From my last posting about Mt. Charleston, you saw this
picture of badly twisted gray limestone near the summit. You were surely disturbed by such grossly
contorted rocks, but none of you commented on it. I fully understand your being so upset that
no words seemed adequate. I will attempt
to alleviate your dismay.
Mt. Charleston is in the Spring Mountains about forty miles
northwest of Las Vegas. On the eastern
edge of the mountains is a place called Red Rock Canyon, a misnomer, since many
colors of rocks appear there, not just red.
The old name was Cottonwood Canyon, and the cottonwoods in this picture typify
the name.
 |
Red Rock Canyon |
It has been my practice to study the geology of an area before
visiting it. Geology is one of several
careers I wish I had pursued, and pursue it now as an amateur. It is with pleasure and girlish giddiness
that I present the answers to some of your most pressing questions, based on the
Mt. Charleston hike, on yesterday’s visit to Red Rock Canyon, and on research.
The question that puzzled geologists studying Mt. Charleston
was: why is limestone way up here, far above the sandstone at Red Rock Canyon,
which is much younger? Shouldn’t the
younger rocks be on top? Furthermore, in
Red Rock Canyon they found the old limestone resting directly on top of the
younger sandstone. In this picture you
see gray limestone at the bottom, a young sandstone layer sandwiched, then more
of the gray limestone on top. It is not
the way rocks are suppose to be stacked.
The limestone is pretty easy to date in this region, there
being so much of it in so many places.
It formed in the bottoms of oceans and contains fossils of extinct
creatures that can be linked in an evolutionary chain from Cambrian to Permian
(500 to 250 million years ago). Back then,
there was only one continent—Pangaea.
Everyone seemed happy then, until suddenly, almost all of the many
species went extinct—no one knows why.
Then came the Mesozic Era when California was still under
water and Nevada, raised up on a gamble, looked something like the
picture. But the important thing
happened below the crust of the earth: the Pacific plate began sliding under
the North American plate (subduction), and that was a big deal.
It raised the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and raised Nevada too. Desert winds blew sand into massive dunes, on
which early dinosaurs, Grallators, left their tracks. It was like today’s Sahara Desert.
The dunes hardened and became white sandstone. But they did not stay white, for as water
percolated through them, it deposited the brilliant reds and other colors seen
today at Red Rock Canyon.


But it was subduction, mentioned above, in its relentless
pushing, that finally explained the older rocks being on top of the younger
ones. The Pacific plate did not slide smoothly
under the North American plate. No, it
pushed hard against it and broke it in many places. The faults were nearer to horizontal than
vertical, and older rocks were thrust above younger ones as shown in these four
diagrams.
 |
Add caption |

As layers were pushed ever higher, even higher than Mt.
Charleston, erosion steadily cut them down.
In the picture at the right you see a diagram showing how rocks in the
picture above, the one with the red stripe through it, came to rest in their
odd positions. We call it the Keystone
Thrust. It was all this pushing and bending that contorted and lifted the rocks near the summit of Mt. Charleston seen in the first picture.


These rugged mountains along the Colorado River near Boulder
Dam (picture at left) moved here only recently. They were
a volcano, thirteen million years ago, and rested on top of Wilson Ridge, which
you see, looking in the opposite direction, (picture on right). It took them only that long to get here. They moved along a thrust fault, like the
Keystone Thrust, at about 1/16 of an inch per year. I thought the Wilsons were faster than that.
I enjoyed the geology discussion on the most recent blog, Sharon. Thank you. Your photos are great - but the lesson was good. Stay cool and hydrated.
ReplyDeleteBlessings, Beth Randolph
It was interesting, Beth, to rewrite what the experts say, in simpler language, and to see for myself whether I agree. I’m still not sure, but it makes a lot of sense. If I were God, I would be creating the earth in simpler ways.
DeleteLove the young sandstone, perfectly placed to show off. It goes with our prompt at Monday Tanka today... featuring --red. I can imagine the beauty this inspires in your poems. I love the mix of poetic language and geology, I think it makes both come alive. Happy to be on the road with you!
ReplyDeleteYou may love pretty young things—delicate, sandy and red. I agree, their skin is fair, with shiny hair. But I have a preference for hard and gray—bent with pressures of time and adaptation. I love the Keystone Thrust that raises them above the lovely Millennials where, by being harder, the Boomers protect their soft underlings against erosion, while the red delicate layers still think they know.
Delete