www.geologicacarpathica.sk
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
, FEBRUARY 2013, 64, 1, 3—22 doi: 10.2478/geoca-2013-0001
Introduction
The primary role of provenance studies is to reconstruct the
history of sedimentary rock and to interpret the rock-assem-
blage of the source area (Weltje & von Eynatten 2004). To
this end, the combination of bulk rock and single grain ana-
lytical approaches has been shown to provide comprehensive
insights into the provenance of sedimentary rocks (e.g. von
Eynatten 2003; Meinhold et al. 2007; Mikes et al. 2008). Al-
though processes of weathering and erosion, as well as meta-
morphism, commonly alter and remove valuable provenance
information, certain trace element indicators are sufficiently
resilient to survive such destructive processes. Many studies,
both on sedimentary (e.g. Bathia 1985; Bathia & Crook 1986;
McLennan et al. 1993), and metasedimentary (e.g. Slack &
Höy 2000; Augustsson & Bahlburg 2008) rocks, have shown
that geochemical data can be successfully used to study the
composition and reveal the geotectonic environment of source
rocks, especially when coupled with petrography and heavy
mineral assemblages. Furthermore, various studies, where
analysis is focused on one particular mineral species, are less
Provenance of Paleozoic very low- to low-grade
metasedimentary rocks of South Tisia (Slavonian
Mountains, Radlovac Complex, Croatia)
VANJA BIŠEVAC
1
, ERWIN KRENN
3
, FRITZ FINGER
3
, BORNA LUŽAR-OBERITER
2
and
DRAŽEN BALEN
1
1
Institute of Mineralogy and Petrology, Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Horvatovac 95,
HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia; vabisevac@geol.pmf.hr
2
Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Horvatovac 102,
HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia
3
Division of Mineralogy, Department of Materials Engineering and Physics, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34,
5020 Salzburg, Austria
(Manuscript received April 23, 2012; accepted in revised form June 13, 2012)
Abstract: Monazite age dating, detrital heavy mineral content and whole-rock geochemistry provided insight into the
provenance, depositional history and paleogeological setting of the Radlovac Complex very low- to low-grade
metasedimentary rocks (South Tisia, Slavonian Mountains, Croatia). Electron microprobe based Th-U-Pb dating of
detrital monazite indicates a Variscan age of the protolith (330 ± 10 Ma). The detrital heavy mineral assemblages of
representative metasedimentary rocks are dominated by apatite, zircon, tourmaline and rutile accompanied by minor
quantity of epidote/zoisite, monazite and titanite. Judging from the heavy mineral assemblage, felsic igneous rocks
served as the source material. This is consistent with the major and trace element spectrum of studied metasedimentary
rocks characterized by high concentration of Th, high L + MREEs and high ratios of La/Sc, Th/Sc, La/Co, Th/Co and
Th/Cr. The occurrence of magmatic monazite, zircon and xenotime and the absence of metamorphic heavy minerals
suggest that granitoids, migmatites and migmatitic gneisses served as one major source for the metapsammites. Such
rock types are commonly exposed in the Papuk Complex of the older surrounding complexes, while the Psunj Complex
also contains metamorphic rocks. This is in good correlation with the monazite ages presented here which fits better
with ages of Papuk Complex representative rocks than with those of the Psunj Complex known from the literature.
Overall, data show that the Radlovac Complex represents the detritus of the local Variscan crust characterized by
granitoid bodies, migmatites and migmatitic gneisses typical for the Papuk Complex.
Key words: South Tisia, Slavonian Mts, Radlovac Complex, metasedimentary rocks, geochemistry, geochronology,
provenance, heavy minerals, detrital monazite.
affected by the aforementioned processes and are able to re-
veal specific provenance related information (e.g. Hallsworth
et al. 2000; Willner et al. 2001; von Eynatten & Wijbrans
2003; Zack et al. 2004).
From the Radlovac Complex, which occupies the highest
structural position of all Variscan complexes in the
Slavonian Mountains (Jamičić 1983, 1988; Jamičić & Brkić
1987; Jamičić et al. 1987), no provenance study has been
carried out although some authors contributed to the origin
of the Radlovac Complex (e.g. Brkić et al. 1974; Jamičić
1988). In this study we present results from the Radlovac
Complex which comprises very low- to low-grade metasedi-
mentary rocks with intrusions of metabasic rocks (Jamičić
1983, 1988; Pamić & Jamičić 1986). We present results from
mineral and whole-rock chemical analysis of 16 selected
fresh samples including 8 metapelites and 8 metapsammites.
For comparison, additional 7 representative samples from
the surrounding igneous-metamorphic complexes were used
for testing possible relations and the provenance model of
Jamičić (1988). The analytical data include petrography,
heavy mineral composition analyses, zircon typology, chemi-
4
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
cal composition and Th-U-Pb chemical age dating of mona-
zite and xenotime and whole-rock geochemistry including
major, trace and REE element composition. The aim of this
study is to provide more detailed insight into the prove-
nance, depositional history and paleogeological setting of
the Radlovac Complex metasedimentary rocks and to pro-
vide a good basis for correlation with other similar very low-
to low-grade metamorphic complexes within Tisia.
Geological setting
Tisia is regarded as a microcontinent that broke off from the
southern margin of Variscan Europe during the opening of the
Tethys (Géczy 1973; Fülöp et al. 1987; Tari & Pamić 1998;
Haas et al. 2000; Pamić et al. 2002; Stampfli et al. 2002; Haas
& Péró 2004; Schmid et al. 2008). Following a complex drift
history, Tisia became incorporated into the Alpine fold belt in
the Cretaceous (Csontos 1995; Márton 2000, 2001). Tisia is
built up by three southward dipping Alpine nappe systems
(Mecsek, Villány-Bihor and Békés-Codru) (Fig. 1), each com-
prising igneous and metamorphic basement rocks and post-
Variscan overstep sequences (Haas & Péró 2004; Csontos &
Vörös 2004; Schmid et al. 2008). According to Schmid et al.
(2008) the Slavonian Mountains belong to the Villány-Bihor
nappe system (Fig. 1) and represent rare basement outcrops of
Tisia (Pamić et al. 1996; Pamić & Jurković 2002).
Following Jamičić (1983, 1988) three tectono-metamorphic
complexes can be defined in the Slavonian Mountains: Psunj
Complex (PsC), Papuk Complex (PaC) and Radlovac Com-
plex (RC). The RC, which is the target of this research, con-
sists of very low- to low-grade metamorphic sequences largely
composed of metapelites (slates and subordinate phyllites),
metapsammites (metagreywackes) and metaconglomerates
deposited in the shallow marine environment (Jamičić 1988).
According to Pamić & Jamičić (1986) the deepest part of RC
is represented by violet, and grey to silverish white schistose
metagreywackes which grade into quartz metaconglomerates
in some places (Fig. 2). The middle parts are made of violet
and greyish finer-grained schistose metagreywackes (Fig. 2)
interlayered with dark greyish slates containing Westphalian
microflora. The highest part of the Radlovac Complex con-
sists mostly red to brownish slates and phyllites (Fig. 2) rarely
interlayered by fine-grained metapsammites. Based on the
structural and paleofloristic data Jamičić (1988) assumed
that the RC was metamorphosed during the late stages of the
Variscan orogeny (Late Paleozoic; ~ 320—260 Ma), while
Biševac et al. (2010), using Kübler & Árkai indices accompa-
nied by K-Ar dating of illite-muscovite rich fractions, found
evidence for Cretaceous very low- to low-grade overprint
( ~ 100—80 Ma). The lower and middle parts of the RC are in-
truded by metabasic rocks which, according to Pamić &
Jamičić (1986) show clear signs of metamorphic alteration
with plagioclase metamorphosed into clinozoisite and sericite
accompanied by newly formed sodic plagioclase, while cli-
nopyroxene is moderately to strongly altered to fine-grained
aggregate of chlorite, uralite and epidote. Based on the field
relations the RC unconformably overlies the PsC (Jamičić
1983, 1988) and contains a Westphalian microflora (Brkić et
al. 1974) which documents a Pennsylvanian age of the pro-
tolith. Since the Westphalian microflora was found in the
middle pocket of the RC, Pamić & Jamičić (1986) presumed
that the higher parts of the complex belong to the Lower Per-
mian and deeper parts probably to the Upper Devonian. Fur-
thermore, the K-Ar dating on clinopyroxene monomineralic
concentrate from ophitic metagabbro, which intruded the RC
(Pamić & Jamičić 1986), gave ages of 416. 0 ± 9.0 and
318.6 ± 12.2 Ma (Pamić et al. 1988; Pamić & Lanphere 1991)
which are partly consistent with paleofloristic determinations.
The K-Ar age determinations on two slates from Paleozoic
complexes yielded K-Ar whole-rock ages of 203.9 ± 6.9 Ma
and 100.6 ± 3.5 Ma, which, according to Pamić et al. (1988),
apparently represent partially or completely reset ages, due to
subsequent heating. Jamičić (1988) proposed a model, based
on paleofloristic and structural data, in which the metasedi-
mentary rocks of the Radlovac Complex are considered to
represent the detritus of the surrounding igneous and meta-
morphic rocks of the local pre-Variscan and Variscan crust
(PsC and PaC Complexes, respectively). While RC transgres-
sively overlay the PsC from one side, it is in tectonic contact
with PaC from the other (Fig. 1). The geological evolution of
the surrounding rocks is also quite complex and interesting.
The PsC is assumed to be formed by a metamorphic event
during the Baikalian orogeny (Late Precambrian to Early Pa-
leozoic) and overprinted and retrogressed by younger meta-
morphic events (Jamičić 1988). It contains green schist to
amphibolite facies rocks occurring in association with metaba-
sites. The K-Ar ages on hornblende monomineralic concen-
trate from amphibolites yielded Variscan ages ranging from
376.4 ± 11.5—352.6 ± 8.5 Ma (Pamić et al. 1988; Pamić 1998).
These metamorphic rocks are intruded by small bodies of
I-type granites of Variscan age ranging from 423.7 ± 12.9 to
336.3 ± 8.4 Ma based on the K-Ar dating of muscovite (Pamić
et al. 1988, 1996; Pamić & Lanphere 1991). The PaC endured,
according to Jamičić (1988), metamorphism and migmatitiza-
tion during the Caledonian orogeny (Ordovician to Early De-
vonian; ~ 490—390 Ma). It consists predominantly of S-type
granites joined by migmatites and migmatitic gneisses of
Variscan age (K-Ar ages of biotite and muscovite fall between
272.2 ± 6.4—336.3 ± 8.4 Ma; Pamić et al. 1988), which grade
into amphibolite facies sequences composed of garnetiferous
amphibolites, paragneisses and mica-schists (Pamić 1986;
Pamić & Lanphere 1991).
Regarding the metamorphic evolution of the Slavonian
Mountains, there is a general agreement about medium- to
high-grade pre-Variscan and Variscan metamorphism (Balen
et al. 2006; Horvath et al. 2010). Some authors attributed a
great role to a late Variscan low-grade metamorphic event
(Jamičić 1988), while new studies (Biševac et al. 2010, 2011)
show the existence of Cretaceous low-T regional metamor-
phism in the area.
Analytical methods
Research on representative metasedimentary rock samples
sampled in several quarries and profiles along the roads and
rivers involved thin section and heavy mineral slide analyses
5
PALEOZOIC VERY LOW- TO LOW-GRADE METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (SOUTH TISIA, CROATIA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Fig. 1. a – Tectonic setting of the Tisia Unit within the Alpine-Carpathian-Dinaric framework with the position of the Slavonian Mts and
b – sketch map of Slavonian Mts (Papuk, Psunj, Ravna gore and Krndija) with defined complexes after Jamičić (1988) and approximate
position of the studied area (marked by the black box). c – Simplified geological map (Jamičić & Brkić 1987) of the investigated area
showing the position of the samples within the Radlovac Complex.
6
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
with a polarizing microscope, mineral chemical composition
analyses and age dating by electron microprobe and geo-
chemical whole-rock analyses.
Whole-rock analyses were performed in ACME Analytical
Laboratories Ltd., Vancouver (Canada). Following a lithium
metaborate/tetraborate fusion and dilute nitric digestion,
trace elements were determined by ICP—MS, and major ele-
ments by ICP-ES. The analytical accuracy was controlled us-
ing geological standard materials and is estimated to be
within a 1 % error (1 , relative) for most major elements
(exception: ± 3 % for P
2
O
5
), and within a
± 15 % error range
(1 , relative) for the trace elements (incl. REEs), for values
greater than 10 times the detection limit.
Mineral analyses were carried out on a JEOL JX8600 mi-
croprobe housed at Salzburg University. A particular empha-
sis was placed on the analysis of accessory monazite and
xenotime in order to estimate formation ages by means of the
Th-U-total Pb method (Suzuki et al. 1991; Montel et al.
1996). Monazite and xenotime were analysed following the
routine of Krenn et al. (2008). Single monazite ages and er-
rors were calculated after Montel et al. (1996), weighted av-
erage ages with the software Isoplot 2.49e (Ludwig 2001).
Isochron age was calculated using the least-squares fitting
method of York (1966).
Whole-rock powder XRD analyses of samples (a semiquan-
titative mineral composition) were performed on a Philips
X’Pert Pro diffractometer equipped with a X’celerator detec-
tor using CuK radiation from a tube operating at 40 kV and
45 mA at Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Univer-
sity of Zagreb. The step width was 0.017° 2 with 43 s count-
ing time per step; the samples were run between 4 and 65° 2 .
For quantitative heavy mineral analyses metapsammites
were first crushed in a jaw crusher. The heavy minerals were
extracted from the 63—125 µm sieve fraction by gravity sepa-
ration in CHBr
3
(2.87 g/cm
3
) and mounted on glass slides.
Proportions of heavy mineral species were obtained by rib-
bon-counting (Mange & Maurer 1991) of approximately 300
non-opaque, non-micaceous grains in each representative
sample using a polarizing microscope.
For the separation of zircons from rock powder samples
(fraction of 250—125 µm) a wet vibrating table was used.
Heavy mineral fraction was collected by pipette, dried in dryer
at 50 °C and then separated by a permanent magnet and by
magnetic separator. From the non-magnetic fraction, zircon
Fig. 2. Schematic geological cross-
section through the Radlovac Com-
plex (modified and simplified after
Jamičić 1988) with most representa-
tive metasedimentary rocks exposed
in the area. The position of the rocks
in the figure do not reflect their ex-
act position in the geological cross-
section on the left, but can be well
correlated with the division of Rad-
lovac Complex to the deepest (sam-
ples R2, R4, R5 and R8), the middle
(samples R1, R3, R6 and R7) and
the highest (samples R11 and R15)
part after Pamić & Jamičić (1986).
7
PALEOZOIC VERY LOW- TO LOW-GRADE METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (SOUTH TISIA, CROATIA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Fig. 3. Macro- and microphotographs (cross-polarized light) showing field relations and some characteristic microstructural features of the
Radlovac Complex metasedimentary rocks. a – Radlovac quarry near Radlovačka River in the north-east part of the complex. b – Radlo-
vac Complex metasedimentary rocks along the road near Tisica quarry in the central part of the complex. c – Typical metapelite (phyllite)
sample (R9) showing continuous cleavage and foliation defined by fine-grained micaceous material and elongated quartz grains. d – Char-
acteristic schistose metapsammite (R1) showing well developed foliation defined by subparallel muscovite and quartz grains embedded in
fine-grained matrix of sericite, chlorite and recrystallized quartz. e – Alteration in sample R1 typical for metasedimentary rocks of the Ra-
dlovac Complex (sericitization). f – Syndeformational growth of sericite strain fringes in the pressure shadows of detrital quartz grain
(sample R14).
8
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
grains were separated manually by hand-picking using bino-
cular lens. Zircon photographs used for zircon typology study
were obtained by TESCAN scanning electron microscope
equipped with back-scatter electron detector and operated at
20 kV at the Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Uni-
versity of Zagreb. The zircons were carbon coated.
Results
Petrography
Metasedimentary rocks of the Radlovac Complex are well
exposed in several quarries and road-cuts along the Radlovač-
ka River (Fig. 1) in the central part of the complex going from
SW to NE (Fig. 3a) and along the road north of the town of
Velika (Fig. 3b). The most common metasedimentary rocks of
the RC are fine-grained metapelites and moderately sorted
metapsammites. Here, the term metapelite stands for metased-
imentary rock containing > 70 % fine-grained matrix, while
the term metapsammite is used for metasedimentary rocks
containing < 40 % of matrix. Both groups have similar mineral
composition with dominant quartz, illite-muscovite, chlorite
and plagioclase, subordinate K-feldspar, paragonite and hema-
tite and rare carbonate minerals (Table 1). Reddish, green and
grey coloured metapelites are characterized by typical micro-
lepidoblastic texture, while characteristic spaced cleavage is
defined by elongated quartz grains (20—50 m), detrital mus-
covite flakes and dominant fine-grained micaceous-chlorite
mixture (Fig. 3c). Typical metapsammites show schistosity
marked by subparallel muscovite flakes and elongated quartz
grains with apparent grain sizes of 50—300 µm, and compris-
ing subordinate plagioclase embedded in clay- to silt-sized
matrix of recrystallized quartz, illite-muscovite and chlorite,
and in some samples paragonite (Fig. 3d). Since the matrix
content for all samples is relatively high and signs of mineral-
Table 1: Semiquantitative mineral composition of the Radlovac Complex metasedimentary rocks together with heavy mineral data of the
representative metapsammites.
Radlovac Complex metasedimentary rocks
Metapsammites
Metapelites
Sample
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16
Lithology
Msn CMgr Mgr Msn CMgr Mgr Msn Msn Phy Slt Phy Phy Phy Phy Slt Slt
Mineral composition
Quartz
Illite-muscovite
Plagioclase
x
x
K-feldspar –
–
–
–
–
–
x
–
–
–
–
–
–
x
–
–
Chlorite
x
x
Hematite –
–
x
–
–
–
–
–
x
–
x
x
x
x
–
Paragonite –
–
–
–
–
–
–
x –
–
–
–
–
x
x
Calcite –
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
x
–
–
–
–
–
–
Heavy minerals (%)
Zircon 34
15
27
35
Tourmaline
20
7
5
2
Rutile
8
4
6
4
Apatite 34
72
57
57
Epidote/Zoisite
1
–
–
–
+
Monazite +
–
1
–
Titanite –
+
1
–
Unindentified
3
2
3
2
Msn — metasandstone
CMgr — conglomeratic metagreywacke
Mgr — metagreywacke
Phy — phyllite
Slt — slate
— dominant; — abundant; — significant; x — poor;
+ — present, but below 0.5 %; – — not present.
ogical alteration are evident, modal composition of the sam-
ples was not determined. Signs of alteration of feldspars to
clay minerals occur in all samples (Fig. 3e). Other alterations
include syndeformational growth of sericite/quartz strain
fringes in the pressure shadows of detrital quartz (Fig. 3f) and
plagioclase. This interesting feature indicates the percolation
of K-rich fluids (Sutton et al. 1990; Frimmel 1994), a charac-
teristic phenomenon for the green schist facies metasedimen-
tary rocks (Bucher & Frey 1994).
The detrital heavy mineral assemblages of the studied Ra-
dlovac representative metapsammites are dominated by apa-
tite and other minerals like zircon, tourmaline and rutile
(Table 1). Other heavy minerals such as epidote/zoisite,
monazite and titanite occur in trace amounts. Apatite occurs
both as fresh and partially altered grains, mostly colourless,
sometimes with a brownish core. Grains are usually irregular
in shape or stubby prisms. Zircons mostly occur as irregular
and fragmented grains, translucent to yellowish or brownish
in colour. Euhedral grains are also commonly encountered.
Tourmaline grains are dominantly irregular in shape and per-
vasively display green-brown to yellowish pleochroic co-
lours, although the prismatic crystals can be observed.
Authigenic tourmaline is sporadically encountered as over-
growths. Monazite is discussed in a separate chapter.
Monazite age dating
Monazite was studied in the metapsammite samples R1 and
in the metapelite sample R15 which served as two representa-
tive samples from the Radlovac Complex. Monazite from
sample R1 is ca. 20—50 µm large (Fig. 4), sub-anhedral and
occurs in the matrix as well as inclusions in coarse muscovite
and quartz. The grain boundaries are irregular and partly re-
sorbed. The chemical Th-U-Pb dates of single monazite anal-
yses are listed in Table 2. Analyses from both core and rim
domains exclusively provide Variscan ages, which combined
9
PALEOZOIC VERY LOW- TO LOW-GRADE METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (SOUTH TISIA, CROATIA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Fig. 4. Back-scattered electron (BSE) images of monazite in metapsammite sample R1. Numbers refer to analyses in Table 3. Mineral ab-
breviation after Whitney & Evans (2010). Qz – quartz, Mzt – monazite, Zrn – zircon, Ms – muscovite.
Fig. 5. Th* vs. Pb (wt. %) diagram after Suzuki et al. (1991) with
monazite analyses from sample R1 and standard isochron calculated
for Variscan monazite.
Fig. 6. Y
2
O
3
vs. ThO
2
(wt. %) plot with monazite analyses for
samples R1 and R15.
provide a weighted average age of 330 ± 10 Ma (95 % conf.,
MSWD: 3.6). Figure 5 shows that the data from sample R1 is
arrange along the Th* vs. Pb isochron with a slope of
0.0151 ± 0.0017 (isochron age: 335 ± 36 Ma) and a Y-axis
intersection value of —0.003. Monazite grains in sample R1
are characterized by moderate to high Th, U and Y contents
(3—9 wt. % ThO
2
, 0.2—2 wt. % UO
2
, 1—4 wt. % Y
2
O
3
; Table 3;
Fig. 6) and xenotime values ranging from ca. 1—10 mol %. Ac-
cording to the monazite-xenotime miscibility gap thermometers
of Heinrich et al. (1997), Gratz & Heinrich (1997) and Pyle et
al. (2001) maximum xenotime values of 10 mol % imply for-
mation temperatures of 600—800 °C (Table 2; Fig. 7).
Compared to monazite grains from the sample R1, those
from sample R15 are much smaller ( < 10 µm) and have a
much lower ThO
2
( < 1 wt. %) and Y
2
O
3
( < 0.5 wt. %) (Ta-
ble 3; Fig. 6). Due to the low concentration of Th, U and Pb
they could not be used for dating by means of electron mi-
croprobe.
Xenotime geochemistry
Xenotime was detected in sample R1. Xenotime grains are
small ( < 20 µm) and practically always in association with zir-
con (Fig. 8). One type of xenotime (type 1) forms eu-subhe-
dral, partially rounded shapes and shows a zonation in
backscattered electron (BSE) imagery (Fig. 8a). The other
type of xenotime (type 2), characterized by resorbed and/or
dissolved boundaries, occurs as overgrowths on detrital zir-
con grains (Fig. 8b) and occasionally as vein and fracture fill
within zircon grains. These two xenotime types are also dis-
10
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
criminated according to their chemistry. Type 1 xenotime is
characterized by higher U and Th (0.66—3.19 wt. % and
0.2—0.56 wt. %, respectively) compared to type 2 xenotime
(0.18—0.26 wt. % and 0.12—0.16 wt. %, respectively) (Fig. 9a).
Additionally, type 1 xenotime has lower Eu
2
O
3
(up to
0.12 wt. %), Dy
2
O
3
(2.63—4.22 wt. %) and Gd
2
O
3
(3.73—
4.71 wt. %) and higher Yb
2
O
3
(2.97—5.46 wt. %) compared to
Eu
2
O
3
(0.93—1.11 wt. %), Dy
2
O
3
(4.90—5.06 wt. %) and
Gd
2
O
3
(8.71—9.32 wt. %) and Yb
2
O
3
(1.31—1.37 wt. %) char-
acteristic for type 2 xenotime (Table 4; Fig. 9b and c).
Whole-rock geochemistry
The whole-rock element composition of the studied
metasediments is presented in Appendix. Metapsammites
have higher average SiO
2
and lower Al
2
O
3
, Fe
2
O
3
, MgO,
Na
2
O and K
2
O (Appendix) compared to metapelites which
correlates with the dominance of quartz in the metapsammites
and that of clay minerals and hematite in metapelites (Ta-
ble 1). Metapsammites can be characterized by a felsic bulk
composition with ca. 61—77 wt. % SiO
2
,
10—18 wt. % Al
2
O
3
,
Table 2: Concentration (wt. %) and age data for monazite and xenotime from samples R1 and R15 calculated after Montel et al. (1996).
Th* values are after Suzuki et al. (1991). Formation temperatures of monazite calculated after Pyle et al. (2001), Heinrich et al. (1997) and
Gratz & Heinrich (1997) are also shown. ** – possible contamination due to the small grain size.
Formation temperature (°C)
Sample
Position Matrix
Th
(wt. %)
U
(wt. %)
Pb
(wt. %)
Th*
(wt. %)
Age ± 2
σ
(Ma)
X(Xtm) Pyle et al.
(2001)
Heinrich et al.
(1997)
Gratz &
Heinrich (1997)
Monazite
R1 Mzt1-2
rim
Qz–Ms
3.510
1.123
0.095
7.153
298 22
0.09
584
674
675
R1 Mtz1-3
core
Qz–Ms
3.447
0.750
0.090
5.887
345 27
0.07
518
614
579
R1 Mzt2
core
Ms
5.085
0.310
0.083
6.092
304 26
0.08
561
653
642
R1 Mzt3
core
Qz–Ms
5.017
0.333
0.076
6.094
281 26
0.07
535
629
603
R1 Mzt4
rim
Qz–Ms
3.739
0.573
0.084
5.602
335 28
0.08
555
647
632
R1 Mzt5
rim
Qz
4.741
0.783
0.113
7.288
347 22
0.09
601
689
700
R1
Mzt6
rim Ab–Qz 2.973 0.363 0.054 4.149 291 38 0.07
521
617
584
R1 Mzt7
core
Qz
7.950
0.158
0.124
8.465
327 19
0.05
408
515
418
R1 Mzt7
rim
Ms
3.219
0.103
0.049
3.554
307 45
0.03
220
344
141
R1 Mzt8
core
Qz
5.241
1.173
0.125
9.047
309 25
0.06
463
565
498
R1
Mzt9
core Qz–Ms 6.313 1.559 0.174 11.387 343 20 0.12
669
751
801
R1 Mzt10
rim
Ms
3.935
0.518
0.091
5.623
361 28
0.03
222
346
145
R1 Mzt11
core
Qz
6.541
2.164
0.192
13.572
318 17
0.07
520
616
582
R1 Mzt12
core
Qz
2.695
0.845
0.084
5.446
347 29
0.09
589
679
683
R1 Mzt13
rim
Ms
4.257
1.168
0.125
8.061
348 20
0.06
494
592
543
R1 Mzt14
core
Qz
5.124
0.662
0.100
7.274
309 22
0.08
573
664
659
R1
Mzt15
rim Qz–Ms 6.076 1.339 0.166 10.440 357 21 0.03
301
418
261
R1 Mzt16
rim
Qz–Ms
4.243
1.202
0.133
8.160
365 19
0.07
518
614
578
R1 Mzt17
rim
Ms
4.793
0.673
0.107
6.985
343 23
0.08
569
661
654
R1 Mzt18
core
Qz
3.906
0.131
0.062
4.332
321 37
0.05
440
543
464
R1 Mzt18
rim
Qz
3.779
0.121
0.062
4.174
332 38
0.06
451
553
480
R1 Mzt19
rim
Qz
3.847
0.779
0.091
6.377
320 25
0.13
697
776
841
**R15
Mzt1
small Ab–Qz 0.837 0.031 0.020 0.940 – –
0.02
184
312
89
**R15 Mzt2
small
Qz
0.330
0.081
0.027
0.607
–
–
0.02
61
200
–92
**R15 Mzt3
small
Ms
0.399
0.027
0.017
0.491
–
–
0.02
160
290
53
**R15 Mzt4
small
Qz–Ms
0.120
0.109
0.017
0.489
–
–
0.01
–73
78
–289
Xenotime
R1 Xtm1
core
Qz
0.172
0.586
0.048
2.103
–
–
–
–
–
–
R1 Xtm2
core
Qz
0.471
2.403
0.116
8.276
317 27
–
–
–
–
R1 Xtm3
core
Zrn
0.130
0.234
0.053
0.950
–
–
–
–
–
–
R1 Xtm4
core
Qz
0.482
2.816
0.127
9.616
298 23
–
–
–
–
R1 Xtm5
core
Zrn
0.144
0.213
0.023
0.852
–
–
–
–
–
–
R1 Xtm6
core
Qz
0.492
2.622
0.115
8.989
288 25
–
–
–
–
R1 Xtm7
core
Zrn
0.108
0.181
0.030
0.724
–
–
–
–
–
–
R1 Xtm8
core
Zrn
0.103
0.160
0.023
0.644
–
–
–
–
–
–
Fig. 7. Monazite formation temperature according to thermometers
of Gratz & Heinrich (1997), Heinrich et al. (1997) and Pyle et al.
(2001).
11
PALEOZOIC VERY LOW- TO LOW-GRADE METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (SOUTH TISIA, CROATIA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Sample
R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R15 R15
Mzt1-2
Mtz1-3 Mzt2 Mzt3 Mzt7 Mzt7 Mzt9 Mzt15 Mzt18 Mzt18
**
Mzt1
**
Mzt3
Position
rim core core core core rim core rim core rim core core
Matrix
Qz–Ms
Qz–Ms Ms Qz–Ms Qz Ms Qz–Ms
Qz–Ms Qz Qz Ms Qz–Ms
Fig. 4-2 Fig. 4-3
Fig. 4-1
SiO
2
0.25 0.35 0.38 0.41 1.89 0.65 0.42 0.46 0.51 0.53 1.38 0.97
P
2
O
5
29.24 30.15 28.70 29.14 26.94 28.55 29.08 29.06 29.16 28.86 27.76 29.40
CaO 0.93 0.79 0.87 0.91 0.20 0.11 1.47 1.30 0.52 0.47 2.43 2.61
Y
2
O
3
2.25 1.78 2.04 1.73 0.57 0.38 3.85 0.79 1.04 1.09 0.05 0.16
La
2
O
3
12.66 11.92 9.65 8.35 11.96 13.86 11.04 13.14 12.51 11.95 13.47 12.91
Ce
2
O
3
29.37 29.45 27.97 28.15 29.94 34.00 27.22 29.91 30.77 30.87 31.78 31.49
Pr
2
O
3
3.16 3.15 3.15 3.50 3.24 3.63 2.79 2.96 3.41 3.49 3.16 3.20
Nd
2
O
3
12.37 12.64 14.01 14.27 10.63 11.29 11.47 11.40 12.43 12.22 11.36 12.33
Sm
2
O
3
2.27 2.19 3.42 3.73 2.91 2.75 2.22 1.99 2.59 2.58 1.85 1.90
Gd
2
O
3
2.29 1.98 2.27 2.27 1.68 1.23 1.75 1.12 1.94 1.92 0.85 1.15
Dy
2
O
3
0.69 0.53 0.45 0.47 0.31 0.12 0.86 0.16 0.46 0.51 0.18 0.15
Er
2
O
3
0.14 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.04
ThO
2
3.99 3.92 5.79 5.71 9.05 3.66 7.18 6.91 4.44 4.30 0.38 0.45
UO
2
1.27 0.85 0.35 0.38 0.18 0.12 1.77 1.52 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.03
PbO
0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.05 0.19 0.18 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.02
Total 101.00 99.88 99.23 99.17 99.68 100.42 101.45 100.95 100.08 99.07 94.77 96.80
a.p.f.u. based on 4 oxygens
Si
0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04
P
0.97 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.90 0.93
Ca
0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.10
Y
0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00
La
0.18 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.18 0.20 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18
Ce
0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.44 0.50 0.39 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.44 0.43
Pr
0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04
Nd
0.17 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.17
Sm
0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
Gd
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01
Dy
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
Er
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Th
0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
U
0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pb
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tetr. 0.98 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.01
A[9] 1.03 0.99 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
** — possible contamination due to the small grain size; Tetr. = Si + P; A[9] = REE + Th + U + Pb + Ca + Y
Table 3: Selected electron microprobe analyses (wt. %) of monazite from samples R1 and R15.
Fig. 8. Back-scattered electron (BSE) images of xenotime in metapsammite sample R1. a – Igneous-detrital xenotime showing brighter
and darker domains. b – Hydrothermal xenotime occurring as overgrowth on detrital zircon grain. Mineral abbreviations after Whitney &
Evans (2010). Qz – quartz, Xtm –xenotime, Zrn – zircon, Ms – muscovite, Ilm – ilmenite.
12
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
1—6 wt. % Fe
2
O
3
(Appendix) while metapelites contain ca.
49—62 wt. % SiO
2
, 15—27 wt. % Al
2
O
3
and 6—7 wt. % Fe
2
O
3
(Appendix). However, due to the varying clay fraction in meta-
psammites with up to 40 %, some of them overlap chemically
with metapelites and show relatively high A/CNK (Appendix).
Zr/Sc and Hf/Sc ratios for metapsammites (12—39 and
0.3—1.2, respectively) are somewhat higher then those for
metapelites (8—16 and 0.2—0.5, respectively) (Appendix). The
discrimination scheme of Roser & Korsch (1988) based on
major elements shown in Fig. 10 indicate dominant input from
primary felsic sources for metapelites, while metapsammites
fall into the border of the recycled sources field and primary
felsic source field (Fig. 10). The diagrams shown in Fig. 11,
which are based on trace, relatively immobile, elements indi-
cate dominant input of felsic igneous rocks for all samples.
Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.6—0.8 for metapsammites;
Eu/Eu* = 0.6—0.7 for metapelites) are present (Appendix).
Table 4: Electron microprobe analyses (wt. %) of xenotime from sample R1.
Sample
R1 Xtm1
R1 Xtm2
R1 Xtm3
R1 Xtm4
R1 Xtm5
R1 Xtm6
R1 Xtm7
R1 Xtm8
Position core core core core core core core core
Matrix
Qz
Qz Zrn Qz Zrn Qz Zrn Zrn
Origin
Igneous-
detrital
Igneous-
detrital
Hydrothermal
Igneous-
detrital
Hydrothermal
Igneous-
detrital
Hydrothermal Hydrothermal
SiO
2
0.02 0.71 0.11 0.77 0.14 0.64 0.10 0.17
Al
2
O
3
0.00 0.00 0.24 0.11 0.23 0.00 0.04 0.08
P
2
O
5
35.67
35.33
35.52
34.04
35.42
35.23
34.76
34.57
CaO
0.06 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.13 0.14
Y
2
O
3
45.34
42.49
42.01
42.14
42.84
43.24
43.76
43.58
La
2
O
3
0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.10
Ce
2
O
3
0.18 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.16 0.10
Pr
2
O
3
0.21 0.00 0.01 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.08
Nd
2
O
3
0.55 0.21 0.53 0.23 0.52 0.28 0.63 0.68
Sm
2
O
3
0.52 0.40 1.48 0.41 1.38 0.24 1.48 1.53
Eu
2
O
3
0.00 0.12 0.93 0.00 0.95 0.00 1.11 0.98
Gd
2
O
3
4.71 3.88 8.89 3.73 9.11 3.75 8.71 9.32
Dy
2
O
3
4.22 2.71 4.90 2.69 4.92 2.63 5.07 5.06
Er
2
O
3
3.30
4.18 2.44 4.31 2.42 4.45 2.28 2.45
Yb
2
O3 2.97 5.01 1.31 5.46 1.33 5.40 1.37 1.34
ThO
2
0.20 0.54 0.15 0.55 0.16 0.56 0.12 0.12
UO
2
0.66 2.73 0.26 3.19 0.24 2.97 0.20 0.18
PbO 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.03
Total
98.66
98.67
99.06
98.13
100.09
99.72
100.26
100.58
a.p.f.u. based on 4 oxygens
Si
0.001 0.024 0.004 0.026 0.005 0.021 0.003 0.006
P
1.004 1.000 1.004 0.982 0.995 0.994 0.985 0.979
Al
0.000 0.000 0.009 0.004 0.009 0.000 0.002 0.003
Ca
0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.005
Y
0.802 0.756 0.746 0.764 0.757 0.767 0.779 0.776
La
0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Ce
0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.001
Pr
0.002 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
Nd
0.007 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.007 0.008
Sm
0.006 0.005 0.017 0.005 0.016 0.003 0.017 0.018
Gd
0.052 0.043 0.098 0.042 0.100 0.041 0.097 0.103
Eu
0.000 0.001 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.013 0.011
Dy
0.045 0.029 0.053 0.030 0.053 0.028 0.055 0.055
Er
0.034 0.044 0.026 0.046 0.025 0.047 0.024 0.026
Yb
0.030 0.051 0.013 0.057 0.013 0.055 0.014 0.014
Th
0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.001
U
0.005 0.020 0.002 0.024 0.002 0.022 0.002 0.001
Pb
0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Tetr.
1.005 1.024 1.008 1.009 1.001 1.015 0.989 0.987
A[9]
0.990 0.961 0.988 0.985 1.001 0.974 1.020 1.024
Tetr. = Si + P; A[9] = REE + Th + U + Pb + Ca + Y
The values of provenance-indicative element ratios for both
investigated groups of samples, such as Th/Sc, Th/Co and
La/Sc (Appendix), are close or slightly above those for Upper
Continental Crust (UCC), and according to Cullers (2000,
2002) and McLennan et al. (1993) indicate dominant felsic
protolith source (Figs. 11 and 12).
The REE signatures of metapsammites and metapelites are
similar and match those from the NASC (North American
Shale Composite) and UCC (Fig. 13). The REE development
of the surrounding older crystalline complexes, namely the
Papuk Complex and the Psunj Complex (Fig. 13) can hardly
be discriminated.
Zircon typology
Zircon grains from representative metapsammites (R1 and
R2) were studied by means of zircon typology (Pupin 1980).
13
PALEOZOIC VERY LOW- TO LOW-GRADE METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (SOUTH TISIA, CROATIA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Fig. 9. Discrimination diagrams for igneous-detrital and hydrother-
mal xenotime. On each diagram data from Kositcin at al. (2003) are
plotted as referent values for igneous-detrital and hydrothermal xe-
notime. a – Plot of U/Th against U (ppm) used for discrimination
of xenotime types. b – The Gd vs. Yb (wt. %) discrimination dia-
gram which separates hydrothermal xenotime from igneous-detrital
xenotime. c – The Gd/Yb vs. Gd (wt. %) which clearly discrimi-
nates between igneous-detrital and hydrothermal xenotime.
Fig. 11. a – Plot of Zr/Sc vs. Th/Sc showing a magmatic-arc trend
(McLennan et al. 1993; Willan 2003). Plutonic equivalents plot in
similar place. b – Plot of La/Sc vs. Th/Co after Cullers (2002).
UCC – Upper Continental Crust (Taylor & McLennan 1985);
NASC – North American Shale Composite (Gromet et al. 1984).
Fig. 10. Major element discrimination scheme for metasedimentary
rocks of the Radlovac Complex irrespective of grain size, which
takes major elements (Al, Fe, Mg, Ti, K, Na and Ca) into account.
Diagram after Roser & Korsch (1988). F1 – Discriminant func-
tion 1; F2 – Discriminant function 2.
14
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Fig. 12. Metasedimentary rocks from the Radlovac Complex together with referent rocks from the Papuk and Psunj Complexes in trace ele-
ment diagrams with discrimination fields after Bathia & Crook (1986). ACM – active continental margin, CIArc – continental island
arc, OIArc – oceanic island arc, PM – passive margin, UCC – Upper Continental Crust (Taylor & McLennan 1985), NASC – North
American Shale Composite (Gromet et al. 1984).
The results are presented using zircon morphology diagrams
onto which their typology was plotted (Fig. 14). Although,
great diversity of zircon types is obvious, the S-type zircons
with dominant {101} pyramid and {100} prism prevail
(Fig. 14). Most zircons have the length/width ratio ranging
from 1.5—3 (Fig. 14).
Discussion
Sources of metasedimentary rocks
Monazite, xenotime and the spectrum of heavy earth min-
erals suggest that one major source for the Radlovac Com-
plex metasedimentary rocks were felsic, igneous rocks of
Variscan age. The Variscan age is supported by monazite
from sample R1 (Table 2). From the high xenotime contents
and Y-rich monazite, which suggest formation temperatures
of > 600—800 °C, it can be concluded that these Y-rich mona-
zite grains come from a magmatic source because metamor-
phic rocks from the older surrounding complexes never
experienced such high temperatures. In the case of monazite
with lower Y-contents it is not clear if they come from mag-
matic or metamorphic rocks. However, it is important to note
that the wide Y-, Th- and U spread observed in the monazite
under study, is not untypical for grains, which formed in a
magmatic milieu (e.g. Förster 1998; Förster et al. 2008).
Another argument therefore that the sediments were fed
strongly by magmatic igneous rocks is the chemistry and
morphology of type 1 xenotime. Type 1 xenotime can be in-
terpreted as igneous-detrital, while type 2 xenotime is hy-
drothermal (Fig. 9). This is further confirmed by their
discrepancy in chemistry. The observed zonation in type 1
xenotime (Fig. 8), which is, according to Kositcin et al.
Fig. 13. Chondrite normalized REE patterns of the Radlovac Com-
plex metasedimentary rocks. Characteristic rocks from the Papuk
and Psunj Complexes, together with UCC – Upper Continental
Crust (Taylor & McLennan 1985) and NASC – North American
Shale Composite (Gromet et al. 1984) are also plotted for compari-
son. The chondrite values are from Sun & McDonough (1989).
15
PALEOZOIC VERY LOW- TO LOW-GRADE METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (SOUTH TISIA, CROATIA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Fig. 14. Zircon typology diagrams for samples R1 and R2 together with some of the most abundant zircon types (after Pupin 1980) and
Length/Width histograms. “n” refers to number of zircons analysed.
16
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
(2003), a direct consequence of variable degrees of substitu-
tion of HREEs, U and Th for Y during magmatic growth, is
consistent with their igneous origin. This is in good correla-
tion with xenotime data of varied origin (igneous, hydrother-
mal and diagenetic) known from the literature (Kositcin et
al. 2003 and references therein) (Fig. 9). Diagenetic xeno-
time was not detected. Although, the xenotime grains were
not suitable for dating due to low Th (especially hydrother-
mal grains), the igneous-detrital xenotime seems to be
Variscan (Table 2) implying a Variscan igneous source con-
sistent with the detrital monazite ages.
In the case of the hydrothermal xenotime it is possible that
they formed during the Alpine metamorphism.
Monazite grains found in samples R15 are smaller and
have lower Th and Y content indicative for low formation
temperatures (e.g. Read et al. 1987; Rasmussen et al. 2001,
2007; Evans et al. 2002; Rasmussen & Muhling 2007, 2009;
Wan et al. 2007; Wilby et al. 2007), all the more, as the bulk
has relatively high Th and Y contents (Appendix). Bearing
in mind the age dating and temperatures recorded on illite
fractions presented in Biševac et al. (2009, 2010), we can as-
sume that the population of Th- and Y-monazites found in
sample R15 are Alpine (Cretaceous).
Heavy mineral assemblage
Heavy mineral analysis is one of the most sensitive and
widely-used techniques for determination of the provenance
of (meta)sedimentary rocks providing constraints on the
mineralogical nature of the source terrains (Morton &
Hallsworth 1999). The detrital heavy mineral assemblages of
Radlovac Complex representative metapsammites are domi-
nated by apatite and minerals like zircon, tourmaline and
rutile. Additionally, minor quantity of epidote/zoisite, mona-
zite and titanite can be found. Since the weathering of the par-
ent rocks is a very important factor controlling the diversity of
detrital heavy minerals in weathering profiles and later during
sedimentation, the heavy mineral assemblage of Radlovac
representative metapsammites indicate weathering-limited
erosion. Under such conditions detritus is quickly removed
without significant modification by chemical weathering
(Johnsson et al. 1991), consistent with the presence of detrital
apatite as the most abundant, but least stable mineral in weath-
ering profile (Morton & Hallsworth 1999). Since apatite is a
useful key mineral to detect the influence of acidic groundwa-
ter percolation and tends to be unstable under acidic condi-
tions (Morton & Hallsworth 1999), its high abundance
indicates the lack of acidic condition. The occurrence of other
minerals (zircon, tourmaline and rutile) is not surprising since
they show high stability in weathering profiles, but the presence
of epidote/zoisite and lack of garnet and staurolite belonging to
intermediate stability group (Morton & Hallsworth 1999) as
well as, for example, pyroxenes, calcic amphibole or olivine in-
dicate that metamorphic and/or basic igneous rocks did not
serve as source rocks for the Radlovac Complex metasedi-
mentary rocks. The presence of detrital igneous monazite and
xenotime further argue for felsic igneous rocks as protolith.
Zircons occur both as irregular fragmented grains and as eu-
hedral grains. The higher degree of roundness for some zircon
grains than for quartz and feldspar grains in coarser-grained
samples is probably the result of a minor degree of sedimentary
recycling, since zircons are less prone to crystal growth dur-
ing low-grade metamorphism than are quartz and feldspar
(Augustsson & Bahlburg 2008). The euhedral to slightly
abraded zircon originated mainly from I-type and subordinately
S-type granites (Fig. 14), also indicating that the protolith ma-
terial is characterized by shorter transportation paths. The
length/width ratio of zircons show that they originated from
magma characterized by slow to intermediate crystallization.
The presence of euhedral zircons in association with prismatic
crystals of tourmaline highlights the significance of the first-
cycle input as well as short transportation.
Geochemistry
The variation of major elements between the two groups of
samples (metapelites and metapsammites) primarily reflects
the effect of grain size. Since metapelites contain more clay
fraction it is expected to be richer in, for example, Al
2
O
3
,
Fe
2
O
3
or Na
2
O. The bulk chemistry as well as La/Sc, Th/Sc,
La/Co, Th/Co and Th/Cr values for both metapelites and
metapsammites (Appendix), which are, according to Cullers
(2000), indicative when evaluating source rocks, point to fel-
sic igneous rocks as protolith for RC metasedimentary rocks.
This is in good correlation with the heavy mineral assemblage
discussed earlier and other discrimination diagrams (Figs. 10,
11 and 12). The diagram in Figure 12 shows that some meta-
psammite samples (R2 and R5) (Fig. 2) plot in the passive
margin field (Fig. 12), which can indicate that they comprise
felsic, old crustal, recycled detritus (Augustsson & Bahlburg
2008). The other metapsammite samples show a trend, which
can be interpreted as due to temporal compositional variations
of the provenance (Fig. 11).
Metapelites have a REE concentration and a Th/Sc, Th/Co
and La/Sc similar to that of UCC (Fig. 11), while the REE con-
centrations for metapsammites are lower than UCC (Fig. 13)
and Th/Sc, Th/Co and La/Sc values are higher than UCC (Ap-
pendix). Although, this could imply that metapsammites were
partly affected by sedimentary recycling as discussed earlier, at
least during the initial stages of Radlovac Complex sedimenta-
tion, we believe this is the direct consequence of Sc content
controlled by grain-size, namely the abundant clay minerals in
metapelites. Since Sc is often deposited in clay minerals to-
gether with iron and aluminium due to their similar ionic radius
(Das et al. 1971), this is in good agreement with higher content
of both Al
2
O
3
and Fe
2
O
3
(Appendix) in metapelites indicating
the higher phyllosilicate content mostly related to the fine-
grained matrix consisting predominately of illite-muscovite,
chlorite and hematite. Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.6—0.8 for
metapsammites; Eu/Eu* = 0.6—0.7 for metapelites) are similar
for both groups and reflect lithospheric or intracrustal fraction-
ation or the breakdown of feldspar during weathering and/or
metamorphic processes (see Condie et al. 1995).
Paleogeological settings
Paleogeological settings can be estimated on the basis of
discrimination diagrams using major element and trace ele-
17
PALEOZOIC VERY LOW- TO LOW-GRADE METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (SOUTH TISIA, CROATIA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
ment data. However, since the chemistry of the major ele-
ments can be modified in conditions of very low- to low-grade
metamorphism due to their mobility, trace elements and lan-
thanides are frequently used for investigating the paleogeolog-
ical setting of low-grade metasedimentary rocks. Elements
such as La, Ce, Nd, Y, Th, Zr, Hf, Nb, Ti, and Sc are consid-
ered as the best indicators (Holland 1978; Bathia 1985; Bathia
& Crook 1986; McLennan et al. 1993; Slack & Hoy 2000) and
were used here to identify the geotectonic setting of the Radlo-
vac metasedimentary rocks. Most of the samples plot into
field of continental island arc, very similar to UCC and NASC
(Fig. 12). In this geotectonic environment depositional basins
were formed on a well-developed continental crust or thin
continental margin. Sediments deposited along the continental
island arc would be expected to be immature and less recycled
due to smaller individual catchment areas, shorter transporta-
tion path and intermediate-quick storage which is in agree-
ment with the chemical “signature” of the samples presented
here. Comparison to data from the presently exposed sur-
rounding basement rocks of the Slavonia Mts imply that local
Variscan crust could serve as the protolith for the Radlovac
Complex metasedimentary rocks (Fig. 12). Granitoid bodies
of I- and S-type characteristic for the area together with mig-
matites and migmatitic gneisses characteristic for Papuk Com-
plex served as the protolith for all the samples deposited in the
continental island arc. Zircon typology studies of metapsam-
mites of the Radlovac Complex (Fig. 14) compared with zir-
cons of representative samples of Papuk Complex show great
similarity and further confirm their genetic connection (Biševac
2009). Metapsammites characteristic for the lower part of the
Radlovac Complex (R2 and R5) and granitoid rocks character-
istic for Psunj Complex projected in passive margin field imply-
ing their genetic connection. This is in good agreement with the
model proposed by Jamičić (1988) according to which the
Psunj Complex rocks served as the dominant protolith during
the initial phases of the Radlovac Complex sedimentation.
Conclusions
1. Monazite, xenotime and the spectrum of heavy earth
minerals suggest that one major source for the Radlovac
Complex metasedimentary rocks was felsic, igneous rocks of
Variscan age. The Variscan age is supported by chemical
Th-U-Pb monazite age dating. From the high xenotime con-
tents and Y-rich monazite, which suggest formation temper-
atures of > 600—800 °C, we can conclude that the Y-rich
monazite grains come from a magmatic source.
2. The chemistry and morphology of type 1 xenotime (igne-
ous-detrital) is another argument that the metasedimentary
rocks of the Radlovac Complex were fed strongly by mag-
matic igneous rocks. Observed zonation in type 1 xenotime
as a direct consequence of variable degrees of substitution of
HREEs, U and Th for Y during magmatic growth, is consis-
tent with their igneous origin. The igneous-detrital xenotime
seems to be Variscan implying a Variscan igneous source
consistent with the detrital monazite ages.
3. The detrital heavy mineral assemblages of the Radlovac
Complex representative metapsammites are dominated by
apatite and minerals like zircon, tourmaline and rutile ac-
companied by minor quantities of epidote/zoisite, monazite
and titanite. Such assemblages further argue for felsic igne-
ous rocks as protoliths.
4. The bulk chemistry as well as La/Sc, Th/Sc, La/Co, Th/Co
and Th/Cr values for both metapelites and metapsammites
point to felsic igneous rocks as protoliths for the Radlovac
Complex metasedimentary rocks. This is in good correlation
with the heavy mineral assemblage.
5. Elements such as La, Ce, Nd, Y, Th, Zr, Hf, Nb, Ti, and
Sc were used to identify the geotectonic setting of the Radlo-
vac metasedimentary rocks. Most of the samples plot into
the field of continental island arcs, very similar to UCC and
NASC. In this geotectonic environment depositional basins
were formed on a well-developed continental crust or thin
continental margin.
6. Comparison to the presently exposed surrounding base-
ment rocks of the Slavonian Mts, data implies that local
Variscan crust could serve as protolith for the Radlovac Com-
plex metasedimentary rocks. The granitoid bodies of I- and
S-type characteristic for the area together with migmatites
and migmatitic gneisses characteristic for Papuk Complex
served as protolith for all samples deposited in the continen-
tal island arc.
7. The provenance study of the RC metasedimentary rocks
based on Th-U-Pb monazite chemical age dating, heavy min-
eral assemblage and whole-rock geochemistry leads to the
conclusion that the metasedimentary rocks of the Radlovac
Complex represent the detritus of the local Variscan crust,
while Papuk Complex rocks were dominant source material.
8. The identification of the provenance in this study resulted
from combination of several independent analytical tech-
niques supporting the importance of combining different
methods in provenance studies.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the re-
viewers for their stimulating and constructive comments, as
well as the Editor for handling the manuscript. This study
was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Educa-
tion and Sports, Project No. 119-1191155-1156 and by the
Austrian Science Foundation (FWF), Project No. 22408.
References
Augustsson C. & Bahlburg H. 2008: Provenance of late Palaeozoic
metasediments of the Patagonian proto-Pacific margin (southern-
most Chile and Argentina). Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rundsch.)
97, 71—88.
Balen D., Horváth P., Tomljenović B., Finger F., Humer B., Pamić
J. & Árkai P. 2006: A record of pre-Variscian Barrovian re-
gional metamorphism in the eastern part of Slavonian Moun-
tains (NE Croatia). Miner. Petrology 87, 143—162.
Bathia M.R. 1985: Rare element geochemistry of Australian Paleo-
zoic greywackes and mudrocks: Provenance and tectonic con-
trol. Sed. Geol. 45, 97—113.
Bathia M.R. & Crook K.A.W. 1986: Trace elements characteristics
of graywackes and tectonic setting discriminations of sedimen-
tary basins. Contr. Mineral. Petrology 92, 181—193.
Biševac V. 2009: Provenance, age and degree of metamorphism of
18
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
the Radlovac metamorphic complex. PhD Thesis, Univ. Zagreb,
1—304 (in Croatian).
Biševac V., Balen D., Tibljaš D. & Španić D. 2009: Preliminary re-
sults on degree of thermal alteration recorded in the eastern part
of Mt. Papuk, Slavonia, Croatia. Geol. Croatica 62, 1, 63—71.
Biševac V., Balogh K., Balen D. & Tibljaš D. 2010: Eoalpine (Creta-
ceous) very low- to low-grade metamorphism recorded on the il-
lite-muscovite-rich fraction of metasediments from South Tisia
(eastern Mt Papuk, Croatia). Geol. Carpathica 61, 6, 469—481.
Biševac V., Krenn E., Balen D., Finger F. & Balogh K. 2011: Petro-
graphic, geochemical and geochronological investigation on
granitic pebbles from Permotriassic metasediments of the Tisia
terrain (eastern Papuk). Miner. Petrology 102, 163—180.
Brkić M., Jamičić D. & Pantić N. 1974: Carboniferous deposits in
Mount Papuk (northeastern Croatia). Geol. Vjes. 27, 53—58 (in
Croatian).
Bucher L. & Frey M. 1994: Petrogenesis of metamorphic rocks. 6th
edition. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1—318.
Condie K.C., Dengate J. & Cullers R.L. 1995: Behavior of rare
earth elements in a paleoweathering profile on granodiorite in
the front range, Colorado, USA. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta
59, 279—294.
Csontos L. 1995: Tertiary tectonic evolution of the Intra-Carpathian
area: a review. Acta Vulcanol. 7, 1—13.
Csontos L. & Vörös A. 2004: Mesozoic plate tectonics reconstruc-
tion of the Carpathian region. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.
Palaeoecol. 210, 1—56.
Cullers R.L. 2000: The geochemistry of shales, siltstones and sand-
stones of Pennsylvanian-Permian age, Colorado, U.S.A.: im-
plications for provenance and metamorphic studies. Lithos 51,
305—327.
Cullers R.L. 2002: Implications of elemental concentrations for
provenance, redox conditions, and metamorphic studies of
shales and limestones near Pueblo, CO, USA. Chem. Geol.
191, 4, 305—327.
Das H.A., Zonderhuis I. & Marel H.W. van der 1971: Scandium in
rocks, minerlas and sediments and its relations to iron and alu-
minium. Contr. Mineral. Petrology 32, 231—244.
Evans J.A., Jalasiewicz J.A., Fletcher I.R., Rasmussen B. & Pearce
N.J.G. 2002: Dating diagenetic monazite in mudrocks: con-
straining the oil window? Geol. Soc., Spec. Publ. 159, 619—622.
Förster H.J. 1998: The chemical composition of REE-Y-Th-U rich
accessory minerals from the peraluminous granits from the
Erzgebirge-Fichtelgebirge region, German. Part 1: The mona-
zite- (Ce)-brabantite solid solution series. Amer. Mineralogist
83, 259—273.
Förster H.J., Rhede D. & Hecht L. 2008: Chemical composition of ra-
dioactive accessory minerals: implications for the evolution, al-
teration, age, and uranium fertility of the Fichtelgebirge granites
(NE Bavaria, Germany). Neu. Jb. Mineral. Abh. 185, 161—182.
Frimmel H.E. 1994: Metamorphism of Witwatersrand gold. Explo-
ration and Mining Geology 3, 357—370.
Fülöp J., Brezsnyansky K. & Hass J. 1987: The new map of basin
basement of Hungary. Acta Geol. Hung. 30, 3—20.
Géczy B. 1973: The origin of the Jurassic faunal provinces and the
Mediterranean plate tectonics. Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest, Eötvös
Nom. Sect. Geol. 16, 99—114.
Gratz R. & Heinrich W. 1997: Monazite-xenotime thermobarome-
try: experimental calibration of the miscibility gap in the sys-
tem CePO
4
—YPO
4
. Amer. Mineralogist 82, 772—780.
Gromet L.P., Dymek R.F., Haskin L.A. & Korotev R.F. 1984: The
“North American shale composite”: its compilation, major and
trace element characteristics. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 48,
2469—2482.
Haas J. & Péró C. 2004: Mesozoic evolution of the Tisza Mega-
unit. Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rundsch.) 93, 297—313.
Haas J., Mioč P., Pamić J., Tomljenović B., Árkai P., Berzcki-Makk
A., Koronkai B., Kovács S. & Felgenkauer E.R. 2000: Com-
plex strucutre pattern of the Alpine-Dinnaridic-Pannonian tri-
ple junction. Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rundsch.) 89, 377—389.
Hallsworth C.R., Morton A.C., Claoue’-Long J. & Fanning C.M.
2000: Carboniferous sand provenance in the Pennine Basin,
UK: constraints from heavy mineral and detrital zircon age
data. Sed. Geol. 137, 147—185.
Heinrich W., Andrehs G. & Franz G. 1997: Monazite—xenotime
miscibility gap thermometry. I. An empirical calibration. J.
Metamorph. Geology 15, 3—16.
Holland H.D. 1978: The chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans.
Wiley, New York, 1—351.
Horváth P., Balen D., Finger F., Tomljenović B. & Krenn E. 2010:
Contrasting P-T-t paths from the basement of the Tisia Unit
(Slavonian Mts., NE Croatia): application of quantitative phase
diagrams and monazite age dating. Lithos 117, 269—282.
Jamičić D. 1983: Structural fabric of the metamorphosed rocks of
Mt. Krndija and the eastern part of Mt. Papuk. Geol. Vjes. 36,
51—72 (in Croatian).
Jamičić D. 1988: Structural fabric of the Slavonian Mts. (northern
Papuk, Psunj, Krndija). PhD Thesis, Univ. Zagreb, 1—152 (in
Croatian).
Jamičić D. & Brkić M. 1987: Basic Geological Map of Yugoslavia
in scale 1 : 100,000, sheet Orahovica L 33—96. Sav. Geol. Inst.,
Beograd.
Jamičić D., Brkić M., Crnko J. & Vragović M. 1987: Basic Geolog-
ical Map of Yugoslavia – Explanatory notes for sheet Ora-
hovica L 33—96. Fed. Geol. Inst. Beograd, 1—72 (in Croatian).
Johnsson M.J., Stallard R.F. & Lundberg N. 1991: Controls on the
composition of fluvial sands from a tropical weathering envi-
ronment: Sands of the Orinoco drainage basin, Venezuela and
Colombia. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. 103, 1622—1647.
Kositcin N., McNaughton N.J., Griffin B.J., Fletcher I.R., Groves
D.I. & Rasmussen B. 2003: Textural and geochemical discrim-
ination between xenotime of different origin in the Archaean
Witwatersrand Basin, South Africa. Geochim. Cosmochim.
Acta 67, 709—731.
Krenn E., Ustaszewski K. & Finger F. 2008: Detrital and newly
formed metamorphic monazite in amphibolite-facies metapelites
from the Motajica Massif, Bosnia. Chem. Geol. 254, 164—174.
Ludwig K.R. 2001: Isoplot/Ex, Version 2.49e. A Geochronological
Toolkit for Microsoft Excel. Berkeley Geochronological Cen-
ter Special Publications.
Mange M.A. & Maurer H.F.W. 1991: Heavy minerals in colour.
Chapman and Hall, London, 1—147.
Márton E. 2000: The Tisza Megatectonic Unit in the light of paleo-
magnetic data. Acta Geol. Hung. 43, 3, 329—343.
Márton E. 2001: Tectonic implications of Tertiary paleomagnetic
results from the PANCARDI area (Hungarian contribution).
Acta Geol. Hung. 44, 135—144.
McLennan S.M., Hemming S., McDaniel D.K. & Hanson G.N.
1993: Gechemical approaches to sedimentation, provenance
and tectonics. In: Johnsson M.J. & Basu A. (Eds.): Processes
controlling the composition of clastic sediments. Geol. Soc.
Amer., Spec. Pap. 284, 21—40.
Meinhold G., Kostopoulos D. & Reischmann T. 2007: Geochemical
constraints on the provenance and depositional setting of sedi-
mentary rocks from the islands of Chios, Inousses and Psara,
Aegean Sea, Greece: implications for the evolution of Palaeo-
tethys. J. Geol. Soc. London 164, 1145—1163.
Mikes T., Christ D., Petri R., Dunkl I., Frei D., Báldi-Beke M., Reit-
ner J., Wemmer K., Hrvatović H. & von Eynatten H. 2008:
Provenance of the Bosnian Flysch. Swiss J. Geosci. 101, 1,
31—54.
Montel J.M., Foret S., Veschambre M., Nicollet C. & Provost A.
19
PALEOZOIC VERY LOW- TO LOW-GRADE METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (SOUTH TISIA, CROATIA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
1996: Electron microprobe dating of monazite. Chem. Geol.
131, 37—53.
Morton A.C. & Hallsworth C.R. 1999: Processes controlling the
composition of heavy mineral assemblages in sandstones. Sed.
Geol. 124, 3—29.
Pamić J. 1986: Magmatic and metamorphic complexes of the ad-
joining area of the northernmost Dinarides and Pannonian
Mass. Acta Geol. Hung. 29, 203—220.
Pamić J. 1998: Crystalline basement of the South Pannonian Basin
based on surface and subsurface data. Nafta 49, 371—390.
Pamić J. & Jamičić D. 1986: Metabasic intrusive rocks from the Pa-
leozoic Radlovac complex of Mt. Papuk in Slavonija (northern
Croatia). Rad JAZU 424, 97—125.
Pamić J. & Lanphere M. 1991: Hercynian granites and metamorphic
rocks of the Mts. Papuk, Psunj, Krndija and surrounding base-
ment of the Pannonian Basin, North Croatia. Monograph.
Geologija 34, 81—235 (in Croatian).
Pamić J. & Jurković I. 2002: Paleozoic tectonostratigraphic units of
the northwest and central Dinarides and the adjoining South
Tisia. Int. J. Earth Sci. 91, 538—554.
Pamić J., Lanphere M. & McKee E. 1988: Radiometric ages of
metamorphic and associated igneous rocks of the Slavonian
Mountains in the southern part of Pannonian Basin, Yugoslavia.
Acta Geol. 18, 13—39.
Pamić J., Lanphere M. & Belak M. 1996: Hercynian I-type and
S-type granitoids from the Slavonian Mountains (southern Pan-
nonian, north Croatia). Neu. Jb. Mineral. Abh. 171, 155—186.
Pamić J., Balen D. & Tibljaš D. 2002: Petrology and geochemistry
of orthoamphibolites from the Variscan metamorphic sequences
of the South Tisia in Croatia – an overview with geodynamic
implications. Int. J. Earth Sci. 91, 787—798.
Pupin J.P. 1980: Zircon and granite petrology. Contr. Mineral. Pe-
trology 73, 207—220.
Pyle J.M., Spear F.S., Rudnick R.L. & McDonough W.F. 2001:
Monazite—xenotime garnet equilibrium in metapelites and a new
monazite-garnet thermometer. J. Petrology 42, 2083—2107.
Rasmussen B. & Muhling J.R. 2007: Monazite begets monazite: evi-
dence for dissolution of detrital monazite and reprecipitation of
syntectonic monazite during low-grade regional metamor-
phism. Contr. Mineral. Petrology 154, 675—689.
Rasmussen B. & Muhling J.R. 2009: Reactions destroying detrital
monazite in greenschist-facies sandstones from the Witwater-
srand basin, South Africa. Chem. Geol. 264, 311—327.
Rasmussen B., Fletcher I.R. & McNaughton N.J. 2001: Dating low
grade metamorphic events by SHRIMP U—Pb analysis of mon-
azite in shales. Geology 29, 963—966.
Rasmussen B., Fletcher I.R. & Muhling J.R. 2007: In situ U-Pb dat-
ing and element mapping of three generations of monazite: un-
ravelling cryptic tectonothermal events in low-grade terranes.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 71, 670—690.
Read D., Cooper D.C. & McArthur J.M. 1987: The composition and
distribution of nodular monazite in the Lower Palaeozoic rocks
of Great Britain. Mineral. Mag. 51, 271—280.
Roser B.P. & Korsch R.J. 1988: Provenance signatures of sand-
stone-mudstone suites determined using discriminant function
analysis of major-element data. Chem. Geol. 67, 119—139.
Schmid S.M., Bernoulli D., Fügenschuh B., Matenco L., Schefer S.,
Schuster R., Tischler M. & Ustaszewski K. 2008: The Alpine-
Carpathian-Dinaridic orogenic system: correlation and evolu-
tion of tectonic units. Swiss J. Sci. 101, 139—183.
Slack J.F. & Höy T. 2000: Geochemistry and provenance of clastic
metasedimentary rocks of the Aldridge and Fort Steele Forma-
tion, Purcell Supergroup, SE British Columbia. In: Lydon
J.W., Höy T., Slack J.F. & Knapp M.E. (Eds.): The geological
enviroment of the Sullivan Deposit, British Columbia. GAC,
Spec. Publ. 1, 180—201.
Stampfli G.M., Borel G.D., Marchant R. & Mosar J. 2002: Western
Alps geological constraints on western Tethyan reconstruc-
tions. J. Virtual Explorer 8, 77—106.
Sun S. & McDonough W.F. 1989: Chemical and isotopic systematics
of oceanic basalts: implications for mantle composition and pro-
cesses. In: Saunders A.D. & Norry M.J. (Eds.): Magmatism in
the Ocean Basins. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 42, 313—345.
Sutton S.J., Ritger S.D. & Maynard J.B. 1990: Stratigraphic control
of chemistry and mineralogy in metamorphosed Witwatersrand
quartzites. J. Geol. 98, 329—341.
Suzuki K., Adachi M. & Tanaka T. 1991: Middle Precambrian prove-
nance of Jurassic sandstone in the Mino Terrane, central Japan:
Th-U-total Pb evidence from an electron microprobe monazite
study. Sed. Geol. 75, 141—147.
Tari V. & Pamić J. 1998: Geodynamic evolution of the northern Dinar-
ides and south Pannonian basin. Tectonophysics 297, 269—281.
Taylor S.R. & McLennan S.M. 1985: The continental crust: Its
composition and evolution. Blackwell, Oxford, 1—312.
von Eynatten H. 2003: Petrography and chemistry of sandstones
from the Swiss Molasse Basin: an archive of the Oligocene to
Miocene evolution of the Central Alps. Sedimentology 50,
703—724.
von Eynatten H. & Wijbrans J.R. 2003: Precise tracing of exhuma-
tion and provenance using
40
Ar/
39
Ar geochronology of detrital
white mica: the example of the Central Alps. In: McCann T. &
Saintot A. (Eds.): Tracing tectonic deformation using the sedi-
mentary record. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ. 208, 289—305.
Wan Y.S., Song T.R., Liu D.Y., Yang T.N., Yin X.Y., Chen Z.Y. &
Zhang Q.D. 2007: Mesozoic monazite in Neoproterozoic meta-
sediments: Evidence for low-grade metamorphism of Sinian
sediments during Triassic continental collision, Liaodong Penin-
sula, NE China. Geochem. J. 41, 47—55.
Weltje G.J. & von Eynatten H. 2004: Quantitative provenance analy-
sis of sediments: review and outlook. Sed. Geol. 171, 1—11.
Whitney D.L & Evans B.W. 2010: Abbreviations for names of
rock-forming minerals. Amer. Mineralogist 95, 185—187.
Wilby P.R., Page A.A., Zalasiewicz J.A., Milodowski A., Eliams
M. & Evans J.A. 2007: Syntectonic monazite in low-grade
mudrocks: a potential geochronometer for cleavage formation?
J. Geol. Soc. 164, 53—56.
Willan R.C.R. 2003: Provenance of Triassic-Cretaceous sandstones
in the Antarctic Peninsula: implications for terrane models
during Gondwana breakup. J. Sed. Res. 73, 1062—1077.
Willner A.P., Ermolaeva T., Stroink L., Glasmacher U.A., Giese U.,
Puchkov V.N., Kozlov V.I. & Walter R. 2001: Contrasting
provenance signals in Riphean and Vendian sandstones in the
SW Urals (Russia): constraints for a change from passive to
active continental margin conditions in the Neoproterozoic.
Precamb. Res. 110, 215—239.
York D. 1966: Least squares fitting of a straight line. Canad. J.
Phy. 44, 1079—1086.
Zack T., von Eynatten H. & Kronz A. 2004: Rutile geochemistry
and its potential use in quantitative provenance studies. Sed.
Geol. 171, 37—58.
20
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Appendix
Chemical
data
for
metasedimentary
rocks
belonging
to
the
Radlov
ac
complex,
as
well
as
for
representative
samples
from
Psunj
an
d
Papuk
complexes
used
here
for
comparison
as
possible
protolit
h.
21
PALEOZOIC VERY LOW- TO LOW-GRADE METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (SOUTH TISIA, CROATIA)
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Appendix
(continued)
22
BIŠEVAC, KRENN, FINGER, LUŽAR-OBERITER and BALEN
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA
GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA, 2013, 64, 1, 3—22
Appendix
(continued)