the Palaeo-Tethys was subductedbeneath northern Pangaea, North China and Cathay-sialand. Subduction beneath Cathaysialand resultedin the opening of a back-arc basin and developmentof the Sukhothai Island Arc terranes probably

Fig. 7. Reconstruction of eastern Gondwana in Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous (Tournaisian) times showing thepostulated positions of the East and SE Asian terranes. Also shown is the distribution of the endemic Tournaisianbrachiopod genus Chuiella. NC, North China; SC, South China; T, Tarim; I, Indochina–East Malaya–West Sumatra–West Burma; QI, Qiangtang; L, Lhasa; S, Sibumasu; SWB, SW Borneo; WC, Western Cimmerian Continent.


Fig. 8. Palaeogeographical reconstructions of the Tethyan region for (a) Early Early Permian (Asselian–Sakmarian),(b) Late Early Permian (Kungurian) and (c) Late Permian (Changhsingian) showing relative positions of the Eastand SE Asian terranes and distribution of land and sea. Also shown is the Late Early Permian distribution of

I. METCALFE16

developed over thin continental crust (Lincang,Sukhothai and Chanthaburi terranes) that originallyformed the margin of Indochina (Fig. 8c). Theback-arc basin then collapsed and closed to formthe Jinghong, Nan–Uttaradit and Sra Kaeo sutures(Sone & Metcalfe 2008). Collision of the Sibumasu

terrane with the Sukhothai Island Arc terranes andCathaysialand closed the southeastern Palaeo–Tethys in the Permian–Triassic producing theChangning–Menglian, Inthanon and Bentong–Raub suture zones. The precise timing of collisionof Sibumasu with Indochina–East Malaya is

Fig. 9. Distribution of Early Permian floral provinces plotted on (a) present-day geographical map, and (b) EarlyPermian palaeogeographical map. KT, Kurosegawa Terrane. Other abbreviations as in Figure 2.

Fig. 8. (Continued ) biogeographically important conodonts, and Late Permian tetrapod vertebrate Dicynodon localitieson Indochina and Pangaea in the Late Permian. SC, South China; T, Tarim; I, Indochina; EM, East Malaya; WS, WestSumatra; NC, North China; SI, Simao; S, Sibumasu; WB, West Burma; QI, Qiangtang; L, Lhasa; SWB, SW Borneo;WC, Western Cimmerian Continent. Land and sea shading as in Figure 7.


debated. Metcalfe (2000) suggested a LatePermian–Early Triassic collision for theBentong–Raub suture segment based on a rangeof constraining data, and based on interpretation ofradiolarian cherts of Triassic age belonging to theSemanggol Formation and equivalents in westernPeninsular Malaysia and Sumatra having formedin a successor basin rather than being depositedon Palaeo-Tethys ocean floor. This timing waschallenged by several workers, who suggested aLate Triassic or even Jurassic collision based oninterpretation of the Semanggol cherts and equiva-lents as Palaeo-Tethyan deposits (e.g. Sashidaet al. 1995, 1999, 2000a, b; Kamata et al. 2002;Hirsch et al. 2006; Ishida et al. 2006; Ueno et al.2006). Barber & Crow (2009) supported a latestPermian collision and suggested that the Semanggoland equivalent Triassic cherts formed in a successorbasin(s) over the foreland fold-and-thrust belt assuggested by Metcalfe (2000). There are, however,valid arguments for a younger (late Triassic) col-lision and suturing to the north along the Changn-ing–Menglian suture in SW China (Liu et al. 1996).

During the Late Permian–Early Triassic col-lision of Sibumasu and Indochina–East Malaya,and as a result of Cathaysialand being located atthe zone of interaction between the north-movingMeso-Tethys and west-moving Palaeo-Pacificplates, it is postulated here, following the suggestionof Barber & Crow (2003) and Barber et al. (2005),that the West Sumatra and West Burma terranes(as an initial single unit later split by the openingof the Andaman Sea) were translated westwards

to their current biogeographically unexpectedpositions outboard of the Sibumasu Terrane bylargely strike-slip translation. A land connection(which may have been temporary) between Indo-china and Pangaea in the Late Permian is indicatedby the confirmed presence of the Late Permian tetra-pod vertebrate Dicynodon in Laos (Fig. 8c). It is notknown if this connection was via South and NorthChina (most likely), or via the western Cimmeriancontinent, or both. The timing of collision betweenSouth and North China, along the Qingling–Dabie–Sulu suture zone has long been controver-sial, with Mid-Palaeozoic, Late Palaeozoic andLate Triassic–Jurassic timings being proposed.A Permian to Early Triassic collision is here inter-preted. This is based on studies of low-grade meta-morphic rocks in the Sulu belt (Zhou et al. 2008),and geochronological and structural data (e.g.Faure et al. 2003) indicating Permian subductionof South China beneath North China. In addition,identification of a Devonian–Triassic accretionarywedge that includes eclogites, and that formed acoeval volcano-plutonic arc that stretches from theLongmen Shan to Korea, supports subductionbeneath the Qinling–Sino–Korean plate and aPermian–Triassic collision (Hacker et al. 2004).

Mesozoic

During the Triassic, welding of Sibumasu and Cath-aysialand continued and collision with North Chinawas largely completed by Late Triassic times(Fig. 10). Comparisons of apparent polar wander

Fig. 10. Palaeogeographical reconstructions of the Tethyan region for the Late Triassic (Rhaetian) showing relativepositions of the East and SE Asian terranes and distribution of land and sea. Abbreviations and sea shading as inFigures 7 and 8.

I. METCALFE18

Fig. 11. Palaeogeographical reconstructions for Eastern Tethys in (a) Late Jurassic, (b) Early Cretaceous and (c) LateCretaceous showing distribution of continental blocks and fragments of SE Asia–Australasia and land and sea. SG,Songpan Ganzi accretionary complex; SC, South China; QS, Qando–Simao; SI, Simao; QI, Qiangtang; S, SibumasuI, Indochina; EM, East Malaya; WSu, West Sumatra; L, Lhasa; WB, West Burma; SWB, SW Borneo; NP, NorthPalawan and other small continental fragments now forming part of the Philippines basement; M, Mangkalihat; WS,West Sulawesi; P, Paternoster; B, Bawean; PA, incipient East Philippine arc; PS, Proto-South China Sea; Sm, Sumba.M numbers represent Indian Ocean magnetic anomalies.


paths of North and South China imply that collisionbetween these blocks did, however, continue in theJurassic but was complete by the Late Jurassic.The time of rapid (18 Ma21) relative angular vel-ocity between the two plates (225–190 Ma)coincides with a peak in U–Pb and Ar–Ardates obtained from metamorphic rocks in theQingling–Dabie–Sulu suture (Gilder & Courtillot1997). Thus, the initial consolidation of what isnow East and SE Asia took place in Late Triassic–Jurassic times. Palaeo-Tethyan ocean crust trappedbetween the western Cimmerian continent, Cathay-sialand, North China and Siberian Pangaea wascovered by thick Triassic deposits eroded from adja-cent collisional orogens and became the SongpanGanzi giant suture knot (Fig. 10). The Meso-Tethyswas probably at its widest at this time and furtherrifting of the Indian–Australian margin of Gond-wana was initiated and continued into the Jurassic.Separation of a further collage of small terranestook place in the Jurassic, the Ceno-Tethys oceanopening behind these terranes as they drifted north-wards. The continental fragments that separatedfrom Gondwana at this time are somewhat uncertainbut are here interpreted to include the Lhasa, SWBorneo, East Java, Bawean, Paternoster, Mangkali-hat, West Sulawesi and Sumba blocks (Fig. 11). Thetiming of rifting and separation of the Lhasa blockfrom Gondwana has seen much debate over theyears. An early separation in the Permian, alongwith other elements of the Cimmerian continent aspart of a ‘Mega-Lhasa Terrane’ has been proposedby some workers (e.g. Allegre et al. 1984; Dercourtet al. 1993, 2000). Others have argued for a laterseparation in the Late Triassic–Early Jurassic(e.g. Metcalfe 2002; Golonka 2007), and thistiming is still advocated here and supported byinformation on oceanic cherts from the Yarlung–Zangbo suture (Matsuoka et al. 2002) and recentpalaeomagnetic data (Otofuji et al. 2007). Fewdata are available from the Banggong suture zonebetween the Lhasa and Qiangtang terranes to con-strain the age range of the ocean that the suture rep-resents. An earlier separation in the Permian may besupported by Permian limestone blocks interpretedas possible seamount caps in the Indus–Yarlungsuture zone (Shen et al. 2003). Little is known ofthe precise age of separation and northwards driftof the other small Australian-derived continentalblocks now located in Java, Borneo and Sulawesi,but Jablonski & Saitta (2004) have suggestedthat these microplates separated and migratedsuccessively in the Hettangian, Oxfordian, Kimmer-idgian and Tithonian based on megasequencestudies and transgressive–regressive cycles inthe Perth Basin and Westralian superbasin. Interest-ingly, Jablonski & Saitta (2004) did not refer to theLhasa block at all and did not show this on their

palaeogeographical reconstructions. They providedlittle evidence for the identification of the blocksrifting at different times. By Late Cretaceous timesthe Lhasa block was welded to East Asia and SWBorneo and the other small continental fragmentsnow found in the Java–Borneo–Sulawesi regionhad approximately reached their current positionsrelative to Indochina and other SE Asia blocks(Fig. 11c).

Conclusions

The Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic evolution ofSE Asia involved the rifting and separation ofthree collages of continental terranes (probablyas elongate slivers) from eastern Gondwana andthe successive opening and closure of three oceanbasins, the Palaeo-Tethys, Meso-Tethys andCeno-Tethys.

The Palaeo-Tethys is represented in SE Asia bythe Changning–Menglian, Chiang Mai/Inthanonand Bentong–Raub suture zones.

The Sukhothai Island Arc System, including theLinchang, Sukhothai and Chanthaburi terranes, isidentified between the Sibumasu and Indochina–East Malaya terranes in SE Asia and was formedby back-arc spreading in the Permian. TheJinghong, Nan–Uttaradit and Sra Kaeo sutures rep-resent the closed back-arc ocean.

The West Sumatra and West Burma blocks riftedand separated from Gondwana, along withIndochina and East Malaya in the Devonian, andformed a composite terrane ‘Cathaysialand’ withSouth China in the Permian.

West Sumatra and West Burma were translatedwestwards to their positions outboard of the Sibu-masu Terrane by strike-slip translation in the LatePermian–Early Triassic at the zone of convergencebetween the Meso-Tethys and Palaeo-Pacific plates.

SW Borneo is tentatively identified as possiblybeing the missing ‘Argoland’ that separated fromNW Australia in the Jurassic.

I would like to thank R. Hall and M. Faure for their helpfulreviews. I would also like to thank A. Barber for discus-sions and comments on the draft manuscript. Facilitiesprovided by the University of New England are gratefullyacknowledged.

References

ALLEGRE, C. J. ET AL. 1984. Structure and evolution of theHimalaya-Tibet orogenic belt. Nature, 307, 17–22.

BARBER, A. J. & CROW, M. J. 2003. An evaluation ofplate tectonic models for the development ofSumatra. Gondwana Research, 6, 1–28.

I. METCALFE20

BARBER, A. J. & CROW, M. J. 2009. The structure ofSumatra and its implications for the tectonic assemblyof Southeast Asia and the destruction of Paleotethys.Island Arc (in press).

BARBER, A. J., CROW, M. J. & DE SMET, M. E. M. 2005.Tectonic evolution. In: BARBER, A. J., CROW, M. J. &MILSOM, J. S. (eds) Sumatra: Geology, Resources andTectonic Evolution. Geological Society, London,Memoirs, 31, 234–259.

BUNOPAS, S. 1982. Palaeogeographic history of WesternThailand and adjacent parts of Southeast Asia—a platetectonics interpretation. Department of MineralResources, Bangkok, Geological Survey Paper, 5.

CARROLL, A. R., GRAHAM, S. A., HENDRIX, M. S.,YING, D. & ZHOU, D. 1995. Late Paleozoic tectonicamalgamation of northwestern China; sedimentaryrecord of the northern Tarim, northwestern Turpan,and southern Junggar basins. Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin, 107, 571–594.

CHEN, Z. Q. & SHI, G. R. 1999. Chuiella gen. nov.(Brachiopoda) and palaeoecology from the LowerCarboniferous of the Kunlun Mountains, NW China.Alcheringa, 23, 259–275.

DERCOURT, J., RICOU, L. E. & VRIELYNCK, B. (eds)1993. Atlas Tethys Paleoenvironmental Maps.Gauthier-Villars, Paris.

DERCOURT, J., GAETANI, M. ET AL. (eds) 2000. AtlasPeri-Tethys Paleoegeographical Maps. CCGM–CGMW, Paris.

FAURE, M., LIN, W., SCHARER, U., SHU, L., SUN, Y. &ARNAUD, N. 2003. Continental subduction and exhu-mation of UHP rocks. Structural and geochronologicalinsights from the Dabieshan (East China). Lithos, 70,213–241.

FERRARI, O. M., HOCHARD, C. & STAMPFLI, G. M.2008. An alternative plate tectonic model for thePalaeozoic-Early Mesozoic Palaeotethyan evolutionof Southeast Asia (Northern Thailand-Burma). Tecto-nophysics, 451, 346–365.

GILDER, S. A. & COURTILLOT, V. 1997. Timing of theNorth-South China collision from new middle to lateMesozoic paleomagnetic data from the North ChinaBlock. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102,17713–17727.

GOLONKA, J. 2007. Late Triassic and Early Jurassicpalaeogeography of the world. Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 244, 297–307.

HACKER, B. R., RATSCHBACHER, L. & LIOU, J. G. 2004.Subduction, collision and exhumation in the ultrahigh-pressure Qinling-Dabie orogen. In: MALPAS, J.,FLETCHER, C. J. N., ALI, J. R. & AITCHISON, J. C.(eds) Aspects of the Tectonic Evolution of China. Geo-logical Society, London, Special Publication, 226,157–175.

HALL, R. 2002. Cenozoic geological and plate tectonicevolution of SE Asia and the SW Pacific: computer-based reconstructions and animations. Journal ofAsian Earth Sciences, 20, 353–434.

HALL, R. 2009. The Eurasia SE Asian margin as a modernexample of an accretionary orogen. GeologicalSociety, London, Special Publications, 318.

HALL, R. & HOLLOWAY, J. D. (eds) 1998. Biogeographyand Geological Evolution of SE Asia. Backhuys,Leiden.

HALL, R., VAN HATTUM, M. C. A. & SPAKMAN, W.2008. Impact of India-Asia collision on SE Asia: therecord in Borneo. Tectonophysics, 451, 366–389.

HIRSCH, F., ISHIDA, K., KOZAI, T. & MEESOOK, A.2006. The welding of Shan-Thai. GeosciencesJournal, 10, 195–204.

HUTCHISON, C. S. 1994. Gondwana and Cathaysianblocks, Palaeotethys sutures and Cenozoic tectonicsin Southeast Asia. Geologische Rundschau, 82,388–405.

ISHIDA, K., NANBA, A., HIRSCH, F., KOZAI, T. &MEESOOK, A. 2006. New micropalaeontologicalevidence for a Late Triassic Shan-Thai orogeny.Geosciences Journal, 10, 181–194.

JABLONSKI, D. & SAITTA, A. J. 2004. Permian to LowerCretaceous plate tectonics and its impact on thetectono-stratigraphic development of the WesternAustralian margin. APPEA Journal, 2004, 287–328.

KAMATA, Y., SASHIDA, K., UENO, K., HISADA, K.,NAKORNSRI, N. & CHARUSIRI, P. 2002. Triassic radi-olarian faunas from the Mae Sariang area, northernThailand and their palaeogeographic significance.Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 20, 491–506.

KERSHAW, P., DAVID, B., TAPPER, N., PENNY, D. &BROWN, J. (eds) 2001. Bridging Wallace’s Line: TheEnvironmental and Cultural History and Dynamicsof the SE-Asian–Australian Region. Advances inGeoEcology, 34.

LAVEINE, J.-P., RATANASTHIEN, B. & AZHAR HAJI

HUSSIN. 1999. The Carboniferous floras of SoutheastAsia: Implications for the relationships and timing ofaccretion of some Southeast Asian Blocks. In:METCALFE, I. (ed.) Gondwana dispersion and Asianaccretion, Final Results Volume for IGCP Project321. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 229–246.

LIU, B., FENG, Q., FANG, N., JIA, J., HE, F., YANG, W. &LIU, D. 1996. Tectono-paleogeographic frameworkand evolution of the Paleotethyan archipelagoes oceanin Changning–Menglian belt, Western Yunnan, China.In: FANG, N. & FENG, Q. (eds) Devonian to TriassicTethys in Western Yunnan, China. China Universityof Geosciences Press, Wuhan, 1–12.

MANUR, H. & BARRACLOUGH, R. 1994. Structuralcontrol on hydrocarbon habitat in the Bawean area,East Java Sea. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Indone-sian Petroleum Association, Convention, Jakarta.Jakarta, Indonesian Petroleum Association, 129–144.

MATSUOKA, A., YANG, Q., KOBAYASHI, K., TAKEI, M.,NAGAHASHI, T., ZENG, Q. & WANG, Y. 2002.Jurassic–Cretaceous radiolarian biostratigraphy andsedimentary environments of the Ceno-Tethys:Records from the Xialu Chert in the Yarlung–Zangbo Suture Zone, southern Tibet. Journal ofAsian Earth Sciences, 20, 277–287.

METCALFE, I. 1984. Stratigraphy, palaeontology andpalaeogeography of the Carboniferous of SoutheastAsia. Memoires de la Societe Geologique de France,147, 107–118.

METCALFE, I. 1986. Late Palaeozoic palaeogeography ofSoutheast Asia: Some stratigraphical, palaeontologicaland palaeomagnetic constraints. Geological Society ofMalaysia Bulletin, 19, 153–164.

METCALFE, I. 1988. Origin and assembly of SoutheastAsian continental terranes. In: AUDLEY-CHARLES,


M. G. & HALLAM, A. (eds) Gondwana and Tethys.Geological Society, London, Special Publications,37, 101–118.

METCALFE, I. 1990. Allochthonous terrane processes inSoutheast Asia. Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society of London, Series A, 331, 625–640.

METCALFE, I. 1991. Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoicpalaeogeography of Southeast Asia. Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 87, 211–221.

METCALFE, I. 1993. Southeast Asian terranes: Gondwana-land origins and evolution. In: FINDLAY, R. H.,UNRUG, R., BANKS, M. R. & VEEVERS, J. J. (eds)Gondwana 8—Assembly, Evolution, and Dispersal(Proceedings Eighth Gondwana Symposium, Hobart,1991). Balkema, Rotterdam, 181–200.

METCALFE, I. 1996a. Pre-Cretaceous evolution of SEAsian terranes. In: HALL, R. & BLUNDELL, D. (eds)Tectonic Evolution of Southeast Asia. GeologicalSociety, London, Special Publications, 106, 97–122.

METCALFE, I. 1996b. Gondwanaland dispersion, Asianaccretion and evolution of Eastern Tethys. AustralianJournal of Earth Sciences, 43, 605–623.

METCALFE, I. 1998. Palaeozoic and Mesozoic geologicalevolution of the SE Asian region: multidisciplinaryconstraints and implications for biogeography. In:HALL, R. & HOLLOWAY, J. D. (eds) Biogeographyand Geological Evolution of SE Asia. Backhuys,Leiden, 25–41.

METCALFE, I. 1999. Gondwana dispersion and Asianaccretion: An overview. In: METCALFE, I. (ed.) Gond-wana Dispersion and Asian Accretion, Final ResultsVolume for IGCP Project 321. Balkema, Rotterdam,9–28.

METCALFE, I. 2000. The Bentong-Raub Suture Zone.Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 18, 691–712.

METCALFE, I. 2001. Palaeozoic and Mesozoic tectonicevolution and biogeography of SE Asia–Australasia.In: METCALFE, I., SMITH, J. M. B., MORWOOD, M.& DAVIDSON, I. (eds) Faunal and Floral Migrationsand Evolution in SE Asia–Australasia. Balkema,Lisse, 15–34.

METCALFE, I. 2002. Permian tectonic framework andpalaeogeography of SE Asia. Journal of Asian EarthSciences, 20, 551–566.

METCALFE, I. 2005. Asia: South-East. In: SELLEY, R. C.,COCKS, L. R. M. & PLIMER, I. R. (eds) Encyclopediaof Geology, vol. 1. Elsevier, Oxford, 169–198.

METCALFE, I. 2006. Palaeozoic and Mesozoic tectonicevolution and palaeogeography of East Asian crustalfragments: The Korean Peninsula in context. Gond-wana Research, 9, 24–46.

METCALFE, I., SMITH, J. M. B., MORWOOD, M. &DAVIDSON, I. (eds) 2001. Faunal and FloralMigrations and Evolution in SE Asia–Australasia.Balkema, Lisse.

OO, T., HLAING, T. & HTAY, N. 2002. Permian ofMyanmar. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 20,683–689.

OTOFUJI, Y., MU, C. L. ET AL. 2007. Spatial gap betweenLhasa and Qiangtang blocks inferred from MiddleJurassic to Cretaceous paleomagnetic data. Earth andPlanetary Science Letters, 26, 581–593.

SASHIDA, K. & IGO, H. 1999. Occurrence and tectonicsignificance of Paleozoic and Mesozoic Radiolaria in

Thailand and Malaysia. In: METCALFE, I. (ed.) Gond-wana dispersion and Asian accretion, Final ResultsVolume for IGCP Project 321. A. A. Balkema, Rotter-dam, 175–196.

SASHIDA, K., ADACHI, S., IGO, H., KOIKE, T. & AMNAN,I. B. 1995. Middle and Late Permian radiolariansfrom the Semanggol Formation, Northwest PenisularMalaysia. Transactions and Proceedings of thePalaeontological Society of Japan, New Series,177, 43–58.

SASHIDA, K., IGO, H., ADACHI, S., UENO, K.,KAJIWARA, Y., NAKORNSRI, N. & SARDSUD, A.2000a. Late Permian to Middle Triassic radiolarianfaunas from Northern Thailand. Journal of Paleon-tology, 74, 789–811.

SASHIDA, K., NAKORNSRI, N., UENO, K. & SARDSUD,A. 2000b. Carboniferous and Triassic radiolarianfaunas from the Saba Yoi area, southernmost part ofpeninsular Thailand and their paleogeographic signifi-cance. Science Reports of the Institute of Geoscience,University of Tsukuba, Section B: Geological Sciences,21, 71–99.

SENGOR, A. M. C. 1979. Mid-Mesozoic closure of Permo-Triassic Tethys and its implications. Nature, 279,590–593.

SENGOR, A. M. C. 1984. The Cimmeride orogenic systemand the tectonics of Eurasia. Geological Society ofAmerica, Special Papers, 195.

SHEN, S., DONGLI, S. & SHI, G. R. 2003. A biogeographi-cally mixed late Guadalupian (late Middle Permian)brachiopod fauna from an exotic limestone block atXiukang in Lhaze county, Tibet. Journal of AsianEarth Sciences, 21, 1125–1137.

SHI, G. R. & ARCHBOLD, N. W. 1998. Permian marinebiogeography of SE Asia. In: HALL, R. &HOLLOWAY, J. D. (eds) Biogeography and Geo-logical Evolution of SE Asia. Backhuys, Leiden,57–72.

SMYTH, H. R., HAMILTON, P. J., HALL, R. & KINNY,P. D. 2007. The deep crust beneath island arcs: Inher-ited zircons reveal a Gondwana continental fragmentbeneath East Java, Indonesia. Earth and PlanetaryScience Letters, 258, 269–282.

SONE, M. & METCALFE, I. 2008. Parallel Tethyansutures in mainland SE Asia: New insights for Palaeo-Tethys closure and implications for the Indosi-nian Orogeny. Comptes Rendus Geosciences, 340,166–179.

UENO, K. 1999. Gondwana/Tethys divide in East Asia,solution from Late Paleozoic foraminiferal paleobio-geography. In: RATANASTHIEN, B. & RIEB, S. L.(eds) Proceedings of the International Symposium onShallow Tethys 5. Chiang Mai University, ChiangMai, 45–54.

UENO, K. 2003. The Permian fusulinoidean faunas ofthe Sibumasu and Baoshan blocks: Their implica-tions for the paleogeographic and paleoclimatologicreconstruction of the Cimmerian Continent. Palaeo-geography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 193,1–24.

UENO, K. & HISADA, K. 1999. Closure of the Paleo-Tethys caused by the collision of Indochina andSibumasu. Chikyu Monthly, 21, 832–839 [inJapanese].

I. METCALFE22

UENO, K. & HISADA, K. 2001. The Nan–Uttaradit–SaKaeo Suture as a main Paleo-Tethyan suture in Thai-land: Is it real? Gondwana Research, 4, 804–806.

UENO, K., NISHIKAWA, S., VAN WAVEREN, I. M. ET AL.2006. Early Permian fusuline faunas of the Mengkar-ang and Palepat formations in the West SumatraBlock, Indonesia: their faunal characteristics, agesand geotectonic implications. Abstract Volume andProceedings, 2nd International Symposium onGeological Anatomy of East and South Asia:

Paleogeography and Paleoenvironment in EasternTethys (IGCP 516), Quezon City, University of thePhilippines, 98–102.

ZHOU, J. B., WILDE, S. A., ZHAO, G. C, ZHENG, C. Q.,JIN, W., ZHANG, X. Z. & CHENG, H. 2008. Detritalzircon U-Pb dating of low-grade metamorphic rocksin the Sulu UHP belt: evidence for overthrusting ofthe North China Craton onto the South China Cratonduring continental subduction. Journal of the Geologi-cal Society, 165, 423–433.


Documents

Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic tectonic and ...metcalfeian.com/web-data/s/Metcalfe 2009 Geol Soc.pdfof the tectonic and palaeogeographical evolution of SE Asia in the Late Palaeozoic