Reply to Genç and Yürür’s comments on: “Late Cretaceous extensional denudation along a marble detachment fault zone in the Kırşehir massif near Kaman, Central Turkey”

Abstract

We appreciate the interest of Dr. Yurdal Genc and Dr. Tekin Yurur in the work we carried out in central Turkey. In our paper, we presented a detailed structural study focused on one single fault zone located in the Kaman area, in the northwestern metamorphic massif of central Anatolia. The aim of our work was to provide clear structural evidence to assess the nature and kinematics of this fault zone, and to test whether it could be held responsible for part of the exhumation of the high-grade metamorphic rocks in the region. We demonstrated that the Kaman fault is an extensional detachment that was active in the late Cretaceous, and concluded that it was contemporaneous with late Cretaceous extension and exhumation of metamorphic rocks of the Central Anatolian Crystalline Complex (CACC) documented previously. This extensional phase has been discussed in numerous works such as the structural and metamorphic analysis from the southern Nigde crystalline massif ( [Gautier et al., 2002], [Whitney et al., 2003], [Whitney et al., 2007] and [Gautier et al., 2008]), structural and geochronological data from discrete shear zones across large magmatic intrusions in the north (Yozgat) and the west (Agacoren) of the CACC ( [Isik et al., 2008] and [Isik, 2009]), and the tectonic evolution of the large basins surrounding the CACC (e.g. the Tuzgolu and Sivas basins, ( [Cemen et al., 1999] and [Dirik et al., 1999]). Following extension, the region underwent compression during the Paleogene due to the convergence and consequent collision between the CACC and the central Pontides ( [Gorur et al., 1984], [Gorur et al., 1998], [Kaymakci et al., 2000], [Kaymakci et al., 2009] and [Meijers et al., 2010]). In contradiction to the generally accepted tectonic evolution for central Anatolia, Genc and Yurur (2010) recently proposed an alternative model based on inferences from digital elevation data and local field observations. They interpreted the Cenozoic tectonic regime of central Anatolia to be dominated by extension, associated with coeval compressional zones resulting from gravitational movements. Taking that into consideration, Genc and Yurur have in their discussion listed several points that they consider to be incoherencies. In this reply, we answer each point addressed in the comment, discussing the validity of our statements and data, and taking the opportunity to clarify the ideas that the authors of the comment may have misunderstood