Shallowing-upward cycles in pelagic troughs (Upper Jurassic, Subbetic, Southern Spain)
Abstract Abundant calcareous tempestites with chert and hummocky cross-stratification (HCS) occur in Upper Jurassic successions (Milanos Formation) of the Subbetic (Betic Cordillera, Southern Spain). These calcareous tempestite beds are calcisiltites and very fine calcarenites with peloids and bioclasts, and have thicknesses between 25 and 75 cm. Beds show symmetrical wave ripple lamination near the top, and are usually capped with wave ripples. According to palaeogeographic reconstructions, these strata were deposited in a subsiding trough in the pelagic domain of the Southern Iberian Continental Margin, which was the northwestern-most border of the Tethys. Calcisiltite and calcarenite beds deposited in this pelagic trough form small-scale to large-scale shallowing-upward cycles. Shallowing-upward cycles with calcareous tempestites in the lower part and oolitic limestone beds in the upper part, have also been recognized in some sectors of the Subbetic pelagic basin. The large-scale cycle occurs in the upper part of the Jarropa Radiolarite Formation, which directly underlies upper Oxfordian, Kimmeridgian and Tithonian strata of the Milanos Formation. Two types of large-scale shallowing-upward cycles have been recognized, according to the presence or absence of thick units of oolitic limestone with large-scale cross-stratification. The water depth during deposition ranged from below, but near, storm wave base at the base of the large-scale cycles to very shallow carbonate platform at the top.
Calcareous Tempestites: Storm-dominated Stratification in Upper Muschelkalk Limestones (Middle Trias, SW-Germany)
Storm-induced high energy events dominate stratification phenomena in Upper Muschelkalk epicontinental carbonates. Within storm beds (tempestites) diagnostic sedimentological and paleoecological features show an orderly gradation from bottom to top and from proximal to distal facies. This concept has implications for basin analysis, stratigraphy, paleoecology and diagenesis.
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.