UJt

Na

b

c

a

ARRAA

KASDS

1

(ifwcd1Sat1e

0h

Precambrian Research 239 (2013) 6– 23

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Precambrian Research

j o ur nal hom epa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /precamres

–Pb detrital zircon provenance of the Saramuj Conglomerate,ordan, and implications for the Neoproterozoic evolution ofhe Red Sea region

ajel Yaseena,∗, Victoria Peaseb, Ghaleb H. Jarrara, Martin Whitehousec

Department of Geology, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, JordanDepartment of Geological Sciences, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, SwedenSwedish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 50007, SE-10405 Stockholm, Sweden

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 16 March 2013eceived in revised form 21 August 2013ccepted 2 October 2013vailable online 12 October 2013

eywords:rabian-Nubian Shieldaramuj Conglomerateetrital zircon agesIMS U–Pb

a b s t r a c t

The latest stage in the evolution of the northernmost Arabian-Nubian Shield is characterized by thedevelopment of volcano-sedimentary successions. In Jordan the Saramuj Conglomerate Formation isconsidered to be one of these post-tectonic basins. It is polymict and poorly sorted with wide range ofclast compositions, roundness and size. We present the first SIMS U–Pb dating of detrital zircons fromtwo sandstone samples representative for the conglomerate matrix and of four clasts from the SaramujConglomerate for provenance and age determinations. The relative probability curve for the matrix sam-ples indicates a major contribution (85%) from c. 600 to 650 Ma, subclusters at 624 and 640 Ma, a minorsource from 700 to 750 Ma, and a clear gap between 650 and 700 Ma. These ages are consistent with thoseobtained from andesitic, rhyodacitic, granitic and gneiss clasts (624, 642, 650 and 734 Ma respectively).In contrast to the adjacent volcano-sedimentary successions in the Elat area, Sinai and the Eastern Desert,no ages older than 750 Ma were found. The good match between the known ages of the nearby exposedbasement with the matrix ages and the immature nature of the sediments implies that the principal inputwas locally derived erosional detritus. The age of the youngest 10 detrital zircons at c. 615 Ma represents

the maximum age of deposition, which is consistent with the stratigraphic position of the Saramuj Con-glomerate. Clast ages of 642 Ma and 650 Ma are interpreted as evidence for a magmatic source that hasnot been recognized in SW Jordan. This study implies that the volcano-sedimentary successions in thenorthernmost Arabian-Nubian shield may be broadly coeval but have distinct provenance and thereforeevolved as isolated basins. Furthermore, U–Pb zircon provenance analysis allows us to recognize igneous

er pr

products that are no long

. Introduction

The northernmost exposures of the Arabian-Nubian ShieldANS) occur in the basement complexes of Jordan (Fig. 1). The ANSs a collage of juvenile Neoproterozoic crustal fragments derivedrom intra-oceanic island arcs of the Mozambique Ocean. Theseere accreted during closure of the Mozambique Ocean, in asso-

iation with the collision between East and West Gondwana, i.e.,uring East African Orogeny (Bentor, 1985; Kröner, 1985; Vail,985; Stoeser and Camp, 1985; Stern, 1994, 2002; Abdelsalam andtern, 1996; Stein and Goldstein, 1996; Jarrar et al., 2003; Stoesernd Frost, 2006; Stern and Johnson, 2010). The ANS is bounded to

he east and west by pre-Neoproterozoic crust (Stacey and Hedge,984; Sultan et al., 1990; Whitehouse et al., 1998, 2001; Abdelsalamt al., 2002; Johanson and Woldehaimanot, 2003; Meert, 2003). The

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +962 65355000.E-mail addresses: nyaseen@ju.edu.jo, ynajel@gmail.com (N. Yaseen).

301-9268/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2013.10.008

eserved and/or exposed in the region.© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

pre-Neoproterozoic crust in the northern part of the ANS has beenreworked, as documented by U–Pb zircon geochronology (Sultanet al., 1990; Hargrove et al., 2006; Ali et al., 2009a,b; Be’eri-Shlevinet al., 2009; Breitkreuz et al., 2010; Morag et al., 2011). The tectono-magmatic evolution of the northern part of ANS is divided intotwo stages: an early part (880–740 Ma) representing the island arcaccretion stage (Jarrar, 1985; Kröner et al., 1990, 1994; Bea et al.,2009; Morag et al., 2011, 2012) and a later post-collisional stage(680–580 Ma). The late Neoproterozoic post-collisional stage peaksat 630–620 Ma and is characterized by the intrusion of calc-alkalineand alkaline granitoids (Beyth et al., 1994; Jarrar et al., 2003;Be’eri-Shlevin et al., 2009b; Eyal et al., 2010; Morag et al., 2011).Continental collision resulting from convergence between East andWest Gondwana took place between 650 and 625 Ma (Stern, 1994)and is consistent with the age of the youngest deformed granit-

oids in the northern ANS (630 Ma, Jarrar, 1985; Be’eri-Shlevin et al.,2009b). The transition from a compressional to an extensional set-ting occurred at 610–600 Ma (Stern, 1994; Garfunkel, 1999; Gennaet al., 2002; Jarrar et al., 2003) and was terminated by uplift and

N. Yaseen et al. / Precambrian Research 239 (2013) 6– 23 7

F lcano-( = Wat

ec1

pvomrpawiaIeFw(2f(WeHUat

ig. 1. General map of the Arabian-Nubian Shield including the locations of some voIsrael), R = Rutig, K = Kid and F = Ferani successions (Sinai), G = Jebel Um Tawat and Werrane, Saudi Arabia); modified after Morag et al. (2011) and references therein).

rosion of the upper continental crust. The ANS became a stableontinental region by the early Cambrian at ∼542 Ma (Garfunkel,999; Johanson and Woldehaimanot, 2003).

A common feature characterizing the final stage of late Neo-roterozoic evolution in the northernmost ANS is the presence ofolcano-sedimentary sequences (cf. Fig. 1). In the Eastern Desertf Egypt it is represented by the Dokhan volcanics and Ham-amat group sediments. The ca. 630–590 Ma Dokhan volcanic

ocks are mainly calc-alkaline and intermediate to felsic in com-osition (Basta et al., 1980; Stern and Gottfried, 1986; Wildend Youssef, 2000, 2001; Moghazi, 2003; Breitkreuz et al., 2010),hile the associated Hammamat group sediments comprise mainly

mmature terrigenous clastics with abundant conglomerate (Akaadnd Noweir, 1969, 1980; Willis et al., 1988; Eliwa et al., 2010).n Sinai volcano-sedimentary successions are exposed in sev-ral places and named after their locations, such as Kid-Malhak,erani, Rutig, Sa’al-Zaghra, Iqna and Khashabi. They are equatedith the Dokhan–Hammamat succession of the Eastern Desert

Shimron, 1980; Bentor, 1985; El-Gaby et al., 1991, 2002; Moussa,003; Azer, 2007; El-Bialy, 2010). Recent U–Pb detrital zircon agesrom the volcano-sedimentary succession of the Wadi Kid area620–590 Ma: Samuel et al., 2011; Moghazi et al., 2012) and the

adi Rutig and Gebel Ferani regions (620–595 Ma: Be’eri-Shlevint al., 2011) also place them in the same range as the Dokhan-

ammamat succession from the Eastern Desert. In southern Israel–Pb detrital zircon ages from the Elat conglomerate and associ-ted volcanics (605–580 Ma) are consistent with their correlationo the volcano-sedimentary successions in the Eastern Desert and

sedimentary successions. S = Saramuj Conglomerate (Jordan), E = Elat Conglomeratedi Igla (Hammamat-Dokhan deposits, NE desert), M = Minaweh Formation (Midyan

Sinai (Morag et al., 2012). In northern Saudi-Arabia the ca. 600 Ma(Clark, 1985) Minaweh Formation of the Midyan terrane con-tains molasse sediments that may also be considered equivalent.In Jordan the volcano-sedimentary succession is represented bythe Saramuj Conglomerate Formation and Haiyala Volcanoclas-tic Formation (Jarrar et al., 1991, 1993). The age of the SaramujConglomerate is constrained by the intrusion of a 595 Ma (Jarraret al., 1993) monzogabbro in Wadi Qunai. Furthermore, the SaramujConglomerate unconformably overlies the ∼610 Ma (Jarrar, 1985)Turban granite in Wadi Abu Barqa. Correlations with other volcano-sedimentary successions in the northern ANS are unverified. Thegeodynamic evolution and depositional setting of these volcano-sedimentary successions in the northern ANS are interpreted asthe result of NW-SE crustal extension during the latest stages ofPan-African Orogenesis (Blasband et al., 2000).

The introduction of single crystal isotope dating techniques hasled to a revolution in provenance studies of clastic sediments. Theconglomerates, which record short transport distances in the rangeof 10 to hundreds km (Ferguson et al., 1996), are particularly usefulin tracing proximal sources as has recently been demonstrated byWanders et al. (2004 and references therein).

We present the first quantitative assessment of Saramuj Con-glomerate clast composition and geometry, and secondary ion massspectrometry (SIMS) U–Pb detrital zircon provenance study of the

Saramuj Conglomerate. Zircon ages from the matrix and clasts inthe Saramuj Conglomerate reflect the source(s) of its erosionaldetritus and are therefore likely to relate to magmatic events ofthe northern ANS. In addition, these provenance results facilitate

8 N. Yaseen et al. / Precambrian Research 239 (2013) 6– 23

ramuj

fc

2

2

eneedAiap

Fig. 2. Geologic map of the study area showing the extent of the Sa

or the first time correlation with other volcano-sedimentary suc-essions exposed in the Eastern Desert, Sinai and southern Israel.

. Geological background

.1. Regional setting

Basement complexes in Jordan are exposed east and north-ast of Aqaba and along the eastern flanks of Wadi Araba, as farorth as the southern end of the Dead Sea (Fig. 2). This cov-rs an area of about 1400 km2 and represents the northernmostxtension of the ANS. The basement is Neoproterozoic in age andivided into two parts, the Aqaba Complex at ∼800–605 Ma and the

raba Complex at 605–542 Ma (Table 1). Both complexes divide

nto several suites based on their geochemistry, geochronology,nd field relationships (cf. Table 1). The Aqaba Complex encom-asses all metamorphic and igneous rocks underlying the Saramuj

Conglomerate and the sampling location (after Jarrar et al., 1991).

Conglomerate. All the regionally metamorphosed rocks belong tothis complex and represent the oldest (∼800–750 Ma) rocks inJordan, in addition to the 625 Ma orthogneiss that formed as aresult of compressional dynamic metamorphism (Jarrar, 1985).Igneous rocks (625–600 Ma) comprise more than 80% of the com-plex and range in composition from minor gabbros to abundanthigh-silica, high-potassium granites of calc-alkaline affinity (Jarrar,1985; Jarrar et al., 2003). These rocks represent the main crust-forming event in southwest Jordan and are subduction related(Ibrahim and McCourt, 1995; Jarrar et al., 2003).

Calc-alkaline magmatism was followed by an extensionaltectonic regime which led to the formation of fault-boundedintermontane basins and sub-basins (Jarrar et al., 1991, 1993).

This stage is accompanied by widespread dike swarms which arenumerous in the plutonic rocks of the Aqaba Complex (McCourt andIbrahim, 1990). The dike swarms represent two generations: (i) Anolder generation of essentially composite dikes, and (ii) a younger

N. Yaseen et al. / Precambrian Research 239 (2013) 6– 23 9

Table 1Lithostratigraphic field established hierarchy for the rocks of the Aqaba and Araba Complexes.

Complex Suite (unit)

Araba Complex (∼565–542 Ma) Bimodal igneous activity andrift-related intermontanemolasse sediments

Aheimer Alkaline Peralkaline rhyolitic Suite (553–548 Ma)Humrat-Feinan Suite (568 Ma) Araba alkaline plutonic SuiteAraba Mafic to Intermediate Suite (570–595 Ma)Haiyala volcaniclastic Fm. Saramuj Conglomerate Fm. Safi Group

Peneplain ∼ 610 Ma

AQABA Complex (800–600 Ma) Calc alkaline Granitoid(∼580–630 Ma)

Yutum Granitic Suite (608 Ma)Urf Porphyritic Suite (620 Ma)Rumman Granodiorite Suite (610 Ma)Darba Tonalitic Suite (610 Ma)Rahma Foliated Suite (625 Ma)

Metamorphic rocks (∼800–750 Ma) Janub Metamorphic Suite, Abu Barqa MetasedimentarySuite, Abu-Saqa Schist Suite, Buseinat Gneiss Suite, and

M herein

gdy2

P(TfH1tA

2

VCtisemeas(oofitcifAaddao

3

mN

odified after McCourt and Ibrahim (1990) and Jarrar et al. (2003) and references t

eneration comprising predominantly simple dikes. The compositeikes yield U–Pb ages of c. 600 Ma (Jarrar et al., 2012) while theoungest dolerite dikes have a Rb–Sr age of c. 561 Ma (Jarrar et al.,013).

Aqaba and Araba Complexes are separated by an intra-roterozoic unconformity overlain by the Saramuj ConglomeratePowell, 1988; McCourt and Ibrahim, 1990; Jarrar et al., 1993, 2003).he Araba Complex contains all rocks post-dating this uncon-ormity including the Safi group (the Saramuj Conglomerate andaiyala Volcanoclastic Formation, Table 1) (Ibrahim and McCourt,995). The magmatic part of the Araba Complex is divided intowo suites (Table 1): Araba Alkaline Plutonic Suites and Aheimerlkaline-Peralkaline Rhyollitic Suite (Jarrar et al., 2003).

.2. Saramuj Conglomerate Formation

The Saramuj Conglomerate Formation together with the Haiyalaolcanoclastic Formation belongs to the Safi group. The Saramujonglomerate is exposed in its type locality at the southern end ofhe Dead Sea in a continuous wedge trending NNE-SSW (Fig. 2). Its deposited in a post-orogenic basin and comprises molasse-typeediments, i.e. poorly sorted conglomerate and sandstone. Jarrart al. (1991) identified three lithofacies in the Formation, namely (i)assive or horizontally stratified, clast-supported coarse conglom-

rate (orthoconglomerates), (ii) pebble-bearing sandy conglomer-tes (paraconglomerates), and (iii) medium to coarse-grained sand-tones. The clast compositions mostly consist of white-gray granite25%), monzogranite (27%), volcanics (latites 9%; dacites 24%; rhy-lites 14%) and metamorphic rocks (1%) (Jarrar et al., 1991). Lithol-gy, grain size and sedimentary structures (alluvial fans, channellls and debris flows) indicate a high velocity bed load alluvial sys-em (Jarrar et al., 1991). The age of the Saramuj Conglomerate isonstrained to 610–595 Ma on the basis of field relationships: It isntruded by a c. 595 Ma (U–Pb zircon age) monzogabbro and uncon-ormably overlies c. 610 Ma Aqaba Complex granitoids in Wadibu-Barqa (Jarrar, 1985). Furthermore, the Saramuj Conglomer-te is dissected by NE-SW striking rhyolitic and trachyandesiticikes belonging to the younger (c. 561 Ma) dike swarm. The geo-ynamic evolution of the Saramuj Conglomerate is inferred to bessociated with NW-SE crustal extension leading to the formationf fault-bounded intermontane basins (Jarrar et al., 1991).

. Sample description

Samples were collected from the southern part of the Sara-uj Conglomerate type locality (GPS coordinates, WGS system,

31◦03.671, E 035◦30.726). Two samples of the medium- to

Duheila Hornblendic Suite

.

coarse-grained sandstone lithofacies, considered representative ofthe Saramuj Conglomerate matrix material, were collected forU–Pb detrital zircon provenance analysis. The orthoconglomeratelithofacies sampled is poorly sorted with a wide range of clastcompositions, roundness and size (Figs. 3 and 4A). Four clasts of dif-ferent composition (andesite, rhyodacite, granite, and gneiss) werecollected from the orthoconglomerate for age determination of theclast-types in order to identify possible contributions to the matrixmaterial.

Sandstones matrix samples. Two samples (SA08-1 and SA08-2) were collected from the sandstones lithofacies of SaramujConglomerate (Fig. 4B and C). Sample SA08-1 is massive, well-indurated and greenish in color. It is a medium- to coarse-grainedfeldspathic arenite (Fig. 4 D). Sample SA08-2 is a medium- tocoarse-grained feldspathic arenite that is finely laminated, rela-tively indurated, and also greenish in color. The green color inboth samples is due to the presence of epidote and chlorite causedby burial metamorphism up to lower greenschist facies (Ghanem,2009). The sample also contains abundant iron oxides.

Clast samples. Sample SA08-3 is a light colored andesitic por-phyry clast. It is characterized by phenocrysts of amphibole andplagioclase ranging from 1 to 10 mm in size in a very fine grainedgroundmass (Fig. 4E). The amphibole is often totally altered tochlorite associated with opaques. Sample SA08-4 is a dark reddish-brown rhyodacitic porphyry clast. It contains phenocrysts of alkalifeldspar and lesser amounts of quartz ranging from 1 to 5 mm insize (Fig. 4F). Both phenocryst types are in a very fine felsic ground-mass. Sample SA08-5 is a slightly dark banded gneiss clast. The lightbands are characterized mainly by alkali feldspar and quartz, whilethe dark bands are dominated by biotite (Fig. 4G). Biotite is partiallyaltered to chlorite. Sample SA08-6 is light colored granitic rock withfine to medium phaneritic texture. It is composed mainly of quartz,alkali feldspar and plagioclase (Fig. 4H). Biotite and opaque oxidesare the main mafic phases. Quartz in this sample shows some defor-mational features such as undulatory extinction and small scalerecrystallization.

4. Analytical methods

Zircons were separated using conventional techniques (crus-hing, Frantz magnetic separator and heavy liquids separation).Zircons were picked and mounted together with the 1065 MaGeostandards 91,500 reference zircon (Wiedenbeck et al., 1995).

Cathodoluminesence (CL) and secondary electron (SE) images weregenerated to select analytical locations using a Hitachi S4300 scan-ning electron microscope at Swedish Museum of Natural History(SMNH). U–Th–Pb analyses were performed using a CAMECA IMS

10 N. Yaseen et al. / Precambrian R

Fig. 3. Clast characteristics of the Saramuj Conglomerate at the sampling location.(gc

1cWcperasyebtCanl

A) Clast composition dominated by granite/aplite and volcanic clasts, (B) clasteometry dominated by (sub)rounded clasts, and (C) Combined distribution of clastomposition and geometry.

280 secondary ion mass spectrometer (SIMS) at SMNH. Analyti-al conditions and instrumental set up follow those described by

hitehouse et al. (1999) and Whitehouse and Kamber (2005). Aorrection for common lead was made using the model lead com-osition of Stacey and Kramers (1975) when measured 204Pb countsxceeded average background by 3�. Common lead most likely rep-esents surface contamination during sample preparation (e.g. Zecknd Whitehouse, 1999). Even for grains where 204Pb counts aretatistically significant, relatively low levels of radiogenic lead inoung grains make them susceptible to over-correction and largerror propagation. Consequently, “207-corrected ages” (derivedy projecting a line from the assumed common Pb compositionhrough the uncorrected 238U/206Pb and 207Pb/206Pb ratios onto

oncordia; Ludwig, 2003) are reported for ages <1Ga; this approach

priori assumes that the analyzed grains are concordant which isot unreasonable for low U detrital zircon. Such an assumption is

ess robust for highly discordant analyses in which Pb-loss cannot

esearch 239 (2013) 6– 23

be discounted; consequently, analyses >10% discordant (2�) on thebasis of their uncorrected ratios were excluded from further datasynthesis. Concordia diagrams and cumulative probability curveswere made using Isoplot/Ex software (Ludwig, 2003). Ages use thedecay constant recommendations of Steiger and Jäger (1977) andare presented at the 2� level.

5. Analytical results

5.1. U–Pb zircon ages from the matrix

Two sandstones samples (SA08-1 and SA08-2) representingmatrix of the Saramuj Conglomerate Formation yielded abundantzircon and, consistent with their detrital nature, have variablemorphology and color. However, most crystals are subhedral toanhedral, dark to slightly transparent brown, and range in sizefrom 250 to 50 �m. Few grains are euhedral with well-developedterminations indicating that most grains were rounded duringsedimentary transport. CL images (Fig. 5) show zircon generallycharacterized by wide to fine oscillatory growth zoning, but someshow discordant core–rim relationships while others just showdark and light luminescence domains.

A total of 111 U–Pb analyses were made on core and rims of 97zircon grains (Table 2). Of these, analyses with discordance >10%and >1% common lead were excluded from the final data syn-thesis and the majority those analyses which were excluded aredue to high common lead. Acceptable results from both samplesare combined and their relative probability curve plotted (Fig. 6).The results of the combined samples are predominantly late Neo-proterozoic in age and display a skewed distribution, with 80% ofthe ages between 615 and 650 Ma but with two principal popula-tions: one at c. 624 Ma and another at c. 640 Ma. A minor clusteris defined by ages of 700–750 Ma. The maximum age of depositionfor the Saramuj sandstone (defined by the weighted average of theten youngest 207-corrected ages of acceptable quality) is ≤615 Ma,in fairly good agreement with its inferred depositional age of c.610 Ma.

5.2. U–Pb zircon ages from clasts

Andesitic clast (SA08-3). This andesitic clast yielded euhedralstubby prismatic zircon and euhedral pyramidal, yellowish to lightbrown, crystals of ca. 50–150 �m length. Some zircons have darkcores and some have light cores, but the CL images (Fig. 5) showthat they are all characterized by fine oscillatory growth zoning,typical of a magmatic origin (e.g. Corfu et al., 2003).

Eight analyses were made on the inner and outer portionsof 3 zircon crystals with no apparent age difference betweenthem (Table 2). Two analyses (n3516-3a and 3b; Table 2) giveolder (c. 648 Ma) ages and are interpreted to represent xenocrysts.The remaining six analysis yield a Concordia age of 624 ± 6 Ma(MSWD = 1.3) (Fig. 7a). This age is interpreted as the crystallizationage of the andesite from which the clast was derived.

Rhyodacite clast (SA08-4). Zircon from the rhyodacite clast areeuhedral to subhedral stubby prisms, with some crystals havingpyramidal terminations. The crystals are transparent and light pinkto brown, ranging from 50 to 200 �m in size. CL images (Fig. 5) showthat the zircons are characterized by fine oscillatory growth zoningand sector zoning, both consistent with a magmatic genesis (e.g.,Corfu et al., 2003).

Ten U–Pb analyses were made on both the inner and outer por-tions of six zircon crystals (Table 2). Eight analyses combine to forma Concordia age of 642 ± 7 Ma (MSWD = 2.1) (Fig. 7b). This age isinterpreted as the crystallization age of the rhyodacite from which

N.

Yaseen et

al. /

Precambrian

Research

239 (2013) 6– 2311

Table 2Saramuj U–Th–Pb results.

Sample ID Concentration (ppm) Total (uncorrected) ratio Radiogenic (corrected) ratioc

U Th Pb Th/Uca Th/Um

a 206Pb/204Pb f206 (%)b 206Pb/238U ±s (%) 207Pb/206Pb ±s (%) 206Pb/238U ±s (%) 207Pb/206Pb ±s (%)

n3514-1a 37 19 5.6 0.5 0.51 5440 [0.34] 0.1232 0.96 0.0649 2.6 0.1232 0.96 0.0649 2.6n3514-1b 64 44 9.8 0.64 0.68 6830 [0.27] 0.1208 0.99 0.0646 1.6 0.1208 0.99 0.0646 1.6n3514-2a 190 180 28 1.1 0.96 61,800 [0.03] 0.1073 0.96 0.0598 1.0 0.1073 0.96 0.0598 1.0n3514-2b 120 85 16 0.71 0.72 16,400 [0.11] 0.1062 0.96 0.0612 1.3 0.1062 0.96 0.0612 1.3*n3514-3a 2100 660 100 0.12 0.31 252 7.43 0.0454 2.1 0.1183 3.7 0.0420 2.1 0.0607 10.n3514-3b 790 320 96 0.39 0.4 13,500 0.14 0.1024 0.96 0.0620 0.5 0.1023 0.96 0.0609 0.58n3514-3c 380 140 47 0.39 0.36 21,300 0.09 0.1057 1.0 0.0610 0.7 0.1056 1.0 0.0603 0.79n3514-4a 81 33 10 0.41 0.41 15,300 [0.12] 0.1042 0.96 0.0607 1.5 0.1042 0.96 0.0607 1.5n3514-5a 350 170 43 0.48 0.48 42,300 [0.04] 0.1026 1.0 0.0608 0.8 0.1026 1.0 0.0608 0.76n3514-5b 470 260 60 0.55 0.54 57,800 [0.03] 0.1031 1.0 0.0603 0.9 0.1031 1.0 0.0603 0.86n3514-6 470 240 58 0.52 0.51 58,400 [0.03] 0.1019 0.96 0.0606 0.8 0.1019 0.96 0.0606 0.79*n3514-7a 300 170 35 0.41 0.55 436 4.29 0.1013 0.96 0.0954 2.3 0.0970 0.97 0.0623 4.8*n3514-7b 130 87 16 0.61 0.66 6390 0.29 0.0929 0.98 0.0630 1.3 0.0927 0.98 0.0607 1.7*n3514-7c 750 360 48 0.26 0.48 205 9.11 0.0575 1.1 0.1303 0.9 0.0523 1.1 0.0597 3.9n3589-1 160 130 21 0.76 0.79 24,200 [0.08] 0.1004 0.85 0.0605 1.0 0.1004 0.85 0.0605 1.0n3589-2 260 84 32 0.32 0.32 29,600 [0.06] 0.1054 0.87 0.0616 0.80 0.1054 0.87 0.0616 0.80n3589-3 99 94 13 0.93 0.95 17,000 [0.11] 0.0979 0.85 0.0604 1.3 0.0979 0.85 0.0604 1.3n3589-4 160 40 19 0.24 0.25 69,100 [0.03] 0.1028 0.85 0.0614 1.0 0.1028 0.85 0.0614 1.0n3589-5 140 64 17 0.44 0.45 13,000 0.14 0.1023 0.85 0.0617 1.1 0.1021 0.85 0.0606 1.3n3589-6 89 78 12 0.9 0.88 7170 0.26 0.1017 0.89 0.0614 1.4 0.1015 0.89 0.0594 1.6n3589-7 57 35 7.4 0.59 0.62 6990 [0.27] 0.1033 0.85 0.0619 1.7 0.1033 0.85 0.0619 1.7n3589-8 100 46 13 0.46 0.44 11,100 [0.17] 0.1036 0.86 0.0606 1.3 0.1036 0.86 0.0606 1.3n3589-9 46 31 5.9 0.68 0.67 14,300 [0.13] 0.1006 0.85 0.0601 2.1 0.1006 0.85 0.0601 2.1*n3589-10 5800 1900 64 0.04 0.32 52.8 35.45 0.0132 0.94 0.3413 0.7 0.0085 1.1 0.0698 11.n3589-11 59 37 7.4 0.63 0.64 5780 0.32 0.1011 0.85 0.0622 1.7 0.1008 0.85 0.0597 2.2n3589-12 94 47 11 0.52 0.51 18,100 [0.10] 0.1002 0.85 0.0599 1.3 0.1002 0.85 0.0599 1.3*n3589-13 260 180 30 0.45 0.68 919 2.04 0.0955 0.90 0.0772 0.8 0.0935 0.90 0.0615 1.9n3589-14 120 60 15 0.48 0.49 10,700 0.17 0.1006 0.85 0.0620 1.2 0.1005 0.85 0.0607 1.3n3589-15 510 490 74 1 0.97 35,400 0.05 0.1071 0.85 0.0609 0.6 0.1070 0.85 0.0605 0.60n3589-16 510 240 62 0.47 0.47 22,700 0.08 0.1005 0.86 0.0612 0.60 0.1004 0.86 0.0606 0.66n3589-17 210 140 27 0.63 0.65 26,000 [0.07] 0.1009 0.85 0.0609 1 0.1009 0.85 0.0609 0.95n3589-18 78 47 9.7 0.59 0.6 14,400 [0.13] 0.1001 0.87 0.0599 1.7 0.1001 0.87 0.0599 1.7n3589-19 220 200 31 0.91 0.89 30,500 [0.06] 0.1049 0.85 0.0608 0.9 0.1049 0.85 0.0608 0.85n3589-20 150 100 20 0.64 0.65 22,700 [0.08] 0.1026 0.85 0.0614 1.0 0.1026 0.85 0.0614 1.0n3589-21 52 28 6.4 0.58 0.54 6740 0.28 0.1025 0.85 0.0605 1.9 0.1022 0.85 0.0584 2.2n3589-22 59 54 9 1.1 0.92 7670 0.24 0.1144 0.85 0.0615 1.5 0.1142 0.85 0.0596 1.8n3589-23 55 44 7.3 0.71 0.79 7500 [0.25] 0.1011 0.86 0.0625 2.0 0.1011 0.86 0.0625 2.0n3589-24 270 190 35 0.76 0.73 25,100 0.07 0.1023 0.92 0.0608 0.8 0.1022 0.92 0.0602 0.86n3589-25 310 290 42 0.99 0.94 24,800 0.08 0.1006 0.85 0.0601 1.2 0.1005 0.85 0.0595 1.2n3589-26 47 17 5.7 0.35 0.37 5550 [0.34] 0.1026 0.85 0.0619 2.6 0.1026 0.85 0.0619 2.6n3589-27 84 46 10 0.52 0.54 93,800 [0.02] 0.1019 0.86 0.0614 1.7 0.1019 0.86 0.0614 1.7n3589-28 27 15 3.9 0.62 0.56 2500 0.75 0.1181 0.85 0.0668 2.6 0.1172 0.85 0.0610 4.2n3589-29 190 95 24 0.53 0.51 19,000 [0.10] 0.1057 0.88 0.0607 1.5 0.1057 0.88 0.0607 1.5n3589-30 180 100 23 0.58 0.54 13,000 0.14 0.1034 0.85 0.0611 1.1 0.1033 0.85 0.0600 1.3n3589-31 580 380 73 0.63 0.65 8140 0.23 0.0999 0.84 0.0627 1.0 0.0997 0.84 0.0609 1.1n3589-32 86 52 11 0.58 0.61 9980 [0.19] 0.1013 0.84 0.0610 1.7 0.1013 0.84 0.0610 1.7n3589-33 120 110 16 1 0.92 7950 0.24 0.1039 0.88 0.0603 2.1 0.1036 0.87 0.0584 2.3n3589-34 93 56 12 0.64 0.6 25,400 [0.07] 0.1023 0.95 0.0595 1.6 0.1023 0.95 0.0595 1.6n3589-35 140 100 18 0.73 0.72 56,900 [0.03] 0.1017 0.84 0.0609 1.3 0.1017 0.84 0.0609 1.3n3589-36 120 61 15 0.51 0.51 15,800 [0.12] 0.1015 0.85 0.0609 1.4 0.1015 0.85 0.0609 1.4n3589-37 67 45 8.6 0.66 0.67 7630 [0.25] 0.1018 0.87 0.0604 1.9 0.1018 0.87 0.0604 1.9*n3589-38 520 250 55 0.42 0.48 2360 0.79 0.0880 0.84 0.0671 0.9 0.0873 0.84 0.0610 1.3n3589-39 110 49 14 0.42 0.45 19,000 [0.10] 0.1055 0.88 0.0625 1.4 0.1055 0.88 0.0625 1.4*n3589-40 2400 250 72 0.07 0.1 278 6.73 0.0286 1.2 0.1092 0.5 0.0266 1.2 0.0568 4.0n3589-41 440 73 49 0.15 0.17 12,800 0.15 0.1019 0.85 0.0627 0.8 0.1018 0.85 0.0615 0.93

12N

. Yaseen

et al.

/ Precam

brian R

esearch 239 (2013) 6– 23

Table 2 ( Continued )

Sample ID Concentration (ppm) Total (uncorrected) ratio Radiogenic (corrected) ratioc

U Th Pb Th/Uca Th/Um

a 206Pb/204Pb f206 (%)b 206Pb/238U ±s (%) 207Pb/206Pb ±s (%) 206Pb/238U ±s (%) 207Pb/206Pb ±s (%)

SA08-2, sandstone matrix N 31◦ 03.671 E 35◦ 30.726n3515-1a 350 140 44 0.43 0.4 64,500 [0.03] 0.1061 0.98 0.0604 0.8 0.1061 0.98 0.0604 0.75n3515-1b 310 120 38 0.4 0.38 36,600 [0.05] 0.1046 0.97 0.0607 0.8 0.1046 0.97 0.0607 0.78n3515-1c 210 71 26 0.35 0.33 17,100 0.11 0.1050 0.99 0.0612 1 0.1048 0.99 0.0604 1.1n3515-2a 110 69 14 0.57 0.6 16,600 [0.11] 0.1018 0.96 0.0622 1.3 0.1018 0.96 0.0622 1.3n3515-2b 95 14 11 0.14 0.15 9080 0.21 0.1027 0.96 0.0621 1.5 0.1025 0.96 0.0605 1.7n3515-3a 33 13 4 0.41 0.38 3310 [0.56] 0.1023 0.96 0.0608 2.4 0.1023 0.96 0.0608 2.4n3515-3b 48 18 5.8 0.36 0.37 5360 [0.35] 0.1034 0.96 0.0615 2.0 0.1034 0.96 0.0615 2.0n3515-4a 180 94 24 0.55 0.52 16,400 0.11 0.1061 0.97 0.0612 1.0 0.1060 0.97 0.0603 1.1n3515-4b 180 86 23 0.51 0.48 16,600 0.11 0.1046 1.0 0.0608 1.0 0.1045 1.0 0.0599 1.1n3515-5a 190 67 24 0.35 0.36 71,900 [0.03] 0.1068 0.96 0.0624 1.3 0.1068 0.96 0.0624 1.3n3515-5b 160 93 21 0.58 0.58 26,200 [0.07] 0.1067 0.96 0.0615 1.3 0.1067 0.96 0.0615 1.3n3515-6a 57 66 8.4 1.1 1.2 7600 [0.25] 0.1042 0.97 0.0628 2.1 0.1042 0.97 0.0628 2.1n3515-6b 180 150 26 0.9 0.84 27,900 [0.07] 0.1049 0.97 0.0606 1.0 0.1049 0.97 0.0606 1.0*n3590-1 2000 790 250 0.41 0.4 265 7.06 0.1170 0.86 0.1166 0.4 0.1088 0.86 0.0620 2.0n3590-2 54 27 6.8 0.47 0.51 >1e6 [0.00] 0.1036 0.85 0.0623 2.1 0.1036 0.85 0.0623 2.1n3590-3 280 100 34 0.35 0.37 3480 0.54 0.1049 0.88 0.0652 1.3 0.1043 0.88 0.0611 1.6n3590-4 220 170 29 0.79 0.79 18,300 0.1 0.1022 0.85 0.0614 1.1 0.1021 0.85 0.0606 1.2n3590-5 280 81 34 0.28 0.29 296,000 [0.01] 0.1064 0.85 0.0617 1 0.1064 0.85 0.0617 0.95n3590-6 60 44 9.4 0.73 0.73 7980 [0.23] 0.1219 0.85 0.0646 2.0 0.1219 0.85 0.0646 2.0*n3590-7 120 70 16 0.62 0.59 1550 1.2 0.1070 0.87 0.0703 1.6 0.1057 0.86 0.0609 2.7n3590-8 1000 38 120 0.04 0.04 50,300 0.04 0.1053 0.85 0.0619 0.5 0.1052 0.85 0.0616 0.49n3590-9 67 48 9 0.78 0.71 15,300 [0.12] 0.1048 0.85 0.0597 1.9 0.1048 0.85 0.0597 1.9*n3590-10 69 45 8.7 0.64 0.66 916 2.04 0.1004 1.0 0.0779 1.9 0.0984 1.0 0.0621 4.4n3590-11 150 76 19 0.5 0.5 15,000 0.12 0.1011 0.85 0.0608 1.3 0.1009 0.85 0.0599 1.4n3590-12 120 120 17 1.1 1 16,200 [0.12] 0.1063 0.88 0.0599 1.5 0.1063 0.88 0.0599 1.5n3590-13 160 150 23 0.84 0.88 83,600 [0.02] 0.1066 0.84 0.0621 1.2 0.1066 0.84 0.0621 1.2n3590-14 130 41 16 0.33 0.32 12,400 [0.15] 0.1050 0.89 0.0607 1.5 0.1050 0.89 0.0607 1.5n3590-15 160 79 19 0.5 0.51 17,800 [0.11] 0.1016 0.90 0.0607 1.4 0.1016 0.90 0.0607 1.4n3590-16 220 130 29 0.61 0.6 22,400 [0.08] 0.1056 0.85 0.0609 1.0 0.1056 0.85 0.0609 1.0n3590-17 520 330 66 0.62 0.64 15,800 0.12 0.1014 0.85 0.0619 0.7 0.1013 0.85 0.0609 0.78*n3590-18 100 88 14 0.88 0.85 1300 1.44 0.1023 0.85 0.0713 1.5 0.1008 0.85 0.0601 3.0n3590-19 210 95 27 0.43 0.44 36,200 [0.05] 0.1057 0.90 0.0613 1.1 0.1057 0.90 0.0613 1.1n3590-20 34 16 4.7 0.41 0.46 2330 0.8 0.1164 0.85 0.0687 2.4 0.1155 0.85 0.0625 3.8n3590-21 88 54 11 0.61 0.62 18,300 [0.10] 0.1016 0.85 0.0601 1.7 0.1016 0.85 0.0601 1.7n3590-22 100 72 13 0.69 0.7 21,900 [0.09] 0.1013 0.86 0.0605 1.5 0.1013 0.86 0.0605 1.5n3590-23 340 210 43 0.62 0.63 25,900 0.07 0.1014 0.86 0.0614 0.9 0.1013 0.86 0.0608 0.90n3590-24 470 240 59 0.51 0.52 22,600 0.08 0.1044 0.85 0.0617 0.7 0.1043 0.85 0.0611 0.76*n3590-25 430 210 52 0.5 0.49 612 3.05 0.1032 0.84 0.0831 1.0 0.1000 0.85 0.0594 3.0n3590-26 150 120 21 0.93 0.82 7150 0.26 0.1066 0.86 0.0612 1.5 0.1063 0.86 0.0591 2.0*n3590-27 190 240 29 1.4 1.3 855 2.19 0.1028 1.2 0.0792 1.5 0.1005 1.2 0.0623 4.1*n3590-28 110 46 11 0.2 0.43 1220 1.54 0.0896 1.4 0.0725 3.1 0.0882 1.4 0.0606 4.5n3590-29 150 67 19 0.47 0.45 5350 0.35 0.1057 0.85 0.0630 1.5 0.1054 0.85 0.0603 1.8*n3590-30 85 58 10 0.86 0.69 56.8 32.91 0.1489 6.9 0.3110 13. 0.0999 10. 0.0537 160.*n3590-31 45 12 4.3 0.19 0.27 719 2.6 0.0873 0.92 0.0822 2.5 0.0850 0.89 0.0621 6.2n3590-32 170 100 22 0.55 0.59 42,800 [0.04] 0.1047 0.85 0.0622 1.2 0.1047 0.85 0.0622 1.2*n3590-33 880 500 75 0.4 0.56 411 4.55 0.0731 0.89 0.0942 0.70 0.0698 0.88 0.0589 3.1n3590-34 47 16 5.8 0.3 0.34 6240 [0.30] 0.1047 0.85 0.0637 2.7 0.1047 0.85 0.0637 2.7n3590-35 110 87 15 0.74 0.76 >1e6 [0.00] 0.1019 0.86 0.0609 1.6 0.1019 0.86 0.0609 1.6n3590-36 81 35 10 0.44 0.44 5060 [0.37] 0.1038 0.86 0.0599 2.4 0.1038 0.86 0.0599 2.4n3590-37 140 65 17 0.43 0.47 18,900 [0.10] 0.1041 0.85 0.0622 1.4 0.1041 0.85 0.0622 1.4n3590-38 540 330 69 0.6 0.61 16,300 0.11 0.1022 0.84 0.0614 0.9 0.1021 0.84 0.0605 0.94n3590-39 98 70 15 0.67 0.72 36,100 [0.05] 0.1239 0.86 0.0653 1.7 0.1239 0.86 0.0653 1.7*n3590-40 510 140 40 0.21 0.28 371 5.04 0.0740 1.1 0.0966 1.0 0.0703 1.1 0.0574 4.5

N.

Yaseen et

al. /

Precambrian

Research

239 (2013) 6– 2313

Table 2 ( Continued )

Sample ID Concentration (ppm) Total (uncorrected) ratio Radiogenic (corrected) ratioc

U Th Pb Th/Uca Th/Um

a 206Pb/204Pb f206 (%)b 206Pb/238U ±s (%) 207Pb/206Pb ±s (%) 206Pb/238U ±s (%) 207Pb/206Pb ±s (%)

n3590-41 260 130 32 0.52 0.51 7160 0.26 0.1030 0.90 0.0620 1.2 0.1028 0.90 0.0600 1.5n3590-42 270 160 35 0.53 0.58 >1e6 [0.00] 0.1040 0.84 0.0614 1.4 0.1040 0.84 0.0614 1.4*n3590-43 250 110 22 0.27 0.44 312 6 0.0763 0.91 0.1111 2.4 0.0717 0.95 0.0648 7.0

SA08-3, andesite clast N 31◦03.671 E 35◦30.726n3516-1a 63 40 8 0.58 0.64 7470 [0.25] 0.1016 0.97 0.0617 1.7 0.1016 0.97 0.0617 1.7n3516-1b 57 33 7.2 0.61 0.57 6840 [0.27] 0.1017 1.0 0.0595 1.9 0.1017 1.0 0.0595 1.9n3516-1c 81 64 11 0.86 0.8 7400 0.25 0.1006 0.96 0.0611 1.8 0.1004 0.96 0.0592 2.1n3516-2a 81 45 10 0.61 0.56 8250 0.23 0.1011 0.97 0.0616 1.7 0.1009 0.97 0.0598 2.0n3516-2b 100 58 13 0.58 0.57 16,100 [0.12] 0.1040 0.96 0.0612 1.4 0.1040 0.96 0.0612 1.4n3516-2c 350 390 50 1.2 1.1 28,500 0.07 0.1017 0.99 0.0604 0.7 0.1016 0.99 0.0599 0.77n3516-3a 240 110 30 0.5 0.47 17,400 0.11 0.1052 0.99 0.0611 0.9 0.1051 0.99 0.0603 0.94n3516-3b 130 38 16 0.34 0.29 6220 0.3 0.1056 0.96 0.0607 1.3 0.1053 0.96 0.0584 1.6

SA08-4, rhyo-dacite clast N 31◦03.671 E 35◦30.726n3519-1a 310 290 45 0.95 0.94 39,000 [0.05] 0.1065 0.97 0.0615 0.7 0.1065 0.97 0.0615 0.74n3519-1b 310 280 44 0.89 0.91 27,900 [0.07] 0.1058 0.96 0.0620 0.8 0.1058 0.96 0.0620 0.75n3519-1c 81 44 10 0.64 0.54 4990 0.37 0.1047 1.1 0.0610 1.4 0.1043 1.1 0.0581 1.9n3519-2a 200 98 26 0.51 0.48 28,200 [0.07] 0.1068 1.0 0.0616 1 0.1068 1.0 0.0616 0.98*n3519-3a 940 440 79 0.4 0.47 214 8.76 0.0771 0.96 0.1253 0.6 0.0704 0.96 0.0571 3.5n3519-4a 80 67 11 0.83 0.83 8950 [0.21] 0.1032 0.99 0.0618 1.6 0.1032 0.99 0.0618 1.6n3519-4b 68 54 9.3 0.82 0.79 16,200 [0.12] 0.1035 0.96 0.0608 1.7 0.1035 0.96 0.0608 1.7n3519-4c 77 63 10 0.83 0.83 12,200 [0.15] 0.1024 0.99 0.0606 1.6 0.1024 0.99 0.0606 1.6n3519-5va 90 49 12 0.52 0.54 19,000 [0.10] 0.1045 1.0 0.0621 1.4 0.1045 1.0 0.0621 1.4*n3519-5b 89 71 12 0.69 0.79 1040 1.8 0.1072 0.98 0.0785 4.0 0.1053 1.0 0.0646 6.6

SA08-5, gneiss clast N 31◦03.671 E 35◦30.726n3518-1a 53 27 7.6 0.51 0.51 7260 0.26 0.1187 0.96 0.0647 2.0 0.1184 0.96 0.0628 2.2n3518-1b 78 38 12 0.54 0.48 7200 0.26 0.1221 0.97 0.0642 1.4 0.1218 0.97 0.0622 1.7n3518-2a 66 49 10 0.77 0.74 10,900 [0.17] 0.1213 1.0 0.0636 1.4 0.1213 1.0 0.0636 1.4n3518-2b 46 30 7 0.63 0.65 6380 [0.29] 0.1217 0.96 0.0641 1.7 0.1217 0.96 0.0641 1.7n3518-3a 61 49 9.5 0.95 0.8 5380 0.35 0.1192 1.1 0.0626 1.5 0.1188 1.1 0.0599 1.9n3518-3b 29 19 4.4 0.75 0.65 3400 0.55 0.1207 0.96 0.0647 2.1 0.1200 0.96 0.0605 2.9n3518-4a 35 17 5.1 0.5 0.5 7850 [0.24] 0.1205 0.97 0.0642 1.9 0.1205 0.97 0.0642 1.9n3518-4b 44 20 6.3 0.47 0.45 16,000 [0.12] 0.1194 0.96 0.0637 1.7 0.1194 0.96 0.0637 1.7n3518-5a 36 19 5.4 0.55 0.52 6430 [0.29] 0.1209 1.0 0.0638 2.4 0.1209 1.0 0.0638 2.4n3518-5b 46 37 7.3 0.8 0.8 6910 [0.27] 0.1202 0.97 0.0642 1.7 0.1202 0.97 0.0642 1.7n3518-7a 33 16 4.9 0.46 0.48 16,600 [0.11] 0.1195 0.96 0.0661 2.4 0.1195 0.96 0.0661 2.4n3518-7b 98 56 15 0.67 0.57 13,000 0.14 0.1232 0.96 0.0626 1.2 0.1230 0.96 0.0615 1.3

SA08-6, granodiorite clast N 31◦03.671 E 35◦30.726n3520-1a 1700 650 220 0.39 0.38 7480 0.25 0.1076 1.0 0.0630 0.5 0.1074 1.0 0.0611 0.52n3520-1b 910 620 130 0.7 0.68 9720 0.19 0.1079 0.98 0.0633 1.3 0.1076 0.97 0.0618 1.5*n3520-1c 100 19 7.3 0.18 0.19 325 5.75 0.0671 1.0 0.1029 1.6 0.0633 1.1 0.0583 6.8n3520-2a 280 130 35 0.48 0.48 12,000 0.16 0.1048 0.96 0.0621 1.2 0.1046 0.96 0.0609 1.3n3520-3a 460 210 59 0.45 0.45 17,200 0.11 0.1056 0.96 0.0619 0.7 0.1055 0.96 0.0610 0.71*n3520-4a 320 140 37 0.39 0.43 2190 0.86 0.0961 0.96 0.0687 0.9 0.0952 0.96 0.0621 1.3n3520-4b 270 140 35 0.55 0.51 58,900 [0.03] 0.1080 0.97 0.0601 1.1 0.1080 0.97 0.0601 1.1*n3520-5a 200 55 15 0.28 0.28 670 2.79 0.0684 0.97 0.0790 1.1 0.0665 0.97 0.0573 3.2*n3520-5b 380 450 52 1.2 1.2 1770 1.06 0.0967 0.96 0.0684 0.8 0.0957 0.96 0.0602 1.4n3520-6a 320 130 40 0.43 0.43 18,800 0.1 0.1060 0.97 0.0611 0.8 0.1059 0.97 0.0604 0.87*n352-6b 320 120 34 0.35 0.37 731 2.56 0.0911 1.0 0.0808 0.7 0.0888 1.0 0.0610 2.0

14N

. Yaseen

et al.

/ Precam

brian R

esearch 239 (2013) 6– 23

Table 2 ( Continued )

Sample ID Calculated age ± s (Ma)

207Pb/206Pb 206Pb/238U 207-corr aged Disk (%)

n3514-1a 770 ± 54 749 ± 7 748 ± 7 −2.9n3514-1b 761 ± 34 735 ± 7 735 ± 7 −3.6n3514-2a 598 ± 22 657 ± 6 659 ± 6 10.5n3514-2b 646 ± 27 651 ± 6 651 ± 6 0.8*n3514-3a 628 ± 211 265 ± 6 262 ± 6 −59n3514-3b 637 ± 13 628 ± 6 627 ± 6 −1.6n3514-3c 615 ± 17 647 ± 6 648 ± 6 5.4n3514-4a 629 ± 33 639 ± 6 639 ± 6 1.7n3514-5a 632 ± 16 629 ± 6 629 ± 6 −0.4n3514-5b 613 ± 19 632 ± 6 633 ± 6 3.3n3514-6 624 ± 17 626 ± 6 626 ± 6 0.3*n3514-7a 684 ± 98 597 ± 6 595 ± 7 −13.4*n3514-7b 628 ± 37 571 ± 5 570 ± 6 −9.5*n3514-7c 592 ± 82 329 ± 3 326 ± 6 −45.6n3589-1 622 ± 22 617 ± 5 617 ± 5 −0.9n3589-2 659 ± 17 646 ± 5 646 ± 5 −2n3589-3 617 ± 28 602 ± 5 602 ± 5 −2.6n3589-4 652 ± 21 631 ± 5 630 ± 5 −3.5n3589-5 626 ± 27 627 ± 5 627 ± 5 0.1n3589-6 582 ± 35 623 ± 5 624 ± 5 7.4n3589-7 672 ± 35 634 ± 5 633 ± 5 −6n3589-8 626 ± 27 636 ± 5 636 ± 5 1.6n3589-9 608 ± 44 618 ± 5 618 ± 5 1.8*n3589-10 921 ± 203 54.9 ± 0.6 53.1 ± 4.1 −94.4n3589-11 594 ± 47 619 ± 5 619 ± 5 4.4n3589-12 599 ± 28 615 ± 5 616 ± 5 2.8*n3589-13 656 ± 40 576 ± 5 575 ± 5 −12.7n3589-14 628 ± 29 617 ± 5 617 ± 5 −1.8n3589-15 622 ± 13 655 ± 5 656 ± 5 5.7n3589-16 625 ± 14 617 ± 5 617 ± 5 −1.3n3589-17 636 ± 20 620 ± 5 619 ± 5 −2.8n3589-18 600 ± 37 615 ± 5 616 ± 5 2.7n3589-19 632 ± 18 643 ± 5 644 ± 5 1.9n3589-20 653 ± 22 630 ± 5 629 ± 5 −3.8n3589-21 544 ± 48 627 ± 5 629 ± 5 16.2n3589-22 590 ± 38 697 ± 6 700 ± 6 19.1n3589-23 693 ± 41 621 ± 5 620 ± 5 −10.8n3589-24 611 ± 19 627 ± 6 628 ± 6 2.9n3589-25 586 ± 26 617 ± 5 618 ± 5 5.6n3589-26 670 ± 55 630 ± 5 629 ± 5 −6.3n3589-27 652 ± 36 625 ± 5 625 ± 5 −4.2n3589-28 640 ± 88 714 ± 6 716 ± 6 12.3n3589-29 630 ± 31 648 ± 5 648 ± 6 3.1n3589-30 604 ± 28 634 ± 5 634 ± 5 5.1n3589-31 636 ± 24 612 ± 5 612 ± 5 −3.9n3589-32 638 ± 36 622 ± 5 622 ± 5 −2.6n3589-33 546 ± 50 636 ± 5 638 ± 6 17.2n3589-34 587 ± 34 628 ± 6 629 ± 6 7.4n3589-35 636 ± 28 624 ± 5 624 ± 5 −1.9n3589-36 634 ± 30 623 ± 5 623 ± 5 −1.8n3589-37 619 ± 41 625 ± 5 625 ± 5 1*n3589-38 639 ± 28 540 ± 4 538 ± 5 −16.2n3589-39 691 ± 30 646 ± 5 645 ± 6 −6.8*n3589-40 484 ± 86 170 ± 2 168 ± 3 −65.8n3589-41 658 ± 20 625 ± 5 624 ± 5 −5.3

N.

Yaseen et

al. /

Precambrian

Research

239 (2013) 6– 2315

Table 2 ( Continued )

Sample ID Calculated age ± s (Ma)

207Pb/206Pb 206Pb/238U 207-corr aged Disk (%)

SA08-2, sandstone matrix N 31◦ 03.671 E 35◦ 30.726n3515-1a 619 ± 16 650 ± 6 651 ± 6 5.3n3515-1b 628 ± 17 642 ± 6 642 ± 6 2.2n3515-1c 617 ± 23 643 ± 6 643 ± 6 4.4n3515-2a 680 ± 27 625 ± 6 624 ± 6 −8.4n3515-2b 621 ± 37 629 ± 6 629 ± 6 1.3n3515-3a 633 ± 51 628 ± 6 628 ± 6 −0.8n3515-3b 657 ± 42 634 ± 6 634 ± 6 −3.6n3515-4a 615 ± 24 649 ± 6 650 ± 6 5.9n3515-4b 600 ± 24 641 ± 6 642 ± 6 7.1n3515-5a 688 ± 27 654 ± 6 653 ± 6 −5.2n3515-5b 656 ± 28 653 ± 6 653 ± 6 −0.4n3515-6a 702 ± 43 639 ± 6 637 ± 6 −9.4n3515-6b 626 ± 22 643 ± 6 643 ± 6 2.8*n3590-1 673 ± 41 666 ± 5 665 ± 9 −1.1n3590-2 684 ± 44 636 ± 5 634 ± 5 −7.5n3590-3 641 ± 35 640 ± 5 639 ± 6 −0.3n3590-4 626 ± 26 626 ± 5 626 ± 5 0.1n3590-5 665 ± 20 652 ± 5 652 ± 5 −2.1n3590-6 762 ± 42 741 ± 6 741 ± 6 −2.8*n3590-7 637 ± 58 648 ± 5 648 ± 6 1.7n3590-8 659 ± 11 645 ± 5 645 ± 5 −2.3n3590-9 593 ± 41 642 ± 5 643 ± 5 8.8*n3590-10 677 ± 92 605 ± 6 603 ± 6 −11.2n3590-11 599 ± 30 620 ± 5 620 ± 5 3.6n3590-12 598 ± 31 651 ± ± 5 652 ± 6 9.3n3590-13 676 ± 25 653 ± 5 652 ± 5 −3.6n3590-14 629 ± 32 644 ± 5 644 ± 6 2.5n3590-15 627 ± 30 624 ± 5 624 ± 6 −0.5n3590-16 636 ± 22 647 ± 5 648 ± 5 1.9n3590-17 637 ± 17 622 ± 5 622 ± 5 −2.5*n3590-18 609 ± 65 619 ± 5 619 ± 5 1.8n3590-19 651 ± 24 648 ± 6 648 ± 6 −0.6n3590-20 691 ± 79 705 ± 6 705 ± 6 2.1n3590-21 608 ± 36 624 ± 5 624 ± 5 2.6n3590-22 622 ± 32 622 ± 5 622 ± 5 0n3590-23 633 ± 19 622 ± 5 622 ± 5 −1.8n3590-24 643 ± 16 640 ± 5 639 ± 5 −0.5*n3590-25 582 ± 64 615 ± 5 615 ± 6 5.9n3590-26 572 ± 43 651 ± 5 653 ± 6 14.5*n3590-27 683 ± 85 617 ± 7 616 ± 7 −10.1*n3590-28 624 ± 95 545 ± 7 544 ± 8 −13.1n3590-29 614 ± 39 646 ± 5 646 ± 5 5.5*n3590-30 358 ± 1861 614 ± 60 617 ± 73 74.9*n3590-31 678 ± 126 526 ± 4 523 ± 5 −23.3n3590-32 680 ± 25 642 ± 5 641 ± 5 −6*n3590-33 562 ± 65 435 ± 4 433 ± 5 −23.4n3590-34 730 ± 56 642 ± 5 640 ± 5 −12.7n3590-35 636 ± 35 625 ± 5 625 ± 5 −1.8n3590-36 601 ± 51 636 ± 5 637 ± 5 6.3n3590-37 683 ± 30 638 ± 5 637 ± 5 −6.8n3590-38 622 ± 20 627 ± 5 627 ± 5 0.8n3590-39 784 ± 34 753 ± 6 752 ± 6 −4.2

16N

. Yaseen

et al.

/ Precam

brian R

esearch 239 (2013) 6– 23

Table 2 ( Continued )

Sample ID Calculated age ± s (Ma)

207Pb/206Pb 206Pb/238U 207-corr aged Disk (%)

*n3590-40 506 ± 97 438 ± 5 437 ± 6 −14n3590-41 602 ± 32 631 ± 5 631 ± 6 5n3590-42 655 ± 29 638 ± 5 637 ± 5 −2.7*n3590-43 769 ± 140 446 ± 4 441 ± 6 −43.4

SA08-3, andesite clast N 31◦03.671 E 35◦30.726n3516-1a 665 ± 36 624 ± 6 623 ± 6 −6.4n3516-1b 587 ± 41 625 ± 6 625 ± 6 6.7n3516-1c 573 ± 45 617 ± 6 617 ± 6 7.9n3516-2a 597 ± 42 620 ± 6 620 ± 6 3.9n3516-2b 645 ± 31 638 ± 6 638 ± 6 −1.2n3516-2c 600 ± 17 624 ± 6 624 ± 6 4.3n3516-3a 614 ± 20 644 ± 6 645 ± 6 5.2n3516-3b 545 ± 35 645 ± 6 648 ± 6 19.4

SA08-4, rhyo-dacite clast N 31◦03.671 E 35◦30.726n3519-1a 655 ± 16 652 ± 6 652 ± 6 −0.5n3519-1b 675 ± 16 649 ± 6 648 ± 6 −4.2n3519-1c 534 ± 41 640 ± 7 642 ± 7 20.7n3519-2a 660 ± 21 654 ± 6 654 ± 7 −0.9*n3519-3a 495 ± 75 438 ± 4 437 ± 7 −11.8n3519-4a 667 ± 33 633 ± 6 632 ± 6 −5.3n3519-4b 632 ± 36 635 ± 6 635 ± 6 0.4n3519-4c 625 ± 34 629 ± 6 629 ± 6 0.5n3519-5va 678 ± 30 641 ± 6 640 ± 7 −5.7*n3519-5b 760 ± 133 645 ± 6 643 ± 7 −15.9

SA08-5, gneiss clast N 31◦03.671 E 35◦30.726n3518-1a 700 ± 46 721 ± 7 722 ± 7 3.2n3518-1b 681 ± 36 741 ± 7 743 ± 7 9.3n3518-2a 728 ± 29 738 ± 7 738 ± 7 1.5n3518-2b 746 ± 35 740 ± 7 740 ± 7 −0.9n3518-3a 599 ± 41 724 ± 7 727 ± 7 22n3518-3b 621 ± 61 731 ± 7 733 ± 7 18.6n3518-4a 747 ± 40 734 ± 7 733 ± 7 −1.9n3518-4b 731 ± 36 727 ± 7 727 ± 7 −0.6n3518-5a 735 ± 49 736 ± 7 736 ± 7 0.2n3518-5b 748 ± 35 731 ± 7 731 ± 7 −2.4n3518-7a 809 ± 49 728 ± 7 725 ± 7 −10.6n3518-7b 657 ± 28 748 ± 7 750 ± 7 14.7

SA08-6, granodiorite clast N 31◦03.671 E 35◦30.726n3520-1a 643 ± 11 658 ± 6 658 ± 7 2.4n3520-1b 666 ± 32 659 ± 6 659 ± 6 −1.1*n3520-1c 539 ± 142 395 ± 4 393 ± 5 −27.5n3520-2a 635 ± 27 642 ± 6 642 ± 6 1.1n3520-3a 640 ± 15 646 ± 6 647 ± 6 1.1*n3520-4a 678 ± 28 586 ± 5 584 ± 6 −14.1n3520-4b 608 ± 23 661 ± 6 662 ± 6 9.1*n3520-5a 502 ± 69 415 ± 4 414 ± 4 −17.9*n3520-5b 611 ± 30 589 ± 5 589 ± 6 −3.7n3520-6a 617 ± 19 649 ± 6 650 ± 6 5.5*n3520-6b 639 ± 43 548 ± 5 547 ± 6 −14.7

(a) c=calculated; m= measured Th and U signals. (b) f206 is the percentage of common Pb estimated from 204Pb counts; brackets indicate no correction is required and has not been made. (c) Ratios after subtraction of commonPb (if detected). (d) Age based on projecting a line in inverse concordia space from assumed common Pb through the total (uncorrected) ratios onto concordia (Ludwig, 2001). Concordance in %. Values in parentheses indicateconcordant within 2s uncertainty; for discordant data, the second number reports the closest approach to concordia at 2s limit. *excluded from final analysis due to high f206 or apparent modern Pb-loss on TW plot.

N. Yaseen et al. / Precambrian Research 239 (2013) 6– 23 17

F . (A) O( ass inl last. qB

te

eTC

ig. 4. (Micro-)photographs of the Saramuj Conglomerate at the sampling locationD) feldspathic arenite with epidot (E) hornblende and plagioclase in fine groundmight bands in gneiss clast (H) quartz, alkalifeldspare and plagioclase in granitic ct = biotite, chl = chlorite.

he clast was derived. Two analysis (n3519-3a and 5b; Table 2) arexcluded from calculation due to high common Pb (>1%).

Gneiss clast (SA08-5). This gneiss clast contains zircon that areuhedral with well-developed prisms and pyramidal terminations.hey are mostly light brown and ranges in size from 200 to 50 �m.L images (Fig. 5) indicate irregular oscillatory growth zoning, with

rthoconglomerat facies, (B) sandy facies, (C) pebble-bearing sandy conglomerates, andesiteic clast, (F) alkali-Feldspare phenocrysts in Rhyodacitc clast (G) dark andtz = quartz, Ep = epidote, plg = plagioclase, Hb = hornblende, Alk = Alkali-Feldspare,

both fine- and coarse-scale light and dark domains. There are indi-cations of possible resorption in the interior of some grains (e.g.,

left crystal in Fig. 5) but given the well-grouped analytical resultsdiscussed below, this seems to be a magmatic feature.

U–Pb analyses were made on twelve inner and outer regionsof six zircon crystals (Table 2). All analyses combine to yield a

18 N. Yaseen et al. / Precambrian Research 239 (2013) 6– 23

ypical

Cpccw

s

Fig. 5. Representative CL images of Saramuj Conglomerate samples. Note t

oncordia age of 732 ± 6 Ma (MSWD = 1.8) (Fig. 7c). This is inter-reted as the protolith crystallization age of the gneiss and isonsistent with an igneous origin. Crystal shape and general

oncordance of the internal structure suggest a magmatic originithout any obvious disturbance due to metamorphism.

Granite clast (SA08-6). This granite has both elongate andtubby euhedral prismatic zircon, with or without pyramidal

oscillatory growth zoning of most zircons indicative of igneous protoliths.

terminations. The crystals are mostly dark brown with sometransparent varieties and range from 250 to 50 �m in size.CL images (Fig. 5) show that the crystals are generally

characterized by broad weakly luminescence inner domainswith fine oscillatory growth zoning in outer domains, typi-cally associated with a magmatic genesis (e.g., Corfu et al.,2003).

N. Yaseen et al. / Precambrian R

Fig. 6. Combined cumulative probability curve for the two Saramuj sandstones(probability curve calculated after Sircombe, 2004). The maximum age of the sed-ir

zhdy

Ft

ment based on detrital zircon is ≤615 Ma, near the inferred age based on fieldelationships. Bin width is 10 Ma.

U–Pb analyses were made on 11 inner and outer domains of six

ircon crystals (Table 2). Approximately half of the analyses haveigh common Pb contents (Table 2) and are excluded from the finalata synthesis. Of the acceptable analyses with low common Pb, fiveield a Concordia age of 650 ± 8 Ma (MSWD = 1.7) (Fig. 7d). This age

ig. 7. Inverse concordia diagrams of the dated clasts (after Tera and Wasserburg, 1972)hat in (A) the two analysis interpreted as xenocrysts are excluded from the concordia ag

esearch 239 (2013) 6– 23 19

is interpreted as the crystallization age of the granite from whichthe clast was derived.

6. Discussion

6.1. Implications of clast composition, geometry and ages

The analytical results imply that about 85% of the clasts of Sara-muj Conglomerate are predominantly of igneous origin while therest are metamorphic (Fig. 3a). This is in agreement with the com-position of the exposed basement in Southwest Jordan, which iscomprised of voluminous granitoids (McCourt and Ibrahim, 1990).The geometry analysis indicates that around 50% of clasts arerounded, whereas the other 50% are subrounded, subangular andangular (Fig. 3b). This highlights the relatively immature natureof the Saramuj Conglomerate and is consistent with a generallyproximal derivation of clasts from the surrounding basement.

Two volcanic (andesite and rhyodacite) and one granitic clastsyield U–Pb concordant ages of 624 Ma, 642 Ma and 650 Ma, respec-tively (Fig. 7a, b and d). These ages are interpreted as thecrystallization age of the precursor rocks. When compared with

the exposed Neoproterozoic rocks in Jordan, these ages for vol-canic rocks, at least until now, are not known: the ages of exposedvolcanic rocks, whether present in the form of dikes or flows,are not older than 600 Ma (Lenz et al., 1972; Jarrar et al., 2012,

. (A) Andesitic clast; (B) rhyodacitic clast; (C) gneissic clast; (D) granitic clast. Notee.

2 rian R

2mJtaogtv

6

eees76ToopiSmfsmmagaSomrmmosJM

6

sT1uiacssgmc

tswcic

0 N. Yaseen et al. / Precamb

013). Furthermore, these volcanic clasts are older than the volu-inous post-orogenic granitoids in south Jordan (c. 625–600 Ma,

arrar, 1985; Jarrar et al., 2003; Moshtaha, 2011). This also applieso the granitic clast which, with an age of 650 Ma, is unknownnd older than exposed granitoids. The gneiss clast yields an agef 732 Ma (Fig. 6c), which lies in the range of ages obtained onneisses that are exposed in Central Wadi Araba, about 120 km tohe south of Saramuj Conglomerate type locality (Jarrar et al., thisolume)

.2. Implications of matrix ages

The detrital ages of the matrix samples from Saramuj Conglom-rate (Fig. 6) fit well with the known late Neoproterozoic magmaticvolution of the northern part of the ANS and in particular to thexposed basement in Jordan. The zircons are derived from twoources, a minor older source with ages ranging from c. 700 to50 Ma and a major younger source ranging in age from 600 to50 Ma (Fig. 6). Both age populations reflect magmatic sources.he presence of the older group is supported by the age of therthogneiss clast sample (SA08-5). However, a magmatic source(s)f this age is not known in Jordan and rarely seen in the otherarts of the northern ANS where the time interval 740–650 Ma is

nterpreted by many authors as a lull in magmatic activity (e.g.tern and Hedge, 1985; Morag et al., 2012). Evidence for mag-atic activity between 710 and 730 Ma has recently been reported

rom detrital zircons in the basal conglomerate of Wadi Rutig inouthern Sinai (Samuel et al., 2011). Consequently, the inferredagmatic gap becomes narrower as more data is obtained, whicheans that this gap may simply reflect a sampling bias. The younger

ge group shows two sub-clusters at 640 and 624 Ma. The 640 Maroup correlates well with the ages obtained from the rhyodaciticnd granitic clasts within the Saramuj conglomerate (samplesA08-4 and SA08-6, discussed above). This implies the presencef 640–650 Ma magmatic sources in the drainage system of Sara-uj Conglomerate at the time of deposition. Exposures of magmatic

ocks with ages older than 630 Ma are still unknown in the base-ent rocks of Jordan. The youngest cluster at 624 Ma represents theost significant zircon population and is equivalent to the timing

f the widespread 635–608 Ma post-collisional calc-alkaline intru-ions in southern west Jordan, Elat and Sinai (Beyth et al., 1994;arrar et al., 2003; Be’eri-Shlevin et al., 2009b; Eyal et al., 2010;

orag et al., 2011).

.3. Age and provenance of Saramuj Conglomerate

The age of the Saramuj Conglomerate is constrained by the intru-ion of a 595 Ma (Jarrar et al., 1993) monzogabbro in Wadi Qunai.his intrusive contact defines a distinct contact aureole (Jarrar et al.,993; Ghanem, 2009). Furthermore, the Saramuj Conglomeratenconformably overlies the ∼610 Ma (Jarrar, 1985) Turban gran-

te in Wadi Abu Barqa (75 km north of Aqaba). This implies ange for the Saramuj conglomerate between 610 and 595 Ma. Theombined ten youngest 207-corrected analyses from the matrixamples defines a maximum age of deposition for the Saramujandstone of ≤615 Ma, which is in good agreement with its strati-raphic position. Therefore, zircon ages from conglomerate matrixaterial can be used to constrain their stratigraphic position, espe-

ially useful whenever other evidence is lacking.The provenance of the Saramuj Conglomerate is constrained by

he following observations: (1) the immature nature of the Saramujediments with the majority of clasts being between 5 and 30 cm

ith some megablocks up to 4 m × 2 m (Jarrar et al., 1991), indi-

ate a relatively short distance of transport, (2) clasts compositions predominantly granitic and volcanic with minor metamorphicompositions consistent with the outcropping basement, (3) the

esearch 239 (2013) 6– 23

majority of detrital zircons yield ages around 624 Ma, compatiblewith the overall age of the basement, (4) the Saramuj Conglomer-ate type locality is ca. 100 km from the nearest exposed basementrocks which are exposed in the north (Fig. 2), with the area betweencovered by Phanerozoic sediments. These observations support aproximal derivation of Saramuj detritus. It has been demonstratedby Füchtbauer (1967, 1988) in a study on Miocene Molasse northof the Alps that the size of clasts decreases as a function of trans-port distance, where a 100% conglomerate facies reduces to 10%or less conglomerate in a distance of 200 km In the same studythe maximal pebble size decreases from over 1 m to about 10 cmin the same distance. Another study done by Hoffman (1969) onPrecambrian conglomerates (Murky Formation of the East Arm ofGreat Slave Lake, Canada) containing boulders up to 1.2 m veri-fied a rapid decrease in boulder size to half the initial size in about27 km This is in agreement with similar investigations on con-glomerate clasts in other places (e.g. Wandres et al., 2004). TheSaramuj Conglomerate is dominated by conglomeratic facies witha major clast size between 5 and 30 cm, therefore we concludeit is proximally derived. Source rocks of the volcanic and graniticclasts (624, 642 and 650 Ma) with relatively older ages were prob-ably exposed at the time of Saramuj deposition but are now nolonger exposed. They might have been totally eroded during theexhumation phase which typifies the northernmost ANS after ca.630 Ma (Garfunkel, 1999; Avigad and Gvirtzman, 2009; Jarrar et al.,this volume). An alternative and more probable explanation wouldbe that the source rocks still exist but are now buried under thePhanerozoic sediments. This implies that there may be a lot of‘hidden’, unrecognized basement in the Red Sea region. Regardlessof which explanation is correct, U–Pb zircon provenance analysisallows us to recognize igneous products that are no longer pre-served and/or exposed and, as such, is a very powerful tool forinvestigating clastic sedimentary deposits.

6.4. Comparison with other early Ediacaran successions

The final stage of the late Neoproterozoic evolution in thenorthernmost ANS is characterized by the abundance of volcano-sedimentary successions associated with crustal extension duringthe latest stages of the Pan-African Orogeny (Blasband et al., 2000).Detrital zircon investigations from volcano-sedimentary succes-sions in Sinai (Wadi Rutig, Samuel et al., 2011, Wadi Kid, Moghaziet al., 2012) and the Elat area, (Morag et al., 2012), implies that thesebasins were almost coeval in age of deposition. These studies definedepositional ages of c. 620–590 Ma for the basins in Sinai and c.605–580 Ma for the Elat conglomerate. Furthermore, U–Pb detritalzircon ages for the Dokhan-Hammamat succession in North East-ern Desert implies a deposition age of 630–585 Ma for Gebel UmmTawat (Wilde and Youssef, 2000, 2002) and 628 Ma as a maximumage for deposition of the Wadi Igla Formation (Nasiri et al., thisvolume). The Dokhan-Hammamt successions show detrital zirconages ranging up to 2.6 Ga (Wilde and Youssef, 2002, not shown inFig. 8) which implies a different provenance for the Sinai and Elatsediments.

For the purpose of comparison, the detrital zircons ages of thematrix samples from the Saramuj Conglomerate are plotted againstthe ages obtained from the above mentioned basins (Fig. 8). Amarked observation of Saramuj conglomerate in its type localityrelative to basins in Sinai (Rutig and Kid), Elat area and north-eastern desert (Wadi Umm-Tawat and Wadi Igla) is the absence ofages older than 750 Ma. In contrast to the Saramuj Conglomerate,c. 750–860 Ma source rocks were available in the drainage system

of basins at Sinai, Elat and the North Eastern Desert at the time ofdeposition. The new ages (c. 680–924 Ma) reported from metasedi-ments in central Wadi Araba (Jarrar et al., this volume) are not wellrepresented in the Saramuj matrix sandstone. This supports the

N. Yaseen et al. / Precambrian R

Fig. 8. Detrital zircon age pattern of the Saramuj Conglomerate (SA) matrix samplesplotted against (A) the detrital age spectra of Wadi Kid, Rutig, southern Sinai, Egyptand Elat area, Israel, (B) the Hammamat Succession (Jebel Um Tawat samples H1ac

lmbii(EStstS(abgaiazttwttl

Arabian-Nubian Shield, vol. 3. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 122–140.

nd H2) and Wadi Igla (WI), NED, Egypt. Numbers in the parentheses are reportedoncordant ages. For data references see text (see Fig. 1 for sample locations).

ocal derivation of Saramuj sediments. On the other hand, the Sara-uj Conglomerate shows similarities with the above mentioned

asins in the presence of a prominent 625–650 Ma age peak whichs in agreement with the timing of the well-known post-collisionalntrusions in Sinai, Elat, and on the eastern side of Wadi ArabaBeyth et al., 1994; Jarrar et al., 2003; Be’eri-Shlevin et al., 2009b;yal et al., 2010; Morag et al., 2011). Another notable similarity ofaramuj conglomerate with the Rutig, Kid and Elat successions ishe presence of a distinct gap between c. 650 Ma and 700 Ma, whichupports the regional magmatic lull represented by this feature inhe northernmost ANS (e.g. Samuel et al., 2011; Morag et al., 2012).uch a magmatic gap is not reported in the Hammamat successionFig. 8). Although the Saramuj has a similar stratigraphic positions H2, Rutig, Kid, Elat, and Igla, it is not the same age: the otherasins have younger maximum ages. In addition, the Saramuj Con-lomerate does not really match them with respect to sources. Thebsence of zircon ages younger than 615–580 Ma which presentn Elat and other basins is due to the fact that the Saramuj waslready buried at this time (as evidenced by intrusion of the mon-ogabbro at about 595 Ma). The different age spectra obtained forhe various basins, which are apparently contemporaneous, reflectheir local catchment areas, i.e. were locally derived. Distal sourcesould sample larger areas and produce similar age spectra for all

he basins, which is clearly not the case. This seems to suggest thathe region consists of a series of isolated basins, rather than a single,arge scale depositional system.

esearch 239 (2013) 6– 23 21

6.5. Tectonic implications and conclusions

• The maximum age of deposition at ca. ≤615 Ma for the SaramujConglomerate is relatively coeval with the other volcano-sedimentary successions in Sinai, the Elat area and the EasternDesert of Egypt. This supports the onset of a regional tectonicevent at the final stage in the evolution of northernmost part ofthe ANS. This event is related to major uplift associated with thetransitional stage from a compressional to an extensional setting.

• In active arc settings like the East African Orogen, basins receivingproximal detritus yield maximum depositional ages (from U–Pbdetrital zircons) in good agreement with their stratigraphic ages(e.g., Cawood et al., 2012). This is useful for basins whose ages arenot known (lacking fossils) with proximal clastic sediments.

• This SIMS U–Pb zircon provenance study of the Saramuj Con-glomerate Formation indicates that the principal input waslocally derived erosional detritus of Neoproterozoic age. This isconsistent with U–Pb zircon ages from clasts within the SaramujConglomerate, from known ages of proximal basement, and withits texturally immature nature.

• Provenance differences between basins in the area suggest thatthe Red Sea region consisted of a series of isolated basins, ratherthan a single depositional system.

• Ages of volcanic and granitic clasts indicate magmatic activitybetween 740 and 650 Ma that has not (yet?) been reported in theexposed basement of southern Jordan. U–Pb zircon provenanceanalysis is a powerful tool that allows us to recognize igneousproducts that are no longer preserved and/or exposed.

Acknowledgments

This work was initiated under the JEBEL project (SIDA-MENA grant to V. Pease). Funding from the Swedish ResearchCouncil to VP and MJW supported analytical work at theNordsimFacility,Sweden. The Nordsim facility is operated as a jointNordic infrastrucure. This is Nordsimpublication 350. The fieldwork of this research was partially supported by the Deanshipof Scientific Research, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.The critical comments by two anonymous reviewers greatly helpedimprove the manuscript.

References

Abdelsalam, M.G., Liégeois, J.P., Stern, R.J., 2002. The Saharan metacrato. Journal ofAfrican Earth Sciences 34, 119–136.

Abdelsalam, M.G., Stern, R.J., 1996. Sutures and shear Zones in the Arabian-NubianShield. Journal of African Earth Sciences 23, 289–310.

Akaad, M.K., Noweir, A.M., 1969. Lithostratigraphy of Hammamat-Um seleimat dis-trict, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Nature 223, 284–285.

Akaad, M.K., Noweir, A.M., 1980. Geology and Lithostratigraphy of the ArabianDesert Orogenic Belt of Egypt Between Latitudes 25◦35′ and 26◦30′ N. Instituteof Applied Geology Bulletin, Jeddah 3, pp. 127–136.

Ali, B.H., Wilde, S.A., Gabr, M.M.A., 2009a. Granitoid evolution in Sinai, Egypt, basedon precise SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology. Gondwana Research 15, 38–48.

Ali, K.A., Stern, R.J., Manton, W.I., Kimura, J.I., Khamees, H.A., 2009b. Geochemistry,Nd isotopes and U–Pb SRIMP zircon dating of Neoproterozoic volcanic rocksfrom the Central Eastern Desert of Egypt: new insights in the ∼750 Ma crustforming event. Precambrian Research 171, 1–22.

Avigad, D., Gvirtzman, Z., 2009. Late Neoproterozoic rise and fall of the northernArabian-Nubian shield: the role of lithospheric mantle delamination and sub-sequent thermal subsidence. Tectonophysics 477, 217–228.

Azer, M.K., 2007. Tectonic significance of Late Precambrian calc-alkaline and alkalinemagmatism in Saint Katherina area. South Sinai, Egypt. Geologica Acta 5 (3),255–272.

Basta, E.Z., Kotb, H., Awadallah, M.F., 1980. Petrochemical and geochemical char-acteristics of the Dokhan Formation at the type locality, Jabal Dokhan, Easterndesert, Egypt. In: Al-Shanti, A.M.S. (Ed.), Evolution and Mineralization of the

Be’eri-Shlevin, Y., Katzir, Y., Whitehouse, M.J., Kleinhanns, L.C., 2009. Contributionof pre Pan-African crust to the formation of the Arabian Nubian shield: newsecondary ionization mass spectrometry U–Pb and O studies of zircon. Geology37, 899–902.

2 rian R

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

E

E

E

E

E

F

F

F

G

G

G

H

H

I

J

J

J

J

J

2 N. Yaseen et al. / Precamb

e’eri-Shlevin, Y., Katzir, Y., Whitehouse, M.J., 2009b. Post-collisional tectonomag-matic evolution in the northern Arabian-Nubian Shield: time constraints fromion-probe U–Pb dating of zircon. Journal of the Geological Society, London 166,71–85.

e’eri-Shlevin, Y., Samuel, M.D., Azer, M.K., Rämö Whitehouse, M.J., Moussa, H.E.,2011. The Ediacaran Ferani and Rutig volcano-sedimentary succession of thenorthernmost Arabian-Nubian Shield (ANS): new insights from zircon U–Pbgeochronology, geochemistry and O–Nd isotope ratios. Precambrian Research188, 21–44.

ea, F., Abu-Anbar, M., Montero, P., Peres, P., Talavera, C., 2009. The ∼844 Ma Moneigaquartz-diorites of the Sinai, Egypt: evidence for Andean-type arc or rift-relatedmagmatism in the Arabian-Nubian Shield? Precambrian Research 175, 161–168.

entor, Y.K., 1985. The crustal evolution of the Arabian-Nubian Massif with specialreference to the Sinai Peninsula. Precambrian research 28, 1–74.

eyth, M., Stern, R., Altherr, R., Kröner, A., 1994. The late Precambrian Timan igneouscomplex, Southern Israel: evidence for comagmatic – type sanukitoid monzo-diorite and alkali granite magma. Lithos 31, 103–124.

lasband, B., White, P., Brooijmmans, H., De Boorder, H., Visser, W., 2000. Late Pro-terozoic collaps in the Arabian-Nubian Shield. Journal of the Geological Society,London 157, 615–628.

reitkreuz, C., Eliwa, H., Khalaf, I., El Gameel, K., Sergeev, S., Larionov, A., Murata, M.,2010. Neoproterozoic SHRIMP U–Pb zircon ages of silica-rich Dokhan Volcanicsin the northern Eastern Desert. Precambrian Research 182, 163–174.

awood, P.A., Hawkesworth, C.J., Dhuime, B., 2012. Detrital zircons record and tec-tonic setting. Geology 40, 875–878.

lark, M.D., 1985. Late Proterozoic crustal evolution of the Midyan region, north-western Saudi Arabia. Geology 13, 611–615.

orfu, F., Hanchar, J.M., Hoskin, P.W.O., Kinny, P., 2003. Atlas of zircon textures.Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 53, 469–500.

l-Bialy, M.Z., 2010. On the Pan-African transition of the Arabian-Nubian Shield fromthe compression to extension: the post collision Dokhan volcanic suite of Kid-Malhak region, Sinai, Egypt. Gondwana Research 17, 26–43.

l-Gaby, S., Khudier, A.A., Abdel Tawab, M., Attala, R.F., 1991. The metamorphosedvolcano-sedimentary succession of Wadi Kid, southern Sinai, Egypt. Annals ofGeological Survey of Egypt XVII, 19–35.

l-Gaby, S., Khalaf, I.M., Eliwa, H.A., El-Milligy, A., Gomaa, R.M.,2002. The volcano-sedimentary succession of the Wadi Sa’al-Wadi Zaghra area, southeastern Sinai,Egypt. In: 6th International Conference on Geological Arab World, vol. 1. CairoUniversity, Egypt, pp. 25–44.

liwa, H.A., Breitkreuz, C., Khalaf, M.I., El Gameel, K., 2010. Depositional styles ofearly Ediacaran terrestrial volcanosedimentary succession in Gebel El Urf area,North eastern Dessert, Egypt. Journal of African Earth Sciences 57, 328–344.

yal, M., Litvinovsky, B., Jahn, B.M., Zanvilevich, A., Katzir, Y., 2010. Origin and evo-lution of the post-collisional magmatism: Coeval Neoproterozoic calc-alkalineand alkaline suites of the Sinai Peninsula. Chemical Geology 269, 153–179.

erguson, R., Hoey, T., Wathen, S., Werritty, A., 1996. Field evidence for rapid down-stream fining of river gravels through selective transport. Geology 24, 179–182.

üchtbauer, H., 1967. Die Sandsteine in der Molasse nördlich der Alpen. GeologischeRundschau 56, 266–300.

üchtbauer, H., 1988. Sedimente und Sedimentgesteine, Sediment-Petrologie, TeilII. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart, pp. 1104.

arfunkel, Z., 1999. History and paleogegraphy during the Pan-African-Orogen tostable plarform transition: reappraisal of the evidence from the Elat area and thenorthern Arabian-Nubian Shield. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 48, 135–157.

enna, A., Nehlig, P., Le Golf, E., Guerrot, C., Shanti, M., 2002. Proterozoic tectonismof the Arabian Shield. Precambrian Research 117, 21–40.

hanem, H., 2009. Petrology, Geochemistry, and Thermobarometry of the ContactMetamorphism Aureole in the Saramuj Conglomerate, Southeast Dead Sea, Jor-dan. The University of Jordan, pp. 261 pp (Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis).

argrove, U.S., Stern, R.J., Kimura, J.I., Manton, W.I., Johanson, P.R., 2006. Howjuvenile is the Arabian-Nubian Shield? Evidence from Nd isotopes and pre-Neoproterozoic inherited zircon in the Bi’r Umq suture zone, Saudi Arabia. Earthand Planetary Science Letters 252, 308–326.

offman, P.F., 1969. Proterozoic paleocurrents and depositional history of the EastArm fold belt, Great Slave Lake, Northwest Territories. Canadian Journal of EarthSciences 6, 441–462.

brahim, K.M., McCourt, W.J., 1995. Neoproterozoic granitic magmatism and tec-tonic evolution of the northern Arabian Shield: evidence from southwest Jordan.Journal of African Earth Sciences 20, 103–118.

arrar, G.H., 1985. Late proterozoic crustal evolution of the Arabian-Nubian Shieldin Wadi Araba Area, SW-Jordan. Geologisches Jahrbuch B61, 3–87.

arrar, G., Dill, H.G., Yaseen, N., Whitehouse, M.J., 2012. The Aheimir volcanic suite,an Ediacaran post-collisional sequence from the northernmost Arabian-NubianShield, Wadi Araba, SW Jordan: age, geochemistry and petrogenesis. GeologicalSociety of America Abstract with Programs 44 (5), 58.

arrar, G., Stern, R.J., Saffarini, H., Al-Zubi, H., 2003. Late- and post-orogenicNeoproterozoic intrusions of Jordan: implications for crustal growth in thenorthernmost segment of the East African Orogen. Precambrian research 123,295–319.

arrar, G.H., Theye, T., Yaseen, N., Whitehouse, M., Pease, V., Passchier, C., 2013a.Geochemistry and P–T–t evolution of the Abu-Barqa Metamorphic Suite, SW

Jordan, and implications for the tectonics of the northern Arabian-Nubian Shield.Precambrian Research (this volume).

arrar, G., Wachendorf, H., Zachmann, D., 1993. A Pan-African alkaline pluton intrud-ing the Saramuj conglomerate, south-west Jordan. Geologische Rundschau 82,121–135.

esearch 239 (2013) 6– 23

Jarrar, G., Wachendorf, H., Zellmer, H., 1991. The Saramuj Conglomerate: evolutionof a Pan-African molasse sequence from south-west Jordan. Neues Jarbuch fürGeologie und Palaontologie-Monatshefte 6, 335–356.

Jarrar, G.H., Yaseen, N., Theye, T., 2013b. A hybrid composite dike suite from thenorthern Arabian Nubian Shield, southwest Jordan: implications for magmamixing and partial melting of granite by mafic magma. Journal of Volcanologyand Geothermal Research 254, 80–93.

Johanson, R., Woldehaimanot, B., 2003. Development of the Arabian-Nubian Shield:prespective on accretion and deformation in the northern East African Orogenand the assembly of Gondwana. In: Yoshida, M., Dasgupta, S., Windley, B. (Eds.),Proterozoic East Gondwana: Supercontinent Assembly and Breakup. Journal ofGeological Society, Special Publication, London, pp. 289–325, 206 pp.

Kröner, A., 1985. Ophiolites and the evolution of tectonic boundaries in the lateProterozoic Arabian-Nubian Shield of the northeastern Africa and Arabia. Pre-cambrian Research 27, 277–300.

Kröner, A., Eyal, M., Eyal, Y., 1990. Early Pan-African evolution of the basementaround Elat, Israel, and Sinai Peninsula revealed by single-zircon evaporationdating, and implication for crustal accretion rates. Geology 18, 545–548.

Kröner, A., Krüger, J., Rashwan, A.A.A., 1994. Age and tectonic setting of granitoidgneisses in the Eastern Desert of Egypt and south-west Sinai. International Jour-nal of Earth Sciences 83, 502–513.

Lenz, H., Bender, F., Besang, C., Harre, W., Kreuzer, H., Müller, P., Wendt, I., 1972.The age of the early tectonic events in the zone of Jordan Geosuture basedon radiometric data. In: 24th International Geological Congress, Section 3, pp.371–379.

Ludwig, K.R., 2001. Isoplot/Ex rev. 2.49. A Geochemical Toolkit for Microsoft Excel.Berkely Geochronology Center, Special Publication, 1a.

Ludwig, K.R., 2003. User’s Manual for Isoplot 3.00: A Geochemical Toolkit forMicrosoft Excel. Berkely Geochronology Center, pp. 70.

McCourt, W.J., Ibrahim, K., 1990. Geology, geochemistry and Tectonic Setting of theGranitic and associated Rocks in the Aqaba and Araba Complexes of SouthwestJordan. Natural Resources Authority, Geology Directorate, Geological MappingDivision Amman Bulletin 10, 96 pp.

Meert, J.G., 2003. A synopsis of events related to the assembly of eastern Gondwana.Tectonophysics 362, 1–40.

Moghazi, A.M., 2003. Geochemistry and petrogenesis of a high-K calc AlkalineDokhan Volcanic suit, south Safaga area, Egypt: the role of late Neoproterozoiccrustal extension. Precambrian Research 125, 161–178.

Moghazi, A.M., Ali, K.A., Wilde, S.A., Zhou, Q., Andersen, T., Andresen, A., Abu El-Enen,M.M., Stern, R.J., 2012. Lithos, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2012.07.003.

Morag, N., Avigad, D., Gerdes, A., Belousova, E., Harlavan, Y., 2011. Crustal evolutionand recycling in the northern Arabian-Nubian Shield: new perspective fromzircon Lu–Hf and U–Pb systematic. Precambrian Research 186, 101–116.

Morag, N., Avigad, D., Gerdes, E., Harlavan, Y., 2012. 1000–580 Ma crustal evolution inthe Northern-Arabian Shield revealed by U–Pb–Hf of detrital zircons from lateNeoproterozoic sediments (Elat area, Israel). Precambrian Research 208–211,197–212.

Moshtaha, R., 2011. Age, petrogenesis and tectonic setting of the Humrat-Feinansuits rocks of the Araba Complex, SW Jordan. The University of Jordan, pp. 144pp (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis).

Moussa, H.E., 2003. Geologic setting, petrography and geochemistry of the vol-canosedimentary succession at Gebel Ferani area, southern Sinai, Egypt.Egyptian Journal of Geology 47, 153–173.

Nasiri, R., Pease, V., Whitehouse, M.J., Shalaby, M.H., Kaki, K.A., Kozdroj, W., 2013.Detrital zircon geochronology and provenance of the Neoproterozoic Ham-mamat group (Igla Basin), Egypt and teh Thalbah group, NW Saudi Arabia:Implications for Collision Tectonics. Precambrian Research (this volume).

Powell, J.H., 1988. The Geology of Karak area, map sheet no. 3152 III. NaturalResources Authority. Geology Directorate, Geological Mapping Division AmmanBulletin 8, 171pp.

Samuel, M.D., Be’eri-Shlevin, Y., Azer, M.K., Whitehouse, M.J., Moussa, H.E., 2011.Provenance of conglomerate clasts from the vocano-sedimentary sequence atWadi Rutig in southern Sinai, Egypt as revealed by SIMS U–Pb dating of zircon.Gondwana Research 20, 450–464.

Shimron, A.E., 1980. Proterozoic island arc volcanism and sedimentation in Sinai.Precambrian Research 12, 437–458.

Sircombe, K.N., 2004. Agedisplay: an Excel workbook to evaluate and display univari-ate geochronological data using binned frequency histograms and probabilitydensity distributions. Computers and Geosciences 30 (1), 21–31.

Stacey, J.S., Kramers, J.D., 1975. Approximation of terrestrial lead isotope evolutionby a two-stage model. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 26, 207–221.

Stacey, J.S., Hedge, C.E., 1984. Geochronological and isotopic evidence for early Pro-terozoic crust in the eastern Arabian Shield. Geology 12, 310–313.

Steiger, R.H., Jäger, E., 1977. Subcommission on geochronology: convention on theuse of decay constants in geo- and cosmochronology. Earth and Planetary Sci-ence Letters 36, 359–362.

Stein, M., Goldstein, S.L., 1996. From plume head to continental lithosphere in theArabian-Nubian shield. Nature 382, 773–778.

Stern, R.J., 1994. Arc assembly and continental colloision in the Neoproterozoic EastAfrican Orogen: implication for the consolidation of Gondwanaland. AnnualReview of Earth and Planetary Sciences 22, 319–351.

Stern, R.J., 2002. Crustal evolution in the East African Orogen: a neodymium isotopicperspective. Journal of African Earth Sciences 34, 109–117.

Stern, R.J., Gottfried, D., 1986. Petrogenesis of Late-Precambrian (575–600 Ma)bimodal suite in northern Africa. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology92, 492–501.

rian R

S

S

S

S

S

T

V

W

W

W

N. Yaseen et al. / Precamb

tern, R.J., Hedge, C.E., 1985. Geochronologic and isotopic constraints on Late Pro-terozoic crustal evolution in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. American Journal ofScience 285, 97–127.

tern, R.J., Johnson, P.R., 2010. Continental lithosphere of the Arabian Plate: a geo-logic, petrologic, and geophysical synthesis. Earth-Science Reviews 101, 29–67.

toeser, D., Camp, E., 1985. Pan-African microplate accretion of the Arabian Shield.Geological Society of America Bulletin 96, 817–826.

toeser, D., Frost, C.D., 2006. Nd, Pb, Sr and O isotopic characterization of SaudiArabian Shield terranes. Chemical Geology 226, 163–188.

ultan, M., Chamberlain, K.R., Bowring, S.A., Arvidson, R.E., Abu Zied, H., El Kalliouby,B., 1990. Geochronologic and isotopic evidence for involvement of pre-Pan-African crust in the Nubian shield Egypt. Geology 18, 761–764.

era, F., Wasserburg, G., 1972. U–Th–Pb systematics in three Apollo 14 basalts andthe problem of initial Pb in lunar rocks. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 14,281–304.

ail, J.R., 1985. Pan-African (Late Precambrian) tectonic terranis and the reconstruc-tion of the Arabian-Nubian Shield. Geology 13, 839–842.

andres, A.M., Bradshaw, J.D., Weaver, S., Maas, R., Irelandc, T., Eby, N., 2004. Pro-venance analysis using conglomerate clast lithologies: a case study from thePahau terrane of New Zealand. Sedimentary Geology 167, 57–89.

hitehouse, M.J., Kamber, B.S., 2005. Assigning dates to thin gneissic veins inhigh-grade metamorphic terranes – a cautionary tale from Akilia, southwest

Greenland. Journal of Petrology 46, 291–318.

hitehouse, M.J., Kamber, B., Moorbath, S., 1999. Age significance of U–Th–Pbzircon data from early Archaean rocks of west Greenland - a reassessmentbased on combined ion-microprobe and imaging studies. Chemical Geology 160,201–224.

esearch 239 (2013) 6– 23 23

Whitehouse, M.J., Windley, B.F., Ba-Bttat, M.A.O., Fanning, C.M., Rex, D.C., 1998.Crustal evolution and terrane correlation in the eastern Arabian Shield, Yemen:geochronological constraints. Journal of the Geological Society, London 155,281–295.

Whitehouse, M.J., Stoeser, D.B., Stacy, J.S., 2001. The Khida terrane-geochronologicaland isotopoic evidence for paleoproterozoic and Archean crust in the easternArabian Shield of Saudi Arabia. Gondwana Research 4, 200–202.

Wiedenbeck, M., Allé, P., Corfu, F., Griffin, W.L., Meier, M., Oberli, F., von Quadt, A.,Roddick, J.C., Spiegel, W., 1995. Three natural zircon standards for U–Th–Pb,Lu–Hf, trace element and REE analyses. Geostandards Newsletter 19, 1–23.

Wilde, S.A., Youssef, K., 2000. Significance of SRIMP U–Pb dating of the ImperialPorphyry and associated Dokhan Volcanics, Gebel Dokhan, North Eastern Desert,Egypt. Journal of African Earth Sciences 31, 403–410.

Wilde, S.A., Youssef, K., 2001. SHRIMP U–Pb Dating of detrital Zircons from the Ham-mamat Group at Gebel Umm Tawat, North-eastern desert, Egypt. GondwanaResearch 4, 202–206.

Wilde, S., Youssef, K., 2002. A re-evaluation of the origin and setting of the LatePrecambrian Hammamat Group based on SHRIMP U–Pb dating of detrital zirconsfrom Gebel Umm Tawat, North Eastern Desert, Egypt. Journal of the GeologicalSociety 159, 595–604.

Willis, K.M., Stern, R.J., Clauer, N., 1988. Age and geochemistry of Late Precambriansediments of the Hammamat Series from the North Eastern Desert of Egypt.

Precambrian Research 42, 173–187.

Zeck, H.P., Whitehouse, M.J., 1999. Hercynian, Pan-African, Proterozoic and Archeanion-microprobe zircon ages for a Betic-Rif core complex. Alpine belt W Mediter-ranean – consequences for its P–T–t path. Contributions to Mineralogy andPetrology 134, 134–149.