The MHB: geological setting
The Mesohellenic Basin: definition and overview
The Mesohellenic Basin (MHB), located in Northern Greece and Albania (Fig.1A and 1B), was formerly called “Albano-thessalian” by Bourcart [1925], before being named Mesohellenic Basin (MHB) by Brunn [1956] and Aubouin [1959]. It is called “Mesohellenic” as it develops in the middle part of the Hellenides. Compared to most other intermontane basins, the MHB is remarkable by its large dimensions (more than 300 km long with its Albanian part, half in Greece, 30 km wide and with a thick pile of sediments 4,5 km of vertical thickness). It has been said to be “molassic” as it is filled with detrital sediments (marls, shales, turbidites, conglomerates) unconformably overlying the deformed Mesozoic-Paleocene basement and some early Tertiary thrusts. However, its sedimentary fill is mostly syntectonic.
The basin mostly developed east of the main Tertiary tectonic boundary between external and internal zones of the Hellenides, known as the “Internal Zones Thrust” part of a very large thrust system located beneath the MHB (Fig. 1B and Fig. 2).
In this area, the internal zones are made up of the Pelagonian continental crust (Triassic to Jurassic metamorphic limestones and Paleozoic gneisses) partly overlapped by upper Jurassic ophiolites thrust again towards the west onto the Pindos units during the Tertiary events [Brunn, 1956 ; Aubouin, 1959] (Pl. I-A). Most of the MHB fill rests above these thick ophiolitic units obducted during the Jurassic.
The external zones consist of Pindos series, mainly of Pindos flysch nappes, just west of the Pelagonian zone below which the thin, continental or oceanic (?) Pindos crust was underthrusted to the east.
This basin is Cenozoic in age: it was infilled between the Upper Lutetian (ca 45 Ma) and the middle Miocene (ca 15 Ma), spanning over 25-30 Ma (Fig. 3). Deposition follows a major deformation episode of the internal zones in the lower-mid Eocene. Upper Lutetian-upper Eocene marine deposits unconformably rest above the basement of internal zones, while Oligocene sediments overlap unconformably both the external and internal zones and seal the “Internal zone thrust”.
The MHB forms an elongated asymmetrical syncline, with steeper strata on its western flank (Fig. 4) . Another asymmetry raises as Miocene strata (Tsotyli Formation) are absent in the west and rest onto the basement in the east. (Figs. 3 and 4). Seismic profiles (Fig. 5) show a pinch out of deposits at depth [Kontopoulos et al., 1999; Zelilidis et al., 2002]. These data show that deposition is controlled by an overall eastward migration of depocentres and thus of subsidence (Figs. 3 and 4).
The width of the MHB decreases southward along strike. This is related to the basin squeezing to the south against the “Pelagonian Indentor”, which forms a spur of the basement of the internal zones to the SE of the basin (Fig.1A and Fig.3) [Ferriere et al., 2004].
The southern part of the MHB is separated alongstrike by a horst, or faulted anticline called Theopetra-Theotokos Structure (“TTS”: Fig.3 and Fig.4), which splits the basin into two parallel parts, one to the west which is occupied by the Pentalofon Formation (lowermost Miocene), and the other, to the east, by the Tsotyli-Ondria Formation (lower Miocene p.p.) (Fig.1B and Fig.3 ).
To the NW, the MHB extends into Albania, where it is called "Albano-Thessalian basin". It might step over the major, transverse Scutari-Pec feature, which limits the Albanic and Dinaric chains (Fig.1A). In this article we only present the available data regarding to the greek part of the basin, and we mostly focus to its southern half.
Evolution of ideas about the MHB
The older attempt concerning the litho-chronostratigraphic framework of the MHB was published by Brunn [1956] and little changed by many workers since. The first detailed studies of the MHB were focused on mapping these lithological Formations [Brunn, 1956; 1969; Savoyat et al., 1969; 1971a; 1971b; 1972a; 1972b]. New maps concerning the MHB were published later [Mavridis et al., 1979; 1993; Koumantakis et al.,, 1980; Vidakis et al., 1998].
Other publications provided some refinements: i) biostratigraphic refinements based on Foraminifera [Soliman and Zygojiannis, 1980] and nanofossils [Zygojiannis and Muller, 1982]. New data on nanofossils were published by Kontopoulos et al., [1999] and Ferriere et al., [2004]; ii) source rock studies from heavy minerals [Zygojiannis and Sidiropoulos, 1981] or olistoliths [Papanikolaou et al., 1988; Wilson 1993]; iii) dynamics of depositional systems [Faugères 1977a; 1977b; Desprairies 1979 for the different Formations; Ori and Roveri, 1987 for the Meteora conglomerates].
New modern studies concerning the MHB were initiated since the ninety’s, essentially applied to i) sedimentological analyses and large-scale industrial seismic data [Zelilidis et al.,1996; 1997; Zelilidis and Kontopoulos, 1996; Kontopoulos et al., 1999; Zelilidis et al., 2002] and ii) tectonic and geodynamic data used to assess the first basin models [Doutsos et al., 1994; Ferrière et al., 1998; 2004; 2011; Vamvaka et al., 2006].
Following these various studies, the main stages of evolution of the MHB were established but divergent interpretations still exist about the geodynamic setting and also the interplay of eustacy regarding to the basin stratigraphy. Here below we first briefly present the lithological formations and tectonic deformations of the MHB, and then propose an attempt of reconstructing the basin evolution and discussing the main related mechanisms.