Fabrizio Berra, Marco Balini, Stefano Zanchetta, Andrea Zanchi, Fathullah Mossavvari, Massimo Mattei, Eduardo Garzanti, Irene Bollati, Alda Nicora, Cristiano Larghi, Reza Salamati, M. Levera, Giovanni Muttoni, Balini, M, Nicora, A, Berra, F, Garzanti, E, Levera, M, Mattei, Massimo, Muttoni, G, Zanchi, A, Bollati, I, Larghi, C, Zanchetta, S, and Salamati, R. MOSSAVARI F.
An important, 2.4 km-thick Triassic succession is exposed at Nakhlak (central Iran). This succession was deformed during the Cimmerian orogeny and truncated by an angular unconformity with undeformed Upper Cretaceous sediments. This integrated stratigraphic study of the Triassic included bed-by-bed sampling for ammonoids, conodonts and bivalves, as well as limestone and sandstone petrographic analyses. The Nakhlak Group succession consists of three formations: Alam (Olenekian–Anisian), Bāqoroq (?Upper Anisian–Ladinian) and Ashin (Upper Ladinian). The Alam Formation records several shifts from carbonate to siliciclastic deposition, the Bāqoroq Formation consists of continental conglomerates and the Ashin Formation documents the transition to deep-sea turbiditic sedimentation. Petrographic composition has been studied for sandstones and conglomerates. Provenance analysis for Alam and most of the Ashin samples suggests a volcanic arc setting, whereas the samples from the Bāqoroq Formation are related to exhumation of a metamorphic basement. The provenance data, together with the great thickness, the sudden change of facies, the abundance of volcaniclastic supply, the relatively common occurrence of tuffitic layers and the orogenic calc-alkaline affinity of the volcanism, point to sedimentation along an active margin in a forearc setting. A comparison between the Triassic of Nakhlak and the Triassic succession exposed in the erosional window of Aghdarband (Koppeh Dag, NE Iran) indicates that both were deposited along active margins. However, they do not show the same type of evolution. Nakhlak and Aghdarband have quite different ammonoid faunal affinities during the Early Triassic, but similar faunal composition from the Bithynian to Late Ladinian. These results argue against the location of Nakhlak close to Aghdarband. Central Iran is geologically a very complex area, characterized by a tremendous variety of rock types ranging from Precambrian to Miocene sedimentary rocks, Palaeozoic–Cenozoic ultramafic–acid igneous rocks and Palaeozoic–Mesozoic metamorphic rocks. Such an astonishing geological diversity is related to a very long history that started with the assembly of Gondwana in early Palaeozoic times and continued to the present-day collision of the Arabian Plate with Eurasia. The unravelling of this long and complex history is challenging. The understanding of the Cimmerian system (Sengor 1984) is especially difficult as the Carboniferous–Jurassic rocks were often deformed, eroded, covered and/or metamorphosed during more recent collisional events, and their boundaries were sometimes reactivated by more recent faults and thrusts. Despite many published contributions to the geology of Central Iran, no shared interpretation has emerged at the microplate and local scales. For instance, there is no consensus on the proposal by Davoudzadeh et al. (1981) and Soffel et al. (1996) that the present-day Central Iran microplate has rotated by 1358 counterclockwise since the Triassic. This model has usually been accepted (Davoudzadeh & Weber-Diefenbach 1987; Ruttner 1993; Alavi et al. 1997; Seyed-Emami 2003), but a From: BRUNET, M.-F., WILMSEN, M. & GRANATH, J. W. (eds) South Caspian to Central Iran Basins. The Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 312, 287–321. DOI: 10.1144/SP312.14 0305-8719/09/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2009. test carried out by Wendt et al. (2005) on the basis of the palaeogeographical distribution of Palaeozoic facies actually failed to confirm the model. At the local scale there are often different interpretations of the stratigraphic v. tectonic relationships of several sedimentary and metasedimentary units. For instance, in the key areas of Nakhlak and Anarak, very different pictures were provided not only for the complexly metamorphic Anarak Range (e.g. Sharkovski et al. 1984; Bagheri 2007; Bagheri & Stampfli 2008), but also for the nearby unmetamorphosed Nakhlak Range (e.g. Sharkovski et al. 1984; Alavi et al. 1997). In order to clarify the general setting of Central Iran and its related Cimmerian history we selected the Nakhlak–Anarak area, which has been known since the 1970s (Davoudzadeh & Seyed-Emami 1972) for the contrast of its peculiar 2.4 km-thick mixed siliciclastic, volcaniclastic and carbonatic succession with the surrounding Triassic successions (i.e. Shotori Range, Tabas: Stocklin et al. 1965; see Seyed-Emami 2003 for a comprehensive summary). Based on lithological similarity, several authors suggested a correlation between the Nakhlak Triassic and an almost coeval succession exposed at Aghdarband (Koppeh Dag, NE Iran). Moreover, this correlation was used to support the 1358 counterclockwise rotation of Central Iran since the Triassic (Davoudzadeh et al. 1981). Despite its great significance it is worth noting that the geology and stratigraphy of the Nakhlak–Anarak area are not known in detail, as demonstrated by the rather different descriptions available in the literature (Davoudzadeh & Seyed Emami 1972; Sharkovski et al. 1984; Alavi et al. 1997; Vaziri 2001). The area was visited by a team of stratigraphers, structural geologists, palaeontologists and palaeomagnetists in 2003 and 2004. Most of the stratigraphic data are presented here, while the geological, structural and the palaeomagnetic analyses are described in separate contributions (Muttoni et al. 2009; Zanchi et al. 2009). The geology of the Nakhlak area: open