Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T01:15:33.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Oceanic resurge deposits at the Rochechouart impact structure (France) suggest a marine target environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2023

Jens Ormö*
Affiliation:
Centro de Astrobiologia (CAB), CSIC-INTA, Carretera de Ajalvir km 4, 28850 Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain
Erik Sturkell
Affiliation:
Earth Sciences Centre, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
Philippe Lambert
Affiliation:
Centre for International Research on Impacts and on Rochechouart (CIRIR), 2 Faubourg du Puy du Moulin, Rochechouart 87600, France
Sylvie Bourquin
Affiliation:
University of Rennes, CNRS, Géosciences Rennes – UMR 6118, F-35000, Rennes, France
Jean-Baptiste Cherfils
Affiliation:
University of Rennes, CNRS, Géosciences Rennes – UMR 6118, F-35000, Rennes, France
*
Author for correspondence: Jens Ormö, Email: ormoj@cab.inta-csic.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Rochechouart impact structure, located in the western part of the Massif Central in France, has been suggested to be one of the largest impact structures in western Europe. Various age datings have placed the event in a span from the Late Triassic to the Early Jurassic, but the most recent works favour a Late Triassic age. Very little is known about the target environment at the time and location of the impact event. Seemingly coeval, potential tsunamites along palaeoshorelines of the sea that covered parts of continental Europe at the time have been suggested to be related to the impact event and may indicate a marine target setting. Here we apply the method of visual line-logging of the graded suevite in the Chassenon SC2 drill core. This method has previously been used to investigate the depositional environment of similar deposits in several marine target impact craters. It allowed us to compare the deposits at these craters with those at Rochechouart, and in this way not only confirm the marine target setting, but also estimate the target water depth to be ∼200 m. Altogether, our results indicate a palaeogeographic target setting in a newly opened seaway connecting the Paris Basin with the Aquitaine Basin, which may indicate an age of impact at the younger end of the hitherto suggested age-span, i.e. in the late Rhaetian – Early Jurassic.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Geological map of the Rochechouart impact structure with locations of core holes from the 2017 drilling campaign (Lambert et al.2018).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Representative core photos of the suevite (melt clast breccia) of the SC2 core. Lambert (2010) divides the suevite into an upper, melt-rich part and a lower melt-poor part. Scale bars are 2 cm.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Clast classification. Scale bars are 1 cm.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Graphs showing variations in granulometry and clast lithology in the graded suevite of the SC2 core. Inset to the left are graphs from a similar logging by Ormö et al. (2007) of the Lockne-2 core at the marine target Lockne crater, Sweden. The interpretation to the right is based on comparisons with line-logging results from similar deposits at several other impact craters (e.g. Ormö et al.2007, 2009, 2021; Sturkell et al.2013; De Marchi et al.2019), but Lockne-2 is considered to provide the best analogy to the Rochechouart SC2 core.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Degree of roundness of the main clast lithologies except EWRLC. Melt particles are notably the most angular.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Schematic process reconstruction of Stage 5 of the resurge at the Rochechouart crater (Fig. 4). As currently the size and morphology of the fresh crater are not known, the cross-section is only meant to be seen as conceptual in order to explain the various interpreted mechanisms of the resurge process, e.g. collision of flow, MWI, pulse of reflected wave. The conceptual cross-section chosen here is that of a complex crater, as the consensus of current published estimates is that of a crater with a diameter much wider than the transition from simple to complex morphology. However, in a much larger option, the central uplift indicated here could be replaced by a peak ring. The location of the drill hole SC2 is indicated, as well as the likely nearshore position of the crater.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Rhaetian palaeogeographic reconstruction of Fischer et al. (2012) modified from Bourquin et al. (1997, 2002). B: Brive area.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Early Jurassic palaeogeographic reconstruction (Hettangian and Sinemurian). Modified from Dercourt et al. (2000) and Scotese and Schettino (2017).