Earth-Science Reviews 61 (2003) 181 – 188

www.elsevier.com/locate/earscirev

Earth reflections
How ‘hard’ are hard-rock deformations?
A.J. van Loon
Geocom, P.O. Box 336, 6860 AH Oosterbeek, The Netherlands
Received 2 August 2002; accepted 20 September 2002

Abstract

The study of soft-rock deformations has received increasing attention during the past two decades, and much progress has
been made in the understanding of their genesis. It is also recognized now that soft-rock deformations—which show a wide
variety in size and shape—occur frequently in sediments deposited in almost all types of environments. In spite of this,
deformations occurring in lithified rocks are still relatively rarely attributed to sedimentary or early-diagenetic processes.
Particularly faults in hard rocks are still commonly ascribed to tectonics, commonly without a discussion about a possible non-
tectonic origin at a stage that the sediments were still unlithified. Misinterpretations of both the sedimentary and the structural
history of hard-rock successions may result from the negligence of a possible soft-sediment origin of specific deformations. It is
therefore suggested that a re-evaluation of these histories, keeping the present-day knowledge about soft-sediment deformations
in mind, may give new insights into the geological history of numerous sedimentary successions in which the deformations
have not been studied from both a sedimentological and a structural point of view.
D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soft-sediment deformations; Tectonics; Pseudo-tectonics; Structural history

1. Introduction tions of orogenesis, basin development and (at a more

Rock successions—and particularly the succes-
sions of sedimentary rocks—have been recognized
from almost the very beginning of geological inves-
tigations to contain irregularities in the form of
deformations. It became also clear soon that many
of these deformations, particularly faults and folds,
may provide valuable data about the tectonic history
of the complex involved. Ongoing research into tec-
tonic processes—based for at least a major part on
field evidence—proved to allow reliable reconstruc-
E-mail addresses: geocom@wxs.nl, tom.van.loon@wxs.nl
(A.J. van Loon).
recent stage) plate tectonics.
This great achievement, which made repetitions of
sedimentary successions understandable, but also
apparent hiatuses and lateral ‘inconsistencies’, made
structural geology to one of the basic disciplines in the
earth sciences. Students are now, from the very begin-
ning of their education, made aware of the importance
of rock deformations for the understanding of the
geological history, and they become used to analyse
deformations from a tectonic point of view. A possible
sedimentary origin of specific deformations gets, how-
ever, as a rule, still hardly any attention during geo-
logical training of students. The result is that a
sedimentary origin of deformations in lithified rocks
is not commonly considered, even though sedimentol-

0012-8252/03/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 2 - 8 2 5 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 5 7 - 5
182 A.J. van Loon / Earth-Science Reviews 61 (2003) 181–188
ogy developed as a separate geological discipline
already in the 1950s, and has become a more mature
discipline in the 1960s of the past century.
It was, from the point of view of deformation
analysis, rather unfortunate that a prime study object
of sedimentology during the late 1950s and the early
1960s was syntectonic sedimentation. This focus on
flysch and related topics was a consequence of the
highly interesting studies carried out at the time on
turbidity currents and their deposits, turbidites (Kue-
nen and Migliorini, 1950). Fully developed turbidites
were recognized to contain a unit that sometimes is
characterized by convolute lamination, and which
thus shows intrastratal deformation. The flysch suc-
cessions in which turbidites occur abundantly tend to
be deformed so strongly also by typically tectonic
processes, however, that the tectonic deformations
commonly received much more attention—even from
sedimentologists—than did the convolutions. The
same was true for soft-sediment deformations in
otherwise deformed successions, and for other defor-
mations (Fig. 1). The result was that deformations in
hard-rock sediments did, even in the 1960s, still
receive relatively little attention from sedimentolo-
gists, apart from cases where they could help to
reconstruct the palaeogeographical development of
Fig. 1. Small-scale deformations in the Late Carboniferous Westward Ho! Fm. along the coast of Westward Ho! (Great Britain). The intrastratal
character of the deformations—which underwent liquefaction, plastic deformation and brittle deformation (faulting)—makes a sedimentary
origin obvious.
basins characterized by syntectonic sedimentation
(or synsedimentary tectonics).
The interpretation of sedimentary structures became
gradually more important in sedimentology, particu-
larly as a means to reconstruct depositional processes
and to explain horizontal and vertical facies transi-
tions. It appeared that many of these processes could
be reconstructed on the basis of sedimentary struc-
tures, and the analysis of such structures became a
main sedimentological objective, culminating in the
famous overview by Allen (1982) of the then state-of-
the-art with respect to sedimentary structures. By that
time, it had become clear that not all non-tectonic
structures in sediments were due to sedimentary pro-
cesses, but that numerous types had developed during
early diagenesis, i.e. after deposition of the layer(s)
involved but before lithification started (penecontem-
poraneous deformations). More important, it had also
become clear that many deformations with a ‘tectonic’
appearance could not be explained by endogenic
processes, but only by processes that affected exclu-
sively the topmost sediments. In much rarer cases, it
appeared that specific layers were deformed that had
already been buried under new sedimentary layers that
remained unaffected themselves (intrastratal deforma-
tions).
 A.J. van Loon / Earth-Science Reviews 61 (2003) 181–188 183

2. Soft-sediment deformations under discussion
It is now recognized that soft-sediment deforma-
tions show a wide variety in shape. My experience in
both hard-rock and soft-rock areas is that soft-sedi-
ment deformations do certainly not show less variety
than tectonic deformations in hard rock; they are
sometimes even much more complex, except for some
hard-rock deformations that may be formed during
metamorphism.
In unlithified rocks, all types of folds and faults
occur that are known from tectonically affected hard-
rock units, and many more in addition. Not all soft-
sediment deformations were recognized and accepted
as such, however, until a few decades ago. Archives
of manuscript reviews can be highly interesting in this
context, particularly from the point of view of the
history of science. That deformations such as, for
instance, kink structures can occur in unlithified sedi-
ments (Fig. 2) seemed amazing, not so long ago. In

Fig. 2. Well-developed kink zone in a Pleistocene ice-pushed ridge near Balderhaar (Germany). From van Loon et al., 1984.
184 A.J. van Loon / Earth-Science Reviews 61 (2003) 181–188
fact, a manuscript describing such structures and
submitted in 1982 to the journal ‘Tectonophysics’
received originally a negative judgement from one
referee (most likely a structural geologist, considering
his comments), who stated that the interpretation of
deformations in a Pleistocene sandy ice-pushed ridge
and of comparable ones in subrecent silty/peaty
lagoonal sediments could not be correct: ‘‘. . .After
reading the paper I am not entirely convinced that the
structures described are directly related to what are
normally called kink bands in crystals and rocks with
strong planar anisotropy. It seems to me that mechan-
ical properties of weakly cohesive water-laden sedi-
ments would in no way resemble those of materials of
great directional strength. . .’’ (anonymous referee).
This view expressed well the then common belief
that kink structures could, in a geological context, be
formed only within crystals or in materials with
comparable anisotropy. It should be emphasised, how-
ever, that the manuscript was also refereed by a
famous sedimentologist, who was less pre-occupied:
‘‘. . .This paper deals with a very exciting topic—kink
band development in soft-sediments. . .’’. Eventually,
the manuscript was accepted, but it was advised, in
order to avoid too much ‘confusion’ among structural
geologists, to split up the manuscript into one dealing
with kinks in sandy sediments and one dealing with
kinks in fine-grained sediments. These contributions
were eventually published in 1984 and 1985, indicat-
ing how much time the discussion about these struc-
tures took. Similar experiences exist with respect to
other soft-sediment deformations that were formed
under conditions that were—as was considered at
the time—impossible for areas that were not affected
by severe tectonics. However ‘shocking’, these
‘impossible’ structures in unconsolidated sediments
may have been up to the middle 1980s, it is now well
known from material science that it is only logical that
such deformations occur in unlithified sediments, and
few well-educated structural geologists will nowadays
still be truly surprised by such observations.
3. Gaps in knowledge
The earlier scepsis with respect to a natural, non-
tectonic origin of soft-sediment deformation structures
is understandable in the context of the knowledge we
had a couples of decades ago. One might expect,
however, that it is now generally recognized that
deformations within sediments may have a soft-sedi-
ment origin, but this appears not to be true. This is
probably, at least partly, due to the fact that earth-
science students at most universities have to specialize
at a fairly early stage of their study. This way, they
may become petrologists with hardly any paleonto-
logical knowledge, structural geologists with only a
limited sedimentological training, or sedimentologists
almost without fundamental insight into structural
geology. This makes it difficult for geologists with
limited field experience to distinguish between tec-
tonic and sedimentary deformations; particularly in
metamorphosed terrains. It may, however, also be
extremely difficult for experienced geologists to find
out whether specific structures are due to tectonics or
that they represent soft-sediment deformations (cf.
Dasgupta, 2002; Gairola and Srivastava, 2002).
Even if no metamorphism has occurred but if the
area has undergone one or more folding phases, dis-
tinction between purely tectonic and tectonically
deformed sedimentary deformations can be compli-
cated. Both sedimentologists and structural geologists
should be aware that lithified and tectonically affected
rock successions may contain soft-sediment deforma-
tions (interesting examples are provided by Ghosh et
al., 2002). This implies that, at the one hand, sedi-
mentologists should—when reconstructing the paleo-
slope of a basin by measuring the fold axes of slump
folds—correct for tectonic tilt. It implies also, on the
other hand, that structural geologists should be aware
that faults may have a soft-sediment origin; in such a
case, the stress directions deduced from these struc-
tures cannot be used to reconstruct the stress systems
that played a role during the orogenesis that deformed
the entire succession. How difficult it can be to
distinguish between tectonic and sedimentary struc-
tures, particularly if an orogenic belt has been meta-
morphosed, is well described by Bradley and Hanson
(2002). In addition, it can be difficult to distinguish
clastic sills and intrastratal deformation layers from the
sediments in between which they are positioned,
because there often is no obvious lithological differ-
ence (Kawakami and Kawamura, 2002).
This difficulty has the consequence that lack of
distinction between non-tectonic and tectonic defor-
mations has frequently led to incorrect reconstruc-
 A.J. van Loon / Earth-Science Reviews 61 (2003) 181–188
tions. Unfortunately, a similar lack of understanding
still can play a role nowadays. In my opinion, this can
be overcome only by stopping the early specialization
in geological education: earth scientists should truly
be earth scientists, rather than structural geologists,
sedimentologists or specialists in any other earth-
science discipline. Only after a firm geological
basis—with significant field experience as a conditio
sine qua non—has been established, the specialization
that is, understandably, required nowadays should be
started. Such a broadly oriented educational program
would result in less gaps in knowledge and, conse-
quently, in less misinterpretations of field observa-
tions.
4. The need for re-interpretations
It must be recognized that previously collected
earth-scientific data, however well interpreted in the
past on the basis of the then state-of-the-art knowl-
edge, now often need re-interpretation. This holds, for
instance, for sedimentology, in which discipline so
much more is known now about the various deposi-
tional environments than only half a century ago that
new analyses commonly provide an entirely new
picture of dynamic environments. The dynamics result
in shifting facies, whereas other dynamics result in
orbital-forced sequences, and in global processes such
as changing oceanic circulation patterns. Similar
adaptations of previous ideas are common in stratig-
raphy, in which discipline it has been recognized that
diachronic lithological changes are the rule rather than
the exception. This insight has made it necessary for
instance to change the interpreted age of rocks in even
classical areas such as the Ardennes in Belgium,
where rocks that were originally mapped as belonging
to the uppermost part of the Devonian (Frasnien 2d)
are now considered to belong to the Carboniferous
(Tournaisian), but—for reasons of consistency—are
still commonly mapped with the Fa2d code.
It has also been recognized in stratigraphy that
many important stratigraphic boundaries have been
established on the basis of hiatuses (so that new
chronostratigraphic units had to be introduced, with
the Cantabrian as an example: Wagner, 1966),
whereas other chronostratigraphic units had to be
deleted (or are being discussed) because they were
185
introduced on the basis of regionally diverging litho-
and biofacies rather than on a previously truly ‘miss-
ing’ time interval (Montien).
In structural geology, insights have been greatly
changed after the concept of plate tectonics had been
introduced. Classical ideas about geosynclines and
related topics had to be abandoned or at least funda-
mentally revised. Many ideas related to the assumed
fairly frequent occurrence of nappes also had to be
changed drastically. The huge amount of field data, in
the form of, among other data, bedding-plane dip
values, directions of fold axes and the orientation of
minor fault planes, has rarely been considered—and
still is rarely considered—as needing re-interpretation.
This is the more astonishing as sedimentary defor-
mations occur most frequently under conditions of
rapid sedimentation and unstable depositional surfa-
ces. Such conditions are very common during oro-
genesis, so that sedimentary deformations occur
frequently in flysch and molasse deposits. The inter-
relationship between tectonics and sedimentation is
commonly so close under these circumstances that it
is difficult to decide whether syntectonic sedimenta-
tion takes place, or rather synsedimentary tectonics.
Whatever term is preferred, it is obvious that many of
the sedimentary deformations in such successions are
not representing the then tectonic stress fields; it is
equally obvious that many of such deformations have
been used for structural analyses.
This implies that not all structural research con-
cerning mountainous (and other tectonically affected)
areas is based on reliable data. The question is thus:
how ‘hard’ are ‘hard-rock deformations’? It is easy to
believe that deformations originating from the time
that lithification had not yet taken place are of minor
importance in tectonically affected areas. Such a belief
is, however, unjustified because research in nowadays
tectonically active areas shows that sedimentary
deformations in the uppermost layers—in the form
of seismites (Mohindra and Thakur, 1998) as well as
in the form of gravity-induced mass-movement pro-
cesses on an unstable slope—are fairly common (cf.
Rossetti, 2002). If, for instance, material eroded from
an area that is being uplifted is deposited in large
quantities on the slope of a subsiding basin in front of
the rising hinterland (a common situation near island
arcs), numerous slump masses may flow down; these
will—because the dip of the slope will remain more or
186 A.J. van Loon / Earth-Science Reviews 61 (2003) 181–188

less constant for a relatively long time—show fold
axes that are all oriented in the same direction. This
may easily give the impression of a tectonics-related
stress system, but it is not (Fig. 3). One should, in
addition, keep in mind that mass flows may involve
huge amounts of sediment: it was found during ODP
Leg 157 that a huge mass failure of El Hierro (one of
the volcanic Canary Islands) resulted in a thick
deposit on the ocean floor probably some 6000 years
ago, as stated in a presentation at the recent IAS
conference (Jarvis and Weaver, 2002). Even more
recent (November 2000) was a mass failure of the

Fig. 3. Deformations due to gravity-induced plastic mass flow. (A) Modern rock glacier (in bird’s eye view). (B) Cross-section of a slump in the
Cretaceous Poumanous Fm. near Pobla de Segur (Spain). The folds in these tilted sediments are not related to the tectonics that affected the area,
but must be attributed to a soft-sediment deformation pattern as shown in (A).
 A.J. van Loon / Earth-Science Reviews 61 (2003) 181–188 187

Fig. 4. Part of the Kilauea flank material that slip-slided towards the ocean (November 2000). Photograph kindly provided by Peter Cervelli
(Stanford University).

Kilauea volcano (Fig. 4), reaching the sea, involving
some 2000 km3 that slip-slided away without, how-
ever, resulting in vast mass-transported deposits at the
foot of the volcano on the ocean floor (Cervelli et al.,
2002; Ward, 2002). Even larger masses have been
found on the bottom of the Mediterranean. If such
deposits, with thicknesses that may reach several
dozens of meters, would be encountered in the field
in the form of lithified rock, it would most probably
not be easy to find out the sedimentary origin of large-
scale deformations resulting from plastic behaviour
during transport. Another example is the Neoproter-
ozoic ‘Great Breccia’ in Scotland (Fig. 5), which
reaches a thickness of 50 m and was originally erro-
neously interpreted as a subglacial deposit (Spencer,
1971), but recently turned out to be a three-unit
complex of mass-flow deposits; this sedimentological
re-interpretation, partly based on the recognition of

Fig. 5. Large dolomite block with recumbent folds, constituting a megaclast in the Great Breccia (Port Askaich Fm., Neoproterozoic) near
Elieach an Noaimh, Scotland. The cliff is approximately 35 m high. Photograph kindly provided by Emmanuelle Arnaud (University of
Guelph).
188 A.J. van Loon / Earth-Science Reviews 61 (2003) 181–188
soft-sediment deformations, has important paleoclima-
tological implications, because the original ‘proof’ of
glacial conditions is no longer valid (Arnaud and
Eyles, 2002).
It may be true that Earth offers less and less areas
that have not been geologically mapped, and of which
the structural history has not yet been analysed. It
seems, however, that the insufficiently hard character
of many structural data—being partly based on soft-
sediment deformations—offers the challenge of re-
analysing all tectonically affected areas where the
structural history has been written without present-
day insight into the importance of soft-sediment
deformations. An instructive example is the study by
Kusky and De Paor (1991), who were able to simplify
the structural history of a metamorphic unit in Canada
dramatically on the basis of re-interpretation of defor-
mation structures, which they found to be of sedi-
mentary origin. Earth apparently waits for a new
episode of structural mapping.
Acknowledgements
I want to express my thanks to Dwight Bradley
(USGS, Anchorage), who provided me with some
well-chosen studies supporting the view that re-
mapping—taking soft-sediment deformations into
account—can change the reconstruction of structural
histories considerably. I am indebted to Peter Cervelli
(Stanford University) for providing Fig. 4, and to
Emmanuelle Arnaud (University of Guelph, Ontario)
for providing Fig. 5.
References
Allen, J.R.L., 1982. Sedimentary structures—their character and
physical basis. Developments in Sedimentology, vol. 30 (2 vol-
umes). Elsevier, Amsterdam. 593 + 663 pp.
Arnaud, E., Eyles, C.H., 2002. Catastrophic mass failure of a Neo-
proterozoic glacially influenced continental margin, the Great
Breccia, Port Askaig Formation, Scotland. Sedimentary Geol-
ogy 151, 313 – 333.
Bradley, D.C., Hanson, L.S., 2002. Paleocurrent analysis of a de-
formed Devonian foreland basion in the Northern Appalachians,
Maine, USA. Sedimentary Geology 148, 425 – 447.
Cervelli, P., Segall, P., Johnson, K., Lisowski, M., Miklius, A.,
2002. Sudden aseismic fault slip on the south flank of the Ki-
lauea volcano. Nature 415, 1014 – 1017.
Dasgupta, P.K., 2002. Preservation of primary sedimentary features
in high-grade paragneissic complex from some parts of Eastern
Ghats and adjoining areas, Peninsular India and its significance
in basinal evolution. 16th International Sedimentological Con-
gress (Johannesburg, 2002) Abstracts Volume, pp. 74 – 75.
Gairola, V.K., Srivastava, V., 2002. Preserved sedimentary attrib-
utes, structures and metamorphic history of the Chhotanagpur
Granite Gneiss Complex exposed to the east of Renukoot, Dis-
trict Sonbhadra, U.P., India. 16th International Sedimentological
Congress (Johannesburg, 2002) Abstracts Volume, p. 109.
Ghosh, S.K., Sengupta, S., Dasgupta, S., 2002. Tectonic deforma-
tion of soft-sediment convolute folds. Journal of Structural
Geology 24, 913 – 923.
Jarvis, I., Weaver, Ph., 2002. Submarine and subaerial growth
phases of volcanic oceanic islands as seen in turbidite sequen-
ces: Miocene – Holocene of the Canary Basin, NE Atlantic. 16th
International Sedimentological Congress (Johannesburg, 2002)
Abstracts Volume, p. 175.
Kawakami, G., Kawamura, M., 2002. Sediment flow and deforma-
tion (SFD) layers: evidence for intrastratal flow in laminated
muddy sediments of the Triassic Osawa Formation, northeast
Japan. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72, 171 – 181.
Kuenen, Ph.H., Migliorini, C.I., 1950. Turbidity currents as a cause
of graded bedding. Journal of Geology 58, 91 – 127.
Kusky, T.M., De Paor, D.G., 1991. Deformed sedimentary fabrics
in metamorphic rocks; evidence from the Point Lake area, Slave
Province, Northwest Territories. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 103, 486 – 503.
Mohindra, R., Thakur, V.C., 1998. Historic large earthquake-in-
duced soft sediment deformation features in the Sub-Himalayan
Doon valley. Geological Magazine 135, 269 – 281.
Rossetti, D.F., 2002. Events of sediment deformation and mass
failure in Upper Cretaceous vestuarine deposits (Cametá Basin,
northern Brazil) as evidence for seismic activity. 16th Interna-
tional Sedimentological Congress (Johannesburg, 2002) Ab-
stracts Volume, pp. 312 – 313.
Spencer, A.M., 1971. Late Precambrian glaciation in Scotland.
Memoirs of the Geological Society of London 6, 1 – 100.
van Loon, A.J., Brodzikowski, K., Gotowala, R., 1984. Structural
analysis of kink bands in unconsolidated sands. Tectonophysics
104, 351 – 374.
Wagner, R.H., 1966. Sur l’existence, dans la Cordillère Cantabri-
que, de séries de passage entre Westphalien et Stéphanien: la
limite inférieure de ces formations Cantabriennes. Comptes
Rendues de l’Academie des Sciences de Paris 262 (Série D),
1337 – 1340.
Ward, S.N., 2002. Slip-sliding away. Nature 415, 973 – 974.