English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although it is generally accepted that the deep axiaL trough of the Red Sea has been formed by sea-floor spreading, there are considerable doubts and conflicting views on how the remainder of the Red Sea has been formed. The problem is heightened by the finding of early Pliocene sediments and late Miocene evaporites (older than 5 m.y.) at DSDP Sites 227 and 228 near the axial trough (Figure 1) where the age of the underlying oceanic crust predicted from magnetic anomalies is much younger (less than 2.5 m.y.)! There are currently three views on the amount of oceanic crust beneath the Red Sea: (1) only the axial trough is underlain by oceanic crust (Girdler, 1958; Drake and Girdler, 1964; Hutchinson and Engels, 1970, 1972; Lowell and Genik, 1972; Ross and Schlee, in press); (2) the whole of the Red Sea was formed by sea-floor spreading (McKenzie et al., 1970); and (3) a compromise view that considerably more than the axial trough but not the whole of the Red Sea is underlain by oceanic crust (Girdler, 1966, 1970; Girdler and Darracott, 1972). This last is strongly dependent on the measured shear along the Dead Sea rift (Freund et al., 1970) and the positions of the 500-fathom isobaths in the northern Red Sea. The findings at Sites 227 and 228 seem, on first sight, not to favor the second and third views because of the conflict of ages noted above. On the other hand, in recent years, evidence has been increasing for a much greater separation of Arabia from Africa than just the width of the Red Sea axial trough. This contribution examines the case for greater separation and attempts to give an explanation for the presence of "older" sediments resting on "newer" oceanic crust at Sites 227 and 228.

Miocene Evaporates in Red Sea Cores, Their Relevance to the Problem of the Width and Age of Oceanic Crust beneath the Red Sea