Yanshanian orogeny

Yanshanian orogeny in Hsü's A History of Malaya 馬來亞史

Yanshanian orogeny 燕山造山運動 was coined by Wong Wenhao 翁文灝 (1889 - 1971) and it was first presented by Wong in a W. H. Wong (1926) Crustal movements in Eastern China, Proceedings of the 3rd Pan-Pacific Scientific Congress, pp. 265 - 285 (organized by the National Research Council of Japan 学術研究会議, 30 October 1926 - 11 November 1926, Tokyo, Japan).

However, the papers presented in 1926 were edited only in 1928 and published later in 1929. In China, Wong's proposal was first reported in 翁文灝 (1927) 中國東部中生代以來之地殼運動及火山活動，中國地質學會會誌 6(1).conference in 1926.

Location of Tiaojishan 髫髻山 formation (orange-shaded regions). During the Warring States Period, the region was part of the State of Yan 燕國, which was the reason why the name was chosen by Wong Wenhao 翁文灝 in 1926. The most famous administrator of Yan was perhaps Zhu Di 朱棣, the Prince of Yan 燕王 in the Ming Dynasty. Zhu Di later became the Yongle 永樂 Emperor, the Chinese ruler who helped to initialize the Sino-Malay friendship and personally received and met with Parameswara, Megat Iskandar Shah, and Sri Maharaja, the first three rulers of Melaka. This is the medieval link between Yan 燕 and Malaya 馬來亞 that comes immediately to my mind when the two toponyms are given. However, since the Jurassic-Cretaceous period is also known as Yanshanian period amongst Chinese geologists, we can also say that Sundaland was formed in the Yanshanian time bracket. Shown above the map is a Liaoceratops 遼寧角龍 (circa 126 Ma).

The theory was initially formulated based on the geological observations on the Qiulongshan 九龍山 and Tiaojishan 髫髻山 Modern estimations place Yanshanian movements at around (165 - 153) or (180 - 75) Ma (within Jurassic period or Jurassic-Cretaceous period)

formations, Liaoning 遼寧 Province, but it was later extended and modified by later authors to mean the East Asian multiplate convergence.

Palaeographic reconstruction from 250 Ma to 100 Ma, simulated with PALEOMAP by A. L. Peace.

Late Permian Changhsingian 長興期 (253 Ma). The Earth was about to enter the Mesozoic period: Sibumasu block (S), East Malaya block (EM), West Sumatra block (WS), North China block (NC), South China block (SC), and Indochina block (I) were still floating around, as the Palaeo-Tethys was still not yet closed to form the Bentong-Raub suture and Bentong-Billiton accretion complex.

Palaeographic reconstruction from 155 Ma to 45 Ma. Sibumasu block (S) and East Malaya block (EM) were fused together as Sundaland since about 200 Ma. However, Indian plate and Eurasian plate collision took place around 50 Ma. In 1961, Hsü correctly claimed that the Himalayan orogeny took place in the Tertiary Period, but unfortunately he tried to furnish a number to this event and the number was incorrectly given as 15 Ma (the number was copied by Lew in 2017). (see Figure 25 in I. Metcalfe (2017) Tectonic evolution of Sundaland, Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 63, pp. 27 - 60).

Although the Yanshanian tectonic movements were not directly related to G. A. F. Molengraaff (1921) Modern deep-sea research in the East Indian Archipelago, The Geographical Journal 57(2), pp. 95 - 118.Sundaland, it was invoked by Hsü Yün-Ts‘iao 許雲樵 in his seminal work ‘A History of Malaya 馬來亞史'. In the a more complete extraction from Hsü's preface reads:

馬來亞史料的搜求須向外發展，並不足奇，因為馬來亞的一切，都有其外來的傳統——這也是它所以成為馬來亞的特征。

¹地質學家告訴我們，馬來亞的土地是七千萬年前， 中國發生的燕山運動所造成， 那是它受外來影響的開始。

²考古學家告訴我們，馬來亞的人種和史前文化，都是從亞洲大陸移殖來的。

³氣象學家也告訴我們，馬來亞的氣候受季風所操縱，而季風卻是中國和澳洲兩地的高低氣壓中心輪流輻散和輻合的結果，從而影響到它的土產和人民經濟活動。

最奇怪的，⁴甚至連馬來亞或馬來這個名稱; 也是外來的！更可怪的，如今馬來亞的八百萬人口中，懂得馬來亞一名的來歷和它的意義的竟寥如晨星，你道奇也不奇?preface, Hsü wrote:

. . . 地質學家告訴我們，馬來亞的土地是七千萬年前， 中國發生的燕山運動所造成， 那是它受外來影響的開始 . . .

Hsü was of the opinion that all things Malayan are geologically, climatologically, palaeogenetically, and etymologically linked to activities in foreign lands. Actually, this view is tautologically and generically correct and they apply equally well to other places on Earth. However, the following reconstructions of Hsü are inaccurate:

1. Formation of Sundaland (or The source of ‘Indo-Malayan block' is not known as he did not give his sources or references for all his geological data in the book.Indo-Malayan block) was primed by Yanshanian movements in China (before Tertiary Period, circa 70 Ma). Actually, only the Woyla terrane (next to the West Sumatra block) was directly linked to Yanshanian tectonics, the Sibumasu block is Gondwanan and not Cathaysian.
2. More accretionary movements (e.g. West Sumatra to East Sumatra) was primed by Himalayan orogeny in India (in Tertiary Period, circa 15 Ma). This is incorrect because the Sundaland amalgamation was concluded 200 million years before the collision between the India plates and Eurasian plates.

(Right) Modern depiction of Sundaland: It is the southeast promontory of the Eurasia Plate and is located at the zone of convergence between Indian-Australian, Philippine, and Eurasian Plates (see Figure 1 in I. Metcalfe (2017) Tectonic evolution of Sundaland, Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 63, pp. 27 - 60.). (Left) A map of Sundaland (bordered by fine dashed line) given by Hsü in A History of Malaya 馬來亞史. The inner thickness dashed line is labelled by Hsü as ‘Yanshanian movements 燕山運動'.

Calligraphy prepended by the Zhejiang-born American biologist Hsu Tao-Chiuh 徐道覺 (1917 - 2003) in his seminal work, Human and mammalian cytogenetics, published by Springer-Verlag in 1979. The text (a part of the poem titled ‘On cicadas'), was originally composed by a Yuan-period poet named Wáng Yísūn 王沂孫 (d. 1291?), reads: 病翼驚秋，枯形閱世，消得斜陽幾度？餘音更苦，甚獨抱清商，頓成淒楚。漫想薰風，柳絲千萬縷 (. . . Pestily wings announces Autumn, they survive the world by leaving behind their withered exoskeletons; Yet for how many more day do they get to a sunset live through? Ever more bitter seems their lingering sound; In extreme loneliness I the Pure Bass play, suddenly I am overcome by sorrows; My thoughts drift away thinking of soft breezes and millions strands of willows . . .). In April 1952, Hsu accidentally discovered that the use of hypotonic solution can better separate the clumped chromosomes. Although the photograph obtained by Hsu was clearer than T. S. Painter (1921), he still reported a diploid number of 48 human chromosomes in 1952. In 1923, Painter did the same thing (although he appeared to favor 46 because he wrote in 1921 that: ‘in the clearest equatorial plates so far studied only 46 chromosomes have been found', likely because he did not want to deviate away from the traditional count reported by Winiwarter in 1912) The correct number was reported only in 1956 by Java-born American biologist Joe Hin Tjio 蔣有興 (1919 - 2001) and Albert Levan (1905 - 1998), a Swedish botanist and geneticist. See also S. M. Gartler (2006) The chromosome number in humans: a brief history, Nature Reviews (Genetics) 7, pp. 655 - 660.

Yanshanian orogeny in Lew's A History of Malaysia 馬來西亞史

See Lew Bon Hoi 廖文輝 (2017) A History of Malaysia 馬來西亞史, The Malay Press Sdn Bhd, Sungai Buloh



or Lew Bon Hoi 廖文輝 (2019) Malaysia: An Equatorial Nation of Co-existing Multiplicities 馬來西亞：多元共生的赤道國度, Linking Publishing 聯經出版公司, Taipei.Lew's description of Sundaland (2017) was heavily influenced by Hsü (1961). In what follows, we show Hsü's original text and Lew's adaption next to each other. However, Lew made several adjustments to the original text:

1. Hsü used ‘pre-Tertiary Period' and ‘late-Mesozoic' interchably and assigned them with (70 Ma), which was numerically correct, and the latter geological reference was reused by Lew. However, Lew kept the incorrect Yanshanian orogeny as the prime mover to amalgamate north Java block, east Sumatra block, Borneo block, and Peninsular Malaya block. Hsü's description of accretionary lines associated with Shan Plateau, Sinkep, Banka, and Billiton are correct, but unfortunately they are not replicated by Lew in his book.
2. Lew retained the incorrect Himalayan orogenesis as the reason for the additional land mass accretion. However, he renamed the tectonic movement from ‘Himalayan orogeny' to ‘Alpine-Himalayan orogenesis'. Lew's choice of name was strange because the Alpine-Himalayan belt was not formed by a single collision episode, which was numerically associated by Hsü and Lew with The value was given by Hsü Yün-Ts‘iao in 1963, but not originally found in his elaborations in 1961. Actually Hsü worsened his argument by supplying a precise numerical value, he should have kept his earlier geological bracket at ‘Tertiary Period' (to be consistent with the Indian-Eurasian collision).15 Ma.
3. Lew retained Hsü's description of sea level rise in the Quaternary Period but he assigned a specific numerical value (The value given by Hsü Yün-Ts‘iao in 1963 was 20 Ka.25 Ka) to the event. In addition, he concluded his description with something not found in Hsü's original text: . . . 經過這三次的激烈地殼變動 (After three intense tectonic movements . . . ); . . . 由於這三次地形的變動，蓋由外力而有以致之 (since these three terrain changes are all induced by external forces . . . ). It is likely that Lew was talking about his descriptions of events associated with 70 Ma, 15 Ma, and 25 Ka. If this was his intent, then his concluding lines are poorly informed from a geological perspective.

(Left) Elevation map of present-day Sundaland (elevation is given in meter, sea level = 0 meter)

遠古時代，不但沒有馬來亞一地名，連馬來半島的地形都還沒有。 在¹新生代第三紀以前， 馬來亞和蘇門答臘東海岸、婆羅洲南部、爪哇北岸，連結成一塊，暹羅灣也還沒有，所以它是包圍在中間的內陸。這塊陸地，就是孫陀洲，地質學家稱它為印度馬來地塊，是中生代後半期，中國發生燕山運動時的造山壓，向東南強烈壓迫所造成。三條摺曲山脈，自緬甸東北部的撣邦高原，經馬來半島南下，掠過新及，邦加和勿裏洞諸島，和蘇島東海岸，而折往小羅洲。也就是地理學家所稱的印度馬來山系。

到²第三紀，喜馬拉雅新摺曲山脈造成時，孫陀弧上的蘇島西部、爪哇南部，都和孫陀洲相接合，使這陸塊更大，使馬來亞更深入內地。

³第四紀洪積世時，北方大陸上的冰蓋融解，海水又增，將孫陀洲的低地淹沒，使洲陸分裂成為無數小島，再經長期的侵蝕和堆積，才逐漸形成今日的東南亞地形 。馬來半島自也不能例外，最初成為和蘇島及婆羅洲分離的一系列島群，再經長期的侵蝕和堆積，才形成一個狹長的半島。往昔阿拉伯的旅行家，一直以為它是一連串的海島。目前我們還可在佛 頭廊一帶，看出是一片近代的沖積平原，風化剩的花崗巖，一片片聳立在平坦的沙地上，形成特殊的地理景觀，吉打河的兩岸，植物景觀也顯然不同。

據地質學家的推斷，馬來半島本是一塊古陸地，稱印度馬來地塊，至於地塊的形成是受距今七千萬年前中生代後半期，中國發生的燕山運動的影響而有以致之。這陸塊包括了中南半島、馬來半島、婆羅洲的大部分和蘇門答臘的東海岸和爪哇島的北部沿海一帶，這時期並無所謂的馬六甲海峽、暹羅灣、爪哇海或馬來半島和婆羅洲之間的淺海。這個地塊一直持續到距近一千五百萬年的新生代第三紀時，因為阿爾卑斯喜馬拉雅造山運動，新摺曲山脈自緬多向東南彎曲，形成了蘇門答臘西海岸的山脈和爪哇島的南部，這塊增大的地塊即是地理學家所稱的巽他大陸。馬來半島也包括在內。

到了距近25,000年前的洪積世的最後冰期， 北方大陸的冰蓋溶解， 海水驟然增高，低地被淹沒，成為海峽或淺海， 馬來半島這塊內陸也就變成了一個狹長的半島。 經過這三次的激烈地殼變動、海水增高和陸地沈沒， 馬來半島於焉成形， 與婆羅洲相隔南中國海遙相對望。由於這三次地形的變動，蓋由外力而由以致之，無怪乎許雲樵要說：馬來亞史料的搜求須向外發展，並不足奇，因為馬來亞的，都有其外來的傳統——這也是她所以成為馬來亞的特征，地質學家告訴我們， 馬來亞的土地是七千萬年前，中國發生的燕山運動，所造成，那是她所受影響的開始。

Hsü correctly pointed out the accretionary lines associated with the Shan plateau, Singkep island, Bangka island, Billiton island, etc ( . . . 三條摺曲山脈，自緬甸東北部的撣邦高原，經馬來半島南下，掠過新及，邦加和勿裏洞諸島 . . . ) in his text. However, this correct description of the main feature of Sundaland was not retained by Lew in his adaption of Hsü's Yanshanian theory.

Singkep was known as the tin island and was once an important tin mining site of the Malays (1812 to 1992, probably pioneered by Raja Ja‘far after his return from Selangor in 1806). Lingga island 龍牙島 (favored by the Malays for her mystical hilly features, e.g. Gunung Daik) was the capital of Old Johor before the kingdom was tore apart by Dutch and English forces. Also, notice that Lingga island and Sebangka island are gapped by a straight channel, this double-linear-fault was caused by tectonic collisions in two separate episodes.