Chapter 3 The Archaean and Proterozoic history of ... · Chapter 3 The Archaean and Proterozoic history of Peninsular India: tectonic framework for Precambrian sedimentary basins

Chapter 3

The Archaean and Proterozoic history of Peninsular India: tectonic frameworkfor Precambrian sedimentary basins in India

JOSEPH G. MEERT1* & MANOJ K. PANDIT2

1Department of Geological Sciences, 241 Williamson Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA2Department of Geology, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur 302004, Rajasthan, India

*Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected])

Abstract: The Precambrian geological history of Peninsular India covers nearly 3.0 Ga. The Peninsula is an assembly of five differentcratonic nuclei known as the Aravalli–Bundelkhand, Eastern Dharwar, Western Dharwar, Bastar and Singhbhum cratons along with theSouthern Granulite Province. Final amalgamation of these elements occurred either by the end of the Archaean (2.5 Ga) or by the end ofthe Palaeoproterozoic (c. 1.6 Ga). Each of these nuclei contains one or more sedimentary basins (or metasedimentary basins) of Proter-ozoic age. This chapter provides an overview of each of the cratons and a brief description of the Precambrian sedimentary basins in Indiathat form the focus of the remainder of this book. In our view, it appears that basin formation and subsequent closure can be grosslyconstrained to three separate intervals that also broadly correspond to the assembly and disaggregation of the supercontinents Columbia,Rodinia and Gondwana. The oldest Purana-I basins developed during the 2.5–1.6 Ga interval, Purana-II basins formed during the1.6–1.0 Ga interval and the Purana-III basins formed during the Neoproterozoic–Cambrian interval.

Peninsular India represents an amalgam of ancient cratonic nucleithat formed and stabilized during the Archaean to Palaeoprotero-zoic (3.8–1.6 Ga). Modern-day Peninsular India comprises fiveArchaean nuclei known as the Banded Gneiss Complex (Aravalliregion), Bundelkhand, Singhbhum, Bastar and Dharwar cratons(Fig. 3.1). The southern granulite province is a polycyclic regionthat also contains Archaean-age crustal elements that are dissectedby younger orogenic belts. This review chapter will focus on theArchaean–Palaeoproterozoic history of each of the major cratonicelements of Peninsular India on which large sedimentary basinswere formed.

We make every effort to provide updated geochronological datafor each of the regions, but note that there is still a paucity ofreliable U–Pb, Pb/Pb, Ar/Ar and Sm–Nd ages. Older K–Arand Rb–Sr ages are used only when there are no other data avail-able and only to provide some constraints on the developmentof the region in question. The chapter begins with an overview ofthe Aravalli–Bundelkhand sectors and then moves eastwards tothe Singhbhum Craton; the central Indian Bastar Craton and con-cludes with a look at the eastern and western Dharwar regions.

Each of the aforementioned cratonic elements containsPrecambrian–Early Palaeozoic sedimentary (or metasedimentary)sequences that form the basinal infrastructure of Peninsular India.Among the best-preserved sedimentary sequences are the so-called‘Purana’ or ancient basins. These include the areally extensiveCuddapah, Chhattisgarh and Vindhyan basins along with sev-eral smaller regional basins known as the Indravati, Khariar,Prahnita–Godavari, Kaladgi, Bhima, Kunigal, Kurnool and Mar-war. There appear to be several key intervals of basinal develop-ment (and closure) within Peninsular India. Purana-I basins begandevelopment in the Palaeoproterozoic (2.5–1.6 Ga); Purana-IIbasins formed during the Mesoproterozoic (1.6–1.0 Ga); and thedevelopment of Purana-III basins is confined to the Ediacaran–Cambrian interval. Basinal development and closure may be tem-porally related to the formation/break-up of the supercontinentsColumbia (Fig 3.2a; Purana-I), Rodinia (Fig. 3.2b; Purana-II)and Gondwana (Fig. 3.2c; Purana-III). As a general reminder,we note that the present-day basinal outcrops/areal extent of thesedimentary sequences may not accurately reflect the extent ofthose sequences at the time of deposition. We also wish to notethat we use the term ‘closure’ to indicate a period of time whenthe basin stopped receiving sediments. Defining the cause of

basinal closure in Proterozoic basins can be difficult and may berelated to the creation of tectonic barriers to sedimentation,burial by younger (and now eroded) sedimentary sequences, sea-level change and many other factors. As discussed in our overview,we provide only a best estimate for when closure occurred andoffer some speculation for why sedimentation ceased.

Aravalli Banded Gneiss Complex and

Bundelkhand cratons

The Aravalli Banded Gneiss Complex (BGC)–Bundelkhand pro-tocontinent occupies the north-central region of the Indian sub-continent (Fig. 3.1). The Great Boundary Fault (GBF) marks apresent-day physiographic divide between the two blocks withthe BGC cratonic block to the west of the GBF and the Bundelk-hand–Gwalior block to the east of the GBF. These cratons arebounded to the NE by the Mesoproterozoic-aged Vindhyan basinand the Indo-Gangetic alluvium and to the south by the northernedge of the Deccan Traps volcanic rocks. The Western MarginFault forms the western boundary of the BGC. Note: the WesternMargin Fault marks the western boundary of the Aravalli–DelhiFold Belt. The Bundelkhand and BGC regions are also separatedfrom the Bastar and Singhbhum cratons by the Central Indian Tec-tonic Zone (Fig. 3.1; Naqvi & Rogers 1987; Goodwin 1991; Meertet al. 2010).

There is considerable debate regarding the nature and age ofthe basement rocks in the BGC. In part this was due to a lack ofhigh-quality geochronological data for the different metamor-phic complexes and in part owing to the obscured nature of thecontacts between the separate regions (Roy et al. 2005, 2012;Buick et al. 2006, 2010; Ramakrishan & Vaidyanadhan 2008;Bhowmik & Dasgupta 2012). The current status of this debate isdescribed below.

The BGC was a catch-all term for the gneissic rocks that werelocated to the west of the GBF (Heron 1953), although Gupta(1934) recognized some differences between the eastern andwestern side of the Banas lineament (Fig. 3.3). Gupta (1934) sub-divided these two regions into the BGC-1 and BGC-2 domains(see also Gopalan et al. 1990; Wiedenbeck & Goswami 1994;Roy & Kroner, 1996). BGC-1 metamorphic basement included

From: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) 2015. Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context.

Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 29–54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.3

# 2015 The Geological Society of London. For permissions: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/permissions. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics

by guest on March 3, 2015http://mem.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

http://mem.lyellcollection.org/

the Mewar gneisses, whereas the BGC-2 region is composed ofrocks known as the Sandmata and Mangalwar Complexes.

The gneissic rocks of the BGC are dated to between 3300 and2900 Ma (Gopalan et al. 1990; Wiedenbeck & Goswami 1994;Roy & Kroner 1996; Fareeduddin 1998) and are dominated bytonalite–trondjhemite gneisses (TTGs) that are intruded by lateArchaean granitoids dated to between 2600 and 2500 Ma (i.e.the Untala, Gingla and Berach granites; Roy & Kroner 1996; Wie-denbeck et al. 1996a, b; Meert et al. 2010).

Deb (1999) reported a 2075–2150 Ma Pb/Pb age for galena,presumably syngenetic with the basal Aravalli volcanics. In theabsence of any direct geochronological evidence this age istaken to represent the initiation of Aravalli sedimentation.Further support is provided by Pandit et al. (2008) and de Wallet al. (2012), who described a palaeosol below the Aravalli Super-group developed during the Great Oxidation Event. Intrusion ofthe 1850 Ma Darwal Granite has generally been accepted as theclosing age for deposition of the Aravalli Supergroup.

The Mangalwar Complex (BGC-2) is located between the Banasand Delwara lineaments (Fig. 3.3). It has been subdivided into avariety of formations (Ramakrishan & Vaidyanadhan 2008), butthe relationships between them are very poorly known. Therocks of the Mangalwar Complex include TTGs, gneisses, migma-tites, schists, amphibolites and quartzites. Commonly cited agesfor the Mangalwar Complex range between 2900 and 2600 Ma(Ramakrishan & Vaidyanadhan 2008).

The Sandmata Complex (BGC-2) is sandwiched between theDelwara and Kaliguman lineaments (Fig. 3.3) and is composedof TTGs, metapelites, metapsammites, metagabbros, charnockitesand granulites (Buick et al. 2006; Dharma Rao et al. 2011a, b).Ages from the Sandmata Complex cluster between 1.7 and1.8 Ga (Buick et al. 2006). Roy et al. (2012) reported older agesfrom the Sandmata Complex between 2.9 and 1.9 Ga. Thoseauthors reaffirmed the problematic metamorphic history recordedin both the Sandmata and Mangalwar Complexes, but arguedthat an Archaean-age component was present in the BGC-2rocks, albeit considerably younger than the oldest ages recordedin the Mewar gneisses to the SE.

Bhowmik et al. (2012) attempted to synthesize the availablegeochronological data into a plate-tectonic framework for thedevelopment of the BGC region that we have modified slightly.During the interval from 3.3 to 2.5 Ga, the basement rocks of thecraton were formed that included both the BGC-1 rocks (TTGs)and the BGC-2 rocks (Mangalwar and Sandmata complexes).The basement gneisses were then intruded by a series of granitoidrocks that completed the stabilization of the craton (Sinha Royet al. 1998; Roy & Jakhar 2002). Between 2.4 and 2.1 Ga anocean basin formed and the Aravalli Supergroup sediments weredeposited (Deb 1999; Deb & Thorpe 2004). Between 1.85 and1.8 Ga, the Aravalli Ocean basin closed, metamorphism and defor-mation of the Aravalli sedimentary rocks occurred and the Rakhab-dev mafic–ultramafic rocks were emplaced (Kaur et al. 2006,2007a, b, 2009). Bhowmik et al. (2012) then posit a slab roll-backevent that creates basinal space for sedimentary rocks in the Sand-mata back-arc basin during the 1.8–1.72 Ga interval (Kaur et al.2011a, b). In their scenario, slab break-off at 1.72 Ga producesbasaltic underplating and granulite–facies metamorphism in theSandmata Complex followed by the eventual development of theDelhi basin during the 1.7–1.0 Ga interval. Closure of the DelhiBasin at 1.0 Ga coincided with a major phase of deformationthroughout India (Deb et al. 2001; Leelanandam et al. 2006;Meert et al. 2013). In the Aravalli region, evidence for the1.0 Ga orogeny is widespread and includes emplacement of thePhulad ophiolite, 1.0 Ga granitoid emplacement and cessation ofsedimentation in several of the larger ‘Purana’ basins (Guptaet al. 1997; Khan et al. 2005; Patranabis-Deb et al. 2007;Malone et al. 2008; McKenzie et al. 2011; Meert et al. 2013;Turner et al. 2014).

The processes associated with the development of the Purana-IAravalli basinal sediments are related to the formation of theColumbia (Rogers & Santosh 2002; Meert 2012, 2014) supercon-tinent. Aravalli (Palaeoproterozoic) and Delhi Supergroup (Meso-proterozoic) rocks were deposited over a stabilized Archaeanbasement (BGC). The onset of the Aravalli sedimentation ismarked by the development of rift-related basic volcanics andsediments (Delwara Formation). Stratigraphic subdivisions pro-posed for the Aravalli Supergroup by different workers (Guptaet al. 1980; Sinha Roy et al. 1998) including revisions (Roy1988; Roy et al. 1993; Roy & Jakhar 2002) contradict each otherin terms of nomenclature and stratigraphic status of some rockunits. A simple classification proposed by Poddar & Mathur(1965) subdivides Aravalli rocks into a lower and middle shelffacies and an upper deep-marine facies. That simplified classifi-cation has been retained by Sinha Roy et al. (1998), Roy et al.(1993) and de Wall et al. (2012). Aravalli rocks of the Udaipurregion (type area) can be subdivided into a lower DelwaraGroup, a middle Debari Group and an upper Jharol Group. TheLower and Middle Aravalli Group lithologies include pelite–carbonate–quartzite associations while upper Aravalli JharolGroup, exposed in the western part of the basin, comprises predo-minantly deep sea turbidite facies argillaceous rocks, indicating awestward deepening of the basin. Both these depositional regimesare separated by an almost north–south-trending, RikhabdeoLineament. The Rikhabdeo lineament includes a number of ser-pentinized ultramafic bodies. The Aravalli sediments are intruded

EGMB

LEGENDHimalayas

Deccan Traps

Rajmahal Traps

Purana Basins

IB

Southern

GranulitesPCSZ

CuB

EG

MB

ChB

DFB

BFA

GB

MR

Kolkata

Hyderabad

Mumbai

Delhi

NSL

Chennai

BA

YO

FB

E N

GA

L

AR

AB I

AN

S EA

km

0 200 400200

AL A

YA

S

I

VBVBVB

CG

R

8

12

16

20

24

32

3668 72 76 80 84 88 92 96

N

R

SA

H

M

CuB:

NIB

SIB

MB

PG

ARAVALLI

BUNDELKHAND

SINGHBHUMBASTAR

DHARWARWDD EDD

SMB ChBC I T Z

NSL

Closepet Granite

Peninsular India

KBB

CIS

Fig. 3.1. Generalized tectonic map of the Indian subcontinent including Purana

basins, fold belts and cratonic regions. Fold belts: AFB, Aravalli Fold Belt;

DFB, Delhi Fold Belt; EGMB, Eastern Ghat Mobile Belt; SMB, Satpura Mobile

Belt; NSL, Narmada Son lineament; CIS, Central Indian Suture; and PCSZ,

Palghat-Cauvery Shear Zone. Purana basins: VB, Vindhyan Basin; PG,

Prahnita–Godavari Basin; Ch.B, Chhattisgarh Basin; CuB, Cuddapah Basin;

KBB, Kaladgi–Bhima Basin; MB, Marwar Basin; IB, Indravati Basin. Other

elements: EDD, Eastern Dharwar Domain; WDD, Western Dharwar Domain;

MR, Mahandi Rift; R, Rajhmahal Traps; CG, Closepet Granite. SIB, South

Indian Block; NIB, North Indian Block.

J. G. MEERT & M. K. PANDIT30



by the Derwal Granite, dated to 1850 Ma (whole-rock Rb–Sr) byChoudhary et al. (1984), which is generally taken as the upper agefor Aravalli sedimentation.

The opening of the Delhi basin is poorly constrained to the1.7–1.0 Ga interval, but we posit that the development of accom-modation space for these basins was related to the break-up of theColumbia supercontinent during the Mesoproterozoic and, thus,the Delhi Group represents sedimentation associated with thePurana-II Proterozoic basins. The Delhi Supergroup is the domi-nant lithostratigraphic unit of this region. It overlies the BGC witha well-defined erosional unconformity; however, the nature of thecontact with the Aravalli Supergroup continues to be debated. It

has been described as a structural discordance or a tectonicsuture that is the expression of a Proterozoic oceanic-basinclosure (e.g. Sinha Roy 1988; Gupta et al. 1997; Sharma 1999).The Delhi Supergroup primarily consists of deep-water toplatform-type sediments (Sinha Roy et al. 1998; Roy & Jakhar2002). Delhi Supergroup rocks are exposed in northern andsouthern domains. Gupta et al. (1997), while revising the Delhistratigraphy, retained the three-fold classification (Raialo, Alwarand Ajabgarh groups) proposed by Heron (1953) for the northernsector and classified the sediments of the southern sector intoolder Gogunda and Kumbhalgarh groups, while the younger sedi-ments were grouped into the Sirohi, Sindreth and Punagarh

Fig. 3.2. Schematic map of the supercontinents:

(a) Columbia (after Rogers & Santosh, 2002,

2003; Meert 2012, 2014); (b) Rodinia (after

Li et al. 2008); (c) Gondwana (after Gray et al.

2008; Meert & Lieberman 2008).

THE ARCHAEAN AND PROTEROZOIC HISTORY OF PENINSULAR INDIA 31



groups. The U–Pb zircon age determinations of 761–767 Ma(van Lente et al. 2009) place the Sindreth and Punagarh Groupsstrictly within the same age bracket as the Malani IgneousSuite. They consist of variably altered and generally undeformedbimodal volcanics together with conglomerates, shale and quart-zite (Chore & Mohanty 1998; Van Lente et al. 2009). Closureof Delhi basin is marked by the c. 1 Ga collision between theMarwar Craton in the west and the Aravalli (Bundelkhand)Craton in the east (Vijaya Rao et al. 2000; Meert et al. 2013).A linear Phulad Ophiolite Suite marks the suture between thetwo cratons, also known as the Western Margin Fault. The col-lision also resulted in the emplacement of 967 Ma (U–PbTIMS) calc-alkaline granitoids in the Sendra–Ambaji region

(Deb et al. 2001; Pandit et al. 2003). Closure of the Delhibasin, along with several other Purana-II basins, occurredduring the assembly phase of Rodinia.

Culmination of the orogenesis in this region is marked byseveral granitic intrusions, collectively named the ErinpuraGranite (Heron 1953). For a considerable time it was cited as asingle thermal event (c. 830 Ma; whole-rock Rb–Sr age;Choudhary et al. 1984). However, recent geochronologicalstudies have identified a time span between 873 and 800 Mafor the ‘Erinpura Granite’ intrusions (Deb et al. 2001, vanLente et al. 2009; Pradhan et al. 2010, Just et al. 2011, Ashwalet al. 2013). Widespread outpouring of felsic lavas, emplacementof granites and the intrusion of felsic and mafic dykes, are

Fig. 3.3. Generalized geological map of the

Aravalli region after Roy & Jakhar (2002).

BGC, Banded Gneiss Complex.




referred to as the Malani Igneous Suite (MIS). The MIS is apredominantly felsic volcano-plutonic suite of rocks exposedover an area of c. 52 000 km2 in northwestern India (Fig. 3.2;Bhushan 2000; Torsvik et al. 2001a; Gregory et al. 2008;Meert et al. 2013). Contact relationships with the underlyingbasement cannot be observed in all regions owing to extensiveQuaternary-aged sand cover; however, Malani felsic dykesintrude the c. 830 Ma pre-Malani granitic gneisses and granodior-ites in the Barmer region (Pandit et al. 1999; Pradhan et al. 2010).The initial phase of Malani igneous activity is characterized bymajor felsic and minor mafic flows and was followed by theemplacement of peraluminous and peralkaline granitic bodies.Volumetrically minor felsic and mafic dykes represent the finalphase of Malani activity. Age constraints for the MIS rangefrom c. 750 to c. 780 Ma (Torsvik et al. 2001a, b; Gregoryet al. 2008; van Lente et al. 2009; Pradhan et al. 2010; Meertet al. 2013).

Malani rocks form the basement for a sedimentary sequencenamed the Marwar Supergroup (Figs 3.3–3.5). The Marwar Super-group (Figs 3.4 & 3.5) is composed of a 2 km-thick section ofunmetamorphosed and relatively undeformed succession of sand-stones, shales, carbonates and evaporites. Lithostratigraphically,the Marwar Supergroup is subdivided into three groups: the lower-most Jodhpur Group, the middle Bilara Group, and the uppermostNagaur Group (Khan 1973; Pareek 1984). The oldest unit of the

Jodhpur Group (Pokaran Boulder Bed or Sonia sandstone) uncon-formably overlies the Neoproterozoic MIS.

The Pokaran boulder bed has been interpreted by some to be aglacial diamictite (Chauhan et al. 2001; Bhatt et al. 2005), butfield observations show that the boulder bed contains locallyderived, well-rounded cobbles and boulders that show weakimbrication and lack of striations or other glacial features. ‘Stria-tions’ observed in the underlying Malani felsic rocks nearPokaran are not all surficial features and numerous small faultsin the region also produce striated surfaces in a variety of orien-tations. Thus, a more likely setting for the Pokaran boulder bedis alluvial/fluvial rather than glaciogenic. The Jodhpur Group isa fluvio-marine succession, of cross-bedded, white to reddishsandstone and maroon shale. The overlying Bilara Group con-sists of dolomite and stromatolitic limestone that conformablyoverlie the Jodhpur Group (Khilnani 1968; Barman 1987). In asomewhat confusing nomenclature, the Hanseran EvaporiteGroup is included within the Bilara Group, but as noted byMazumder & Strauss (2006), these are coeval facies variantswithin the basin. The so-called Hanseran Group is characterizedby seven evaporitic cycles of dolomite, magnesite, anhydrite,halite, polyhalite and clay bands (Das Gupta 1996; Kumar1999; Mazumder & Strauss 2006). Unconformably overlyingthe Bilara Group is a sequence of fine- to coarse-grained, cross-bedded, reddish brown, sandstone and siltstone of the NagaurGroup (Pareek 1984; Das Gupta & Bulgauda 1994; Mazumder &Bhattacharya 2004; Mahmoud et al. 2008; Pandey & Bahadur2009). The youngest sedimentary unit of the Nagaur Group, theTunklian sandstone, is unconformably overlain by the Permo-Carboniferous Bap boulder bed (Pareek 1984).

The Marwar Supergroup was historically classified as Neo-pro-terozoic in age based upon the relatively undeformed stratigraphyand the absence of index fossils within the sequence. Assumingthat the Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth event was globally distrib-uted, the absence of glacial deposits within the Marwar Super-group suggests (but does not prove) a post-Marinoan age ofdeposition (i.e. ,635 Ma). Ediacaran fossils collected from theJodhpur Group, including Arumberia, Beltanelliformis, Aspidellaand Hiemalora, support a late Neoproterozoic age assignment(,570 Ma; Raghav et al. 2005; Kumar & Pandey 2008, 2009,2010; Kumar 2012). Fossils in the Nagaur sandstone, includingCruziana nabatacica, Rusophycus, T. pedum and Dimorphichnus,are ichnogenera that first appeared in the Cambrian and indicatethat the deposition in the Marwar Supergroup continued into theCambrian. It should also be noted that these ichnogenera are alsofound in much younger rocks (as young as Permian), so the absol-ute range for the Marwar Supergroup is reliably constrained onlyas Ediacaran–Carboniferous by stratigraphy and fossils. Acri-tarchs from the Nagaur group are thought to provide more defini-tive Cambrian age for the Nagaur sandstone (Prasad et al. 2010;Prasad & De 2011). Davis et al. (2014) offer some palaeomagneticsupport that the Nagaur is not much younger than Cambrian. Basedon these observations, the Marwar Basin is therefore considered asa Purana-III development.

Bundelkhand Craton

The Bundelkhand Craton, to the east of the Aravalli–Delhi foldbelt, is a relatively less studied region (Fig. 3.6) Sharma &Rahman (2000) divided the Bundelkhand Craton into three distinctunits: (1) Archaean-aged granite–greenstone and gneiss belts thatare sometimes referred to as the Enclave Suite; (2) relatively unde-formed granitoid plutons and large quartz reefs know as theGranite Suite; and (3) mafic dyke swarms and other smaller-scaleintrusions called the Intrusive Suite.

The Enclave Suite is composed of intensely deformed basementrocks; predominantly, schists, gneisses, banded iron formations(BIFs), mafic volcanic rocks and quartzites. These basement

Fig. 3.4. Map of the Marwar Supergroup sedimentary sequence in Rajasthan

(modified from Pareek 1984).




rocks are intruded by the Bundelkhand Igneous Complex thatmakes up the bulk of exposed rocks within Bundelkhand Craton(Goodwin 1991; Basu 2007). Three generations of gneisses arethought to have formed at 3.2–3.3, 2.7 and 2.5 Ga, respectively,as indicated by 207Pb/206Pb isotopic data (Gopalan et al. 1990;Mondal et al. 1997; Mohan et al. 2012). The latter 2.5 Ga age isalso considered as the stabilization age of the BundelkhandCraton as it overlaps with the ages of undeformed granitoidplutons in the Bundelkhand and BGC–Aravalli cratons. The Bun-delkhand granite is dated to 2492 + 10 Ma (Mondal et al. 2002)and the Berach Granite to 2530 + 4 Ma using U–Pb isotopicdating (R. D. Tucker, pers. comm., see also Wiedenbeck et al.1996a, b). Pradhan et al. (2012) dated xenocrystic zircons inmafic dykes at 2.7 and 3.2 Ga consistent with the observations ofMondal et al. (1997).

The Bundelkhand Craton in the Central Indian shield is alsocharacterized by various Proterozoic aged extrusive and intru-sive bodies. The NE–SW trending quartz reefs are the most spec-tacular feature in the Bundelkhand granitic massif (Basu 1986).The majority of these quartz reefs are concentrated in the areabounded by Jhansi to the NW, Supa to the NE, Khajuraho tothe SE and Tikamgarh to the SW (Fig. 3.6). These giant quartzreefs and veins along the brittle ductile shear zones and faultplanes mark extensive hydrothermal fluid activity following the

crystallization of the granite plutons. The quartz reefs and associ-ated hydrothermal activity are argued to have taken place inthree phases based on the K–Ar geochronology: (a) 1480 + 35to 1660 + 40 Ma, (b) 1790 + 40 to 1850 + 35 Ma and (c)1930 + 40 to 2010 + 80 Ma (Pati et al. 1997). The broad agerange reported here indicates a need for more robust dating ofthese intrusive events.

Numerous mafic dykes intrude the Bundelkhand IgneousComplex (Mondal & Ahmad 2001). Rao (2004) suggested thatmost of these mafic dykes were emplaced in two phases, one at2.15 Ga and the second at 2.0 Ga, based on their 40Ar/39Ar isoto-pic analyses. An earlier study by Sarkar (1997) reported two dis-tinct K–Ar age clusters (c. 1800 and 1560 Ma) on mafic dykesintruding the Bundelkhand Province. Pradhan et al. (2012) pro-vided U–Pb ages for two of the suites. The older NW–SE-trendingdykes are dated to c. 2.0 Ga and the younger cross-cutting dykes to1.1 Ga. Pradhan et al. (2012) also noted that a third suite of dykeswere present based on distinct palaeomagnetic directions, but wereunable to provide age constraints on those dykes.

It is unclear if the BGC region and Bundelkhand cratons share acomplete common history. The ages of gneissic (TTG) rocks andlate Archaean granitoids in both the BGC and Bundelkhandcratons span the same broad age range of 3.3–2.5 Ga. Perhapsthe most important link between the two cratonic nuclei is that

Fig. 3.5. Stratigraphic sections for the Marwar

Supergroup and the Upper and Lower Vindhyan

Supergroups. Previously conjectured

relationships between the Marwar Supergroup

(Rajasthan) and the Upper Vindhyan

Supergroup (Rajasthan and Son Valley Sectors)

are indicated by dashed lines. These

relationships are no longer considered valid.




both are overlain by the c. 1.85 Ga Hindoli Group. On that basis,we posit that the BGC-Bundelkhand sectors were a single blockby at least c. 1.9 Ga and perhaps earlier.

Overlying the Bundelkhand Craton is the Vindhyan Basin (Figs3.1, 3.5 & 3.6). The Vindhyan basin comprises distinct sequencescalled the Lower and Upper Vindhyan Supergroups. Lower Vindh-yan sediments (Semri Group) blanket the Hindoli Group and thusare younger than 1.9 Ga (Deb et al. 2002; Saxena & Pandit 2012).Geochronological studies of the Lower Vindhyan indicate adepositional history beginning as early as 1.8 Ga and ending some-time post 1.6 Ga (Rasmussen et al. 2002; Ray et al. 2002, 2003;Sarangi et al. 2004; Malone et al. 2008). This would constrainLower Vindhyan sedimentation to the Purana-I basinal sequences.

Age constraints on the Upper Vindhyan Supergroup (Kaimur,Bhander and Rewa Groups) are controversial (Gregory et al.2006; Azmi et al. 2008; Malone et al. 2008; McKenzie et al.2011; Turner et al. 2014), but the onset of sedimentation in theUpper Vindhyan is constrained to be older than 1073 Ma by intru-sive relationships between the Majhgawan kimberlite and theUpper Vindhyan Kaimur sandstone (Gregory et al. 2006; Fig. 3.5).

The younger limit for the age of the Upper Vindhyan is basedon several observations. There is a lack of Neoproterozoic zir-cons in the Upper Vindhyan rocks in spite of the fact that numerousNeoproterozoic source regions are known from throughout north-ern India (including the Himalaya; Malone et al. 2008; McKenzieet al. 2011; Turner et al. 2014). Palaeomagnetic data from c. 1000to 1100 Ma igneous units in India are identical to directionsobserved in the Bhander and Rewa Groups (Gregory et al. 2006;Malone et al. 2008; Pradhan et al. 2012; Meert & Pandit 2013; Ven-kateshwarlu & Chalapathi Rao 2013). Palaeomagnetic directionsobserved in the Marwar Supergroup are distinct from the UpperVindhyan Bhander–Rewa Groups (Davis et al. 2014). Wecontend that the sedimentary rocks of the Upper Vindhyan

Supergroup developed during the Purana-II basinal stage and thebasin was closed during the final stages of Rodinia formation(Malone et al. 2008; Pradhan et al. 2012; Turner et al. 2014).Gopalan et al. (2013) provided Pb/Pb ages for the Bhander,Lakheri and Balwan limestones of the Upper Vindhyan. Althougherrors on individual age determinations were large, the ages rangedfrom c. 900 to 1075 Ma, supporting a Late Mesoproterozoic(Stenian) to Early Neoproterozoic (Tonian) age for these rocks.The alternative view (espoused by Azmi et al. 2008) is that theUpper Vindhyan is correlative with the Marwar Supergroup andthat both are Purana-III basins. This extreme view is rejected bymost working in the region.

Lastly, we note that there may still be some issues related toVindhyan stratigraphic correlations between the Rajasthan sectorof the Vindhyan basin and the Son Valley region of the Vindhyanbasin. S. Kumar (pers. comm.) argued that the Sukhet shale con-tains a gradational contact with the Kaimur sandstone and there-fore the Sukhet belongs in the Upper Vindhyan. S. Kumar andM. Sharma (pers. comm.) also believe that the uppermost‘Bhander Group’ in Rajasthan may be younger than the correlativeunits in the Son Valley. Additional palaeontological and sedimen-tological studies may provide additional information regardingthis conundrum.

Bijawar–Sonrai and Gwalior basins. Three isolated and narrowbasins are also located on the basement rocks of the BundelkhandCraton. The Bijawar–Sonrai basins contain similar lithologies andare located along the southern margin of the craton west of thetown of Panna (Fig. 3.6). The Bijawar Group of sediments consistsof two subgroups; the lower Mali Subgroup (conglomerate, maficflows and sills, sandstones and dolomites) and the upper Gangausubgroup containing phosphorites and sandstone. The total thick-ness is thought to be about 1000 m. The Gwalior Basin is about

N

0 50km

Alluvium

Deccan Traps

Vindhyan Supergroup

Marginal basins

Giant quartz vein

Mafic dyke

Bundelkhand tectonic zone

Legend

24 N

25 N

26 N

78 E 79 E 80 E 81 E

Bundelkhand Craton

Mahoba

Jhansi

Bijawar basin

Sonrai basin

Gwalior basin

Kanpur

Banda

BabinaMauranipur

PannaLalitpur

Indo-Gangetic Alluvial plains

Deccan Traps

Fig. 3.6. Generalized Precambrian geological

map of the Bundelkhand Craton of north-central

India including the extent of Deccan traps in the

southeastern area. The Vindhyan basin partially

encircles the granitic basement. Three smaller

Palaeoproterozoic basins are shown, including

the Sonrai, Gwalior and Bijawar.




25 km wide and 80 km long situated near the town of Gwalior(Fig. 3.6). Lithologies in the Gwalior Basin are similar to thosein the Bijawars, including mafic flows and sills. The only availableage constraints for the Bijawar and Gwalior basins are derivedfrom Palaeoproterozoic Rb–Sr and Sm–Nd ages on mafic rocksaround c. 1800–1900 Ma (Crawford & Compston 1970; Haldar& Ghosh 2000; Pandey et al. 2012). A Palaeoproterozoic age forthe Bijawars is consistent with observations that show an uncon-formable onlap of Lower Vindhyan sediments on to the Bijawarsediments (Banerjee et al. 1982).

Singhbhum Craton

The Singhbhum Craton (also called the Singhbhum–Orissa craton;Figs 3.1 & 3.7) lies in the eastern part of India and borders theMahanadi graben to the west, the Central Indian Tectonic Zone(CITZ), and the Indo-Gangetic plain. It is bordered to the north bythe Chhotanagpur granite–gneiss terrain (CGGC). The CGGC is

thought to be an extension of the CITZ. The craton is subdividedinto several different assemblages including the Older Meta-morphic Group (OMG; Basu et al. 1996), the Older MetamorphicTonalite Gneisses (OMTG) the Singhbhum granite and the IronOre Group (IOG). The relationships between the various unitstend to be obscured by the scattered nature of the outcrop andthe paucity of reliable age data (see Mazumder et al. 2012). Inour discussion we view the IOG and the OMG and OMTG asbroadly co-genetic and the oldest units on the craton. Older detritalzircons found within these gneissic units hint at an older basementthat has been reworked.

The IOG is a greenstone–gneiss sequence (Eriksson et al.2006; Mondal et al. 2007). The entire IOG occurs as a supracrustalsuite composed of three fold belts: the Jamda–Koira, the Goruma-hishani–Badampahar and the TomkaDaitari (Mondal et al. 2007).It is divided into Older and a Younger sections, with similar com-positions but differing ages.

The Older IOG (southern sequence) comprises clastic sedi-mentary rocks formed in a shallow marine setting along with

Fig. 3.7. Singhbhum Craton map after Iyengar

& Murthy (1982), Misra (2006) and Meert et al.

(2010). IOG, Iron Ore Group; SBG-1, -2, -3,

Singhbhum granite; OMG, Older Metamorphic

Group; OMTG, Older Metamorphic Tonalite

Gneiss; MG, Mayurbanj granite; NSO, North

Singhbhum Orogen; SSZ, Singhbhum Shear

Zone; PLG, Pala Lahara Gneiss.




syn-depositional volcanic rocks that together suggest large-scalerifting (Eriksson et al. 2006) or an arc–forearc sequence (Mukho-padhyay et al. 2012). The Older IOG formed prior to the intrusionof the Singhbhum Granite and was thought to have an age rangebetween 3.3 and 3.1 Ga, based solely on associations to nearbyrocks and available ages for related rocks (Eriksson et al. 2006;Mondal et al. 2007). A geochronological study of the IOG(Mukhopadhyay et al. 2008) yielded an age of 3.51 Ga fordacitic lavas. This crystallization age confirms that the IOGformed just prior to the earliest Singhbhum (SGB-A) granites. Det-rital zircons found in the OMTG suite (see below) may have beenderived from the Older IOG (Acharyya et al. 2010).

The OMG and the OMTG outcrop as irregularly distrib-uted enclaves within the Singhbhum granitoids. They includemicaceous schists, quartzites, calc-silicate, para-amphibolites,ortho-amphibolites and tonalite–trondhjemite gneisses. The OMGand the OMTG are commonly described as separate elementswithin the Singhbhum nucleus, but sparse geochronological datafrom both the OMG and the OMTG rocks range in age from 3.2to 3.5 Ga (Misra et al. 1999; Mondal et al. 2007; Acharyya et al.2010). Detrital and xenocrystic zircons from both groups rangefrom 3.5 to 3.8 Ga (Naqvi & Rogers 1987; Saha 1994; Misraet al. 1999). The younger, Mesoarchaean ages are thought toreflect metamorphic events within the belt (3.2–3.3 Ga). Acharyyaet al. (2010) noted that the older end of the age range in the OMGand OMTG overlaps with that in the lower-grade rocks of the IOG.They argued that the OMG and OMTG are metamorphosedequivalents to the rocks in the Older IOG and we agree with thatconclusion. Therefore, the Older IOG, the OMG and the OMTGrepresent the oldest suites of outcrop in the Singhbhum Craton.

The OMG is intruded by the approximately 10 000 km2 Singhb-hum Granitic complex (Figs 3.7 & 3.8). The complex includes adozen separate domal magmatic bodies. Whether these plutonswere emplaced in a single magmatic event or several remains asubject of debate; however, older data combined with recentstudies suggest polyphase emplacement of granitoids spanningnearly 500 myr of the Archaean (c. 3.5–3.0 Ga; Naqvi & Rogers1987; Acharyya et al. 2010). These are sometimes referred to asSinghbhum A (SGA-older group) and Singhbhum B (SGB-younger group) granitoids (Saha 1994; Mukhopadhyay 2001;Acharyya et al. 2010).

The Singhbhum Granite (SG) complex includes two differenttypes of granite. One set of granites displays heavy rare earth ele-ment (HREE) depletion and is dated at 3.3 Ga (Mondal et al.2007). Other varieties of granites produce a fractionated light rareearth element (LREE) pattern and flat HREE and are dated atc. 3.1 Ga (Mondal et al. 2007). Misra et al. (1999) report an ageof 3.33 Ga for the Singhbhum ‘Phase II’ granites and ages of 3.08and 3.09 Ga for the Mayurbhanj granite. Reddy et al. (2008)obtained SHRIMP U–Pb and Pb/Pb ages from the ‘Singhbhum’granite with a discordant upper intercept age of 3.30 Ga and amore robust 207Pb–206Pb age for the most concordant zircons of3.29 Ga. The Sushina nepheline syenite body yielded the youngest(SHRIMP) ages from the SG complex of c. 0.9 Ga (Reddy et al.2008). Acharyya et al. (2008) reported U–Pb ages between 3.53and 3.45 Ga from an early phase of Singhbhum granite intrusionthat appears to be contemporaneous with the dacitic lavas withinthe IOG. The geochronological data from the Singhbhum granitestherefore favour a multistage emplacement. The oldest intrusionsof granites at c. 3.45–3.5 Ga were followed by a secondary empla-cement at 3.3 Ga, tertiary intrusions at 3.1 Ga and perhaps a youngsuite of granites dated at c. 0.9 Ga. More robust data on each ofthe granitic intrusions along with detailed geological mappingof their intrusive relationships will improve our understanding ofthe development of the Singhbhum Craton.

The younger IOG formed after the Phase I SG intrusions has asuggested depositional age .2.55 and ,3.0 Ga. It comprisesshallow or shelfal marine along with greenstone and BIF (Erikssonet al. 2006). An older age for this sequence is possible given the

3.1 Ga age for the Mayurbanj granite that intrudes the SimlipalBasinal Group overlying the younger IOG. The exact relationshipbetween the younger IOG and other volcano-sedimentarysequences in the Singhbhum Craton requires more robust geochro-nological data.

Within the Singhbhum cratonic region there are a number ofvolcano-sedimentary ‘basins’ that are difficult to correlate owingto poor age control and scattered outcrop. We describe thecurrent status of these regions below with the understanding thata single good age may drastically alter our interpretation.

Simlipal/Dhanjori/Singhbhum supracrustals. The Dhanjori basin(Fig. 3.7) rests unconformably over granitoid rocks of the Singhb-hum granite complex and is thought to be (along with the Sim-lipal Basin), the first volcano-sedimentary sequence depositedafter intrusion of the Singhbhum-B granites. The Dhanjori basincontains terrestrial–fluvial deposits that are overlain by mafic–ultramafic volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks (Mazumder 2005;Eriksson et al. 2006; Bhattacharya & Mahapatra 2008). Basedon field observations and limited geochronological data, Acharyyaet al. (2008) proposed a late Archaean/earliest Palaeoproterozoicage (c. 2.5–2.4 Ga) for the Dhanjori sequence. In contrast, Misra& Johnson (2005) argue for a much older (.2.86 Ga) age forthe bulk of the Dhanjori rocks on the basis of a Pb/Pb age for vol-canic rocks in the upper part of the basin. It should be noted that thesignificance of this age was disputed by Roy & Sarkar (2006).

Fig. 3.8. Summary of the cratonic elements in the Singhbhum Craton.

SG, Singhbhum granite; MG, Mayurbanj granite; (dz), detrital zircon ages.




The relatively undeformed Simlipal Basin is located in theeastern part of the Singhbhum Craton. The basinal volcano-sedimentary sequence sits unconformably atop the IOG andSinghbhum Phase II granites. It is intruded by the c. 3.1 Ga Mayur-banj Granite and gabbro. Assuming the field relationships and agesare correctly determined, then deposition in the Simlipal basinspanned the interval from c. 3.3 to 3.1 Ga (Misra 2006), althoughother authors consider both the Simlipal and Dhanjori suite ofrocks as Palaeoproterozoic in age (Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan2008; Mazumder et al. 2012).

The relationship between the members of the Singhbhum Group(Chaibasa and Dhalbhum Formations) along with the Simlipal andDhanjori Formations is equally enigmatic (Sarkar & Saha 1983;Saha et al. 1988; Gupta & Basu 2000; Misra 2006; Mazumderet al. 2012; Mazumder & van Loon 2012). The SinghbhumGroup consists of a lower Chaibasa Formation dominated byschists along with amphibolites, quartzites and tuffs and anupper Dhalbhum Formation containing phyllites, quartzites andmafic sills. In some stratigraphic models, the Chaibasa conform-ably overlies the Dhanjori Formation and has an uncomformablerelation with the overlying Dhalbhum Formation (Gupta & Basu2000; Mazumder & van Loon 2012), whereas in others the Dhan-jori overlies the Singhbhum Group (Saha et al. 1988). Misra (2006)considers the Singhbhum Group, the Dhanjori Formation and theSimplipal Basinal sediments as contemporaneous and of Archaeanage, whereas Mazumder et al. (2012) consider the sequences to beof Palaeoproterozoic age.

The Dalma meta-volcanic sequence conformably overlies theDhalbhum Formation and is dominated by mafic–ultramafic vol-canic rocks. Age constraints on the Dalma sequence are poor.Misra & Johnson (2005) obtained whole-rock Rb–Sr agesbetween 2.4 and 2.5 Ga that they considered to reflect the timingof metamorphism. These authors considered the Dalma sequenceto be roughly age-equivalent (c. 2.8 Ga) to the Dhanjori volcanics.Roy & Sarkar (2006) argued that the Rb–Sr system appeared to behighly disturbed and attached no significance to those ages.

The Chandil Formation is yet another enigmatic volcano-sedimentary sequence that is geographically situated between theChhotanagpur granite gneiss complex to the north and the Dalmasequence to the south. Eriksson et al. (2006) envisioned a fluvial–aeolian to shallow-marine setting for this sequence. As with mostother supracrustal sequences on the Singhbhum Craton, the ageof the Chandil Formation is poorly constrained. Tuffs withinthe volcanic sequence are dated to c. 1.5 Ga (Sengupta et al.2000) whereas granites intruding the Chandil are dated to 1.6 Ga(Mazumder 2005; Chatterjee et al. 2013). Ages from the ChandilFormation (reported in abstract only) appear to be more robustU–Pb ages of c. 1.63 Ga (Nelson et al. 2007; Reddy et al. 2009;Mazumder & van Loon 2012).

Controversy abounds on the age of the supracrustal sequencesoverlying the crystalline basement rocks of the SinghbhumCraton. If the new ages (c. 1.63 Ga) on the Chandil felsic volcanicrocks cited above are correct and stratigraphic continuity existsbetween the Chandil Formation, Dalma volcanics and the Singhb-hum Group, then all are likely Palaeoproterozoic in age (Mazum-der & van Loon 2012) rather than Neoarchean as envisioned byMisra (2006).

In the absence of more robust geochronological data, it appearsthat most of the meta-sedimentary sequences in the Singhbhumregion are either Archaean in age or part of Purana-I basinal devel-opment within India.

Dyke swarms cut across much of the Singhbhum Craton and thelargest suite of these mafic to intermediate dykes is collectivelyknown as the ‘Newer Dolerites’ (Bose 2008). The Newer Doleritesare subdivided into at least two distinct generations, related bycross-cutting relationships and distinct geochemical signatures.Emplacement ages are poorly constrained, ranging from 1600 to950 Ma, based mainly on K–Ar dating (Naqvi & Rogers 1987; Sri-vastava et al. 2000; Bose 2008). Bose (2008; and sources therein)

suggests three distinct pulses of magmatism, based mainly on avail-able K–Ar data, at 2100 + 100, 1500 + 100 and 1100 + 200 Ma.These ages should be viewed with caution until more robust U–Pbages become available.

The dykes vary from a few metres to 700 m in thickness and canextend for several kilometres. They predominantly strike NNE–SSW or NNW–SSE. The dolerites exhibit a variety of texturesincluding fine-, medium- and coarse-grained varieties (Mir et al.2012).

The Chhotanagpur Granite Gneiss Complex (CGGC) forms thenorthern boundary of the Singhbhum Craton and is separated fromit by the Singhbhum Shear Zone (SSZ; Fig. 3.7). The CGGC andthe SSZ form a northeasterly extension of the CITZ (Figs 3.1 &3.7). The CGGC is composed of gneisses, granites and numer-ous metasedimentary enclaves (Sharma 2010). There have beennumerous geochronological studies on rocks within the CGGC,but relatively few U–Pb ages. The oldest rocks date to 2.3 Gawith the bulk of ages ranging between 1.6 and 0.9 Ga (see Misra2006 for a review).

Sharma (2010) argues that the CGGC represents a separatecrustal block that accreted to the Singhbhum Craton during theProterozoic. There are any number of alternative models for thedevelopment of the CGGC and SSZ (Misra 2006). At the presenttime, it is impossible to distinguish between the many optionsand it may be that the CGGC represents the margin of the Singhb-hum Craton that was caught up in collisional orogenesis during thesuturing of the northern Indian cratons with the southern cratonsalong the CITZ between 1.6 and 1.5 Ga.

The Kolhan Group. In the southern part of the SinghbhumCraton, there is a minor supracrustal suite known as the KolhanGroup (Figs 3.7 & 3.8). The age of the Kolhan Group is uncon-strained, but Mukhopadhyay et al. (2006) argued that sedimenta-tion probably began at about 1.1 Ga and thus it would correspondto the Purana-II basinal sequences. The Kolhan Group formed inan intracratonic basin with a westward slope and was subsequentlydeformed into a synclinal structure. Elongate domes and basins anddome-in-dome structures dominate the eastern part of the basin(Naqvi & Rogers 1987). The Kolhan Group is subdivided intothree different formations: the Mungra sandstone (25 m thick), theJinkphani limestone (80 m thick) and the Jetia shale (1000 m). As awhole, the Kolhan Group is a transgressive feature that is inter-preted as having formed in a rift setting that is perhaps related tothe fragmentation of the Rodinia supercontinent (Bandopadhyay& Sengupta 2004; Mukhopadhyay et al. 2006).

Bastar Craton

The Bastar (a.k.a Bhandara or Central Indian) Craton in centralIndia (Fig. 3.9) is bordered by the Godavari rift (to the south), bythe Mahandi Rift (to the NE), by the CITZ (to the north), by theEastern Ghats mobile belt (to the east) and by the Deccan traps(to the west). The craton can be subdivided into distinct lithotec-tonic assemblages. These include a suite of basement rocks collec-tively known as the ‘Gneissic Complex’, which includes theAmgaon and Sukma gneisses. The second dominant suite includesgranitoid bodies of different ages that are intrusive into the ‘Gneis-sic Complex’.

The basement ‘Gneissic Complex’ contains tonalite–trondhje-mite gneisses and granites with ages between 2.5 and 2.6 Ga thatare interpreted to reflect a major interval of crustal accretion(Sarkar et al. 1981, 1990, 1993; Ramakrishnan 1990; Santoshet al. 2004; Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan 2008). The oldestages reported from the basement rocks were derived from a tona-lite sample with a U–Pb upper intercept age of c. 3.6 Ga (Ghosh2004), a c. 3.6 Ga age from a granitic sample (Rajesh et al.2009) and a 3.51 Ga age from a xenocrystic zircon within agneiss (Sarkar et al. 1993). The former two ages of c. 3.6 Ga




represent the oldest rocks discovered so far within PeninsularIndia, although there are some older xenocrystic zircons fromthe Singhbhum Craton (see above).

Supracrustal sequences. The Bastar Craton contains at least threemajor supracrustal/volcanic sequences of rocks (Fig. 3.9) – theDongargarh, the Sakoli and the Sausar suites – along with numer-ous scattered enclaves. There are very few age constraints on anyof these units and most are arbitrarily assigned to the Palaeopro-terozoic. Further subdivisions and supracrustal sequences aredescribed in the Bastar Craton, but a lack of geochronologicaldata makes it extremely difficult to discern if they are truly dis-tinct units or merely poorly correlated across the craton. Thuswe adopt a more simplistic subdivision for the purposes of thisintroduction.

Dongargarh Supergroup. The Dongargarh Supergroup extendsfrom the Chhattisgarh Basin in the east to the Sakoli in the westand is composed of three smaller groups of rocks, the Amagaon,Nandgaon and Khairagarh groups (Fig. 3.9).

The Amagaon granites and gneisses are presumed to haveformed during the Amagaon Orogeny at c. 2.3 Ga. The group con-sists mainly of gneisses with secondary schists and quartzites(Naqvi & Rogers 1987).

The Nandgaon Group contains two volcanic suites (the Bijliand Pitepani suites) that are dominated by rhyolites with second-ary dacites, andesites and basalts (Neogi et al. 1996). The Bijlirhyolite was dated using Rb–Sr techniques at 2180 + 25 and2503 + 35 Ma (Sarkar et al. 1981; Krishnamurthy et al. 1988)and has localized inclusions of Amagaon granite (Naqvi &Rogers 1987). The Dongarhgarh volcanic rocks have Rb–Srages of 2465 + 22 and 2270 + 90 Ma (Sarkar et al. 1981; Krish-namurthy et al. 1988). Chakraborty & Sensarma (2008) largelydismiss the inconsistency within the Rb–Sr data and argue, onthe basis of correlation with well-dated units in the SinghbhumCraton, that the Nandgoan Group was developed c. 2.5 Ga.We view all these age estimates as tentative until more preciseU–Pb ages are acquired.

The Khairagarh Group unconformably overlies the Nandgaonand consists of shales, sandstones and igneous rocks. The basal for-mations are divided into a conformable sequence the basal Shale,the Bortalao formation and an intratrappean shale (Naqvi & Rogers1987). Immediately overlying the Khairagarh Group are the Sita-gota and Mangikhuta volcanic suites separated by the Karutolasandstone (Neogi et al. 1996). The four volcanic suites withinthe Dongargarh Group erupted periodically between c. 2462 and1367 Ma (Neogi et al. 1996), but this age range is poorlyconstrained.

Sakoli Group. The Sakoli Group consists of low-grade meta-morphic rocks of undetermined age in a large synclinorium. TheSakoli Group is a volcano-sedimentary deposit comprising(youngest to oldest) slates and phyllites, bimodal volcanic suiteand schists, metabasalts and cherts and conglomerates and BIFs(Bandyopadhyay et al. 1995). Two stages of deformation arethought to have occurred, creating a sequence of overfoldedbedding and a period of progressive metamorphism followed byretrogression (Naqvi & Rogers 1987). Unconformably overlyingthe Sakoli Group are the Permo-Triassic Gondwana Supergroupand the Late Cretaceous Deccan basalts.

The age of the Sakoli Group is not known. Rb–Sr ages on meta-volcanics and tuffs yield ages of 1295 + 40 and 922 + 33 Ma, butthe significance of these ages is difficult to interpret (Bandopad-hyay et al. 1990).

Sausar Group. The Sausar Group of metasediments andmanganese-bearing ores was once thought to be the oldest for-mations in central India. The Sausar polymetamorphic belt thatcontains the sediments is part of the larger CITZ and is approxi-mately 300 km in length and 70 km in width (Naqvi & Rogers1987; Fig. 3.9). Detailed geochronological studies are lackingwithin this belt; however, Roy et al. (2006) argued that the mainphase of metamorphism (amphibolite-grade) took place between800 and 900 Ma (Rb–Sr and Sm–Nd ages). They also noted thatthe Sausar Belt was bounded on the north and south by granulitebelts of different ages. The southern granulite belt hosts a

Fig. 3.9. Map of the Bastar Craton showing the

Proterozoic sedimentary basins (Indravati,

Khariar, Pakhal, Sukma and Chhattisgarh) along

with the major cratonic elements (modified from

Meert et al. 2010).




charnockite that yielded a Sm–Nd isochron age of 2672 + 54 Ma.A mafic granulite within the southern belt yielded an Sm–Nd ageof 1403 + 99 Ma. The northern granulite yielded an Sm–Nd ageof 1112 + 77 Ma. The granulites in the north and south alsoyield Rb–Sr isochron ages in the range of 800–900 Ma.

Bhowmik et al. (2009) suggested that the pre-1.0 Ga Indianlandmass consisted of at least three microcontinental blocks, theNorth Indian block, the South Indian Block and the Marwarblock, which were united by c. 1.0 Ga (Fig. 3.1; Meert et al.2010). Peak and retrograde stages of metamorphism are recordedin schists from the central domain of the Central Indian SausarMobile Belt at 1062 + 13 Ma and 993 + 19 Ma monazite ages(Bhowmik et al. 2012). The Aravalli/Delhi region is also charac-terized by granitic intrusions with ages of c. 1.0–1.1 Ga (Deb et al.2001; Biju-Sekhar et al. 2003; Buick et al. 2006; Just et al. 2011;Meert et al. 2013). If correct, then the Sausar sedimentarysequence should be considered part of the Purana-II basins ofPeninsular India.

In contrast Stein et al. (2004) argue that the juxtapositionbetween the northern and southern Indian cratonic nuclei alongthe CITZ took place during the earliest Palaeoproterozoic basedon Re–Os ages from within the Sausar Belt (Malanjkhand grani-toid batholith). They report an Re–Os age of 2490 + 2 Ma forthe granitoid that is nearly identical to U–Pb zircon ages of2478 + 9 Ma and 2477 + 10 Ma for the same unit (Panigrahiet al. 1993). Cu–Mo–Ag mineralization ages associated withthe intrusions ranged from 2446 to 2475 Ma (Stein et al. 2004).Stein et al. (2004) note that the region underwent significantc. 1100–1000 Ma reworking, but the main assembly of cratonsoccurred during the latest Archaean to earliest Palaeoproterozoic(c. 2.5 Ga) along the Sausar Belt (e.g. CITZ).

Mafic dyke swarms. The Bastar Craton is intruded by numerousmafic dyke swarms, spanning an area of at least 17 000 km3, thatcross-cut the various granitoids and supracrustal rocks of theregion (French et al. 2008). The swarms are given regionalnames, but many may belong to the same intrusive episode.These include the Gidam–Tongpal swarm, the Bhanupratappur–Keskal swarm, the Narainpur–Kondagaon swarm and the

Bijapur–Sukma swarm (Ramachandra et al. 1995). A majorityof the dykes in the southern Bastar Craton trend NW–SE, parallel-ing the Godavari rift, and these dykes are thought to have exploitedpre-existing faults. The northern dykes are oblique to the Maha-nadi rift in a NNW–SSE direction (French et al. 2008).

Geochronological constraints on many of the swarms are poor,although recent work suggests a major episode of igneous activityand dyke intrusion around 1.9 Ga (French et al. 2008). The Palaeo-proterozoic dyke swarms are dated using U–Pb baddeleyite/zircon techniques at 1891.1 + 0.1 and 1883 + 1.4 Ma andinclude boninite–norite and subalkaline mafic dykes, most ofwhich display some degree of metamorphism (Srivastava et al.2004; French et al. 2008; Srivastava 2008). French et al. (2008)and Srivastava et al. (2004) interpreted the Precambrian dykeswarms as remnants of a large igneous province. French et al.(2008) noted that this activity is coeval with mafic magmatismin both the Superior craton of North America and along the north-ern margin of the Kaapvaal craton, although they did not link theregions together palaeogeographically and instead argued for amantle upwelling on a global scale. In contrast, Srivastava &Singh (2003) linked the dykes to Laurentia and Antarctica in a‘Columbia-type’ palaeogeography.

The younger dyke swarms represent the youngest igneousevents in the Bastar Craton and mainly include metagabbrosand metadolerites (Subba Rao et al. 2008). Hussain et al. (2008)postulated that these dykes were derived from subductionconstituents that were altered in the mantle lithosphere. Asubduction-related genesis is consistent with the increased incom-patible lithophile elements seen in the geochemical analysis(Subba Rao et al. 2008), but this does not preclude differentgenetic models for the younger dykes. Recent geochronologicalevidence from the more felsic end-members of these dykes(Lakhna Swarm) yielded a SHRIMP U–Pb age of 1450 Ma(Ratre et al. 2010) and U–Pb zircon age of 1466 Ma for a rhyoliticdyke (Pisarevsky et al. 2012).

Sedimentary basins. The Bastar Craton contains two large Purana-II basins, the Chhattisgarh Basin and the Indravati Basin, along withfour minor basins with poorer age constraints (Figs 3.9 & 3.10). It

Fig. 3.10. Correlation of sedimentary basins in the Dharwar and Bastar cratons (modified from Conrad et al. 2011), excluding the Cuddapah Basin.




is likely that these were all part of a single large basin and the out-crops are now isolated via differential erosion.

The 36 000 km2 Chhattisgarh Basin comprises a c. 1500 m-thicksedimentary layer (the Chhattisgarh Supergroup) of conglomerates,orthoquartzites, sandstones, shales, limestones, cherts and dolo-mites (Fig. 3.10; Naqvi & Rogers 1987; Wani & Mondal 2011).The sedimentary sequence has been divided into a basal Chandar-pur series and an upper Raipur series (Naqvi & Rogers 1987;Patranabis-Deb et al. 2007). The Chandarpur Group consists ofa shale-dominated sequence containing conglomerate and coarsearkose sandstone formed as coalescing fan–fan delta deposits,storm-dominated shelf deposits and high-energy shoreface depos-its. Deposition in the Raipur Group took place along the outer shelfand slope and consists of a limestone–shale-dominated sequence(Chaudhuri et al. 2002).

In the eastern part of the basin lies the ‘Purana’ succession.The Purana contains a proximal conglomerate–shale–sandstoneassemblage and a distal limestone–shale assemblage. Theconglomerate–shale–sandstone assemblage unconformably over-lies the basement and is thought to correspond to the Chandarpurgroup. The limestone–shale assemblage, on the other hand, isthought to correspond to the Raipur series (Patranabis-Deb 2004).

The age of the Chhattisgarh Supergroup is becoming bet-ter established. Previous thoughts extended deposition withinthe Chhattisgarh Basin to as young as 500 Ma (Naqvi 2005).However, rhyolitic tuffs near the top of the Chhattisgarh sequence(the Sukhda and Sapos tuffs) yielded ages of 1011 + 19 and990 + 23 Ma (Sukhda tuff ) and 1020 + 15 Ma (Sapos tuff ) usingU–Pb SHRIMP techniques on magmatic zircons (Patranabis-Debet al. 2007; Bickford et al. 2011a, b). This led the authors of thatpaper to conclude that the Purana basins may be up to 500 Maolder than the ‘consensus’ agreement. A tuff from the basal partof the Chhattisgarh (Singhora Group) is dated to c. 1500 Ma.

Indravati, Khariar, Pakhal and Sukma basins. The 9000 km2

Indravati Basin consists of shales, dolomites, sandstones, quartzarenites, limestones and conglomerates, showing little to no defor-mation or metamorphism (Fig. 3.10). The sediments are thought tohave a shallow-marine or lagoonal depositional environment(Maheshwari et al. 2005). The basin is lithologically similar tothe Chhattisgarh and it is postulated that at one point the twowere connected and later eroded into what are now discretebasins (Naqvi & Rogers 1987). The sandstone member is corre-lated with the Chopardih Formation of the Chhattisgarh Basinand was dated to 700–750 Ma using K–Ar on glauconite(Kruezer et al. 1977). More recently, Mukherjee et al. (2012)dated a tuff layer near the top of the Indravati sequence (JagdalpurFormation) to c. 1000 Ma, strengthening the connection to theChhattisgarh Basin.

Less is known about the stratigraphy and age of the remainingsmaller basins (Khariar, Pakhal, Sukma; see Fig. 10.9). Daset al. (2009) dated monazite grains found in a tuff layer near thebase of the Khariar Basin and obtained a cluster of ages at1455 + 47 Ma. Dykes of the Lakhna swarm (1450–1460 Ma)intrude the Bastar Craton and Ratre et al. (2010) argue that thesedykes are eroded by the overlying Khariar sediments and thusthe onset of sedimentation must be younger than c. 1460 Ma(Purana-II). Das et al. (2011) argued that this lower part of theKhariar Basin is correlative to the Singhora Group of the Chhattis-garh Basin. We agree with this conclusion, but note that there isdisagreement regarding the closure age of these basins (Ratreet al. 2010).

Dharwar Craton

Eastern Dharwar domain. The Dharwar Craton is split intoeastern and western domains. The western boundary of theEastern Dharwar domain (EDD) is poorly defined and is

constrained to a 200 km-wide lithological transitional zone fromthe peninsular gneisses of the Western Dharwar Craton to the Clo-sepet Granite (Fig. 3.11). The Closepet Granite is a good approxi-mation of the western boundary (Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan2008). The EDD is bounded to the north by the Deccan traps andthe Bastar Craton, to the east by the Eastern Ghats mobile belt,and to the south by the Southern Granulite terrane (Balakrishnanet al. 1999). Major lithotectonic units include the Dharwar Batho-lith (dominantly granitic), greenstone belts, intrusive volcanics andmiddle Proterozoic to more recent sedimentary basins (Fig. 3.11;Naqvi & Rogers 1987; Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan 2008).There are a number of sedimentary basins resting on the basementof the EDD, including the Cuddapah, Pranhita–Godavari andKurnool (Figs 3.10 & 3.11).

Greenstone belts. Greenstone and schist belts of the EDD areconcentrated in the western portion of the domain. These north–south-trending belts diminish in the east and are ultimatelycovered by the Cuddapah Basin (Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan2008). Metamorphism is limited to greenschist/amphibolite facies(Chadwick et al. 2000).

A number of reliable age determinations have been published inrecent years for some of the larger belts (Chardon et al. 2002;Anand 2007; Rogers et al. 2007; Sarma et al. 2008; 3).

Age determinations from the c. 40 km-wide Kolar Schist Beltrange from 3.1 to about 2.5 Ga (Balakrishnan 1990; Krogstad et al.1991; Jayananda et al. 2000, 2013; Chardon et al. 2002). The bulkof the ages cluster around 2.5–2.6 Ga and Jayananda et al. (2013)suggested a three-phase evolution of the belt with greenstoneemplacement around 3.1 Ga, felsic and granitic intrusions around2.7 Ga and late-phase felsic magmatism around 2.5 Ga.

The Sandur schist belt, located to the north of the ClosepetGranite, is characterized by greenschist–facies metamorphism withamphibolite grade rocks occurring at the margins (Fig. 3.10; Naqvi& Rogers 1987). Granites within the Sandur Schist Belt weredated using SHRIMP U–Pb at 2600–2500 Ma (Ramakrishnan &Vaidyanadhan 2008). Rhyolites from the Sandur greenstone beltyield a SHRIMP zircon U–Pb age of 2658 + 14 Ma (Nutmanet al. 1996) and Naqvi et al. (2002) reported Sm–Nd ages of2706 + 84 Ma for basalts and komatiites.

The Ramagiri Penakacherla Sirigeri and Hundgund belts(RPSH) represent two discontinuus schist belts in the EDD. TheRPSH belts are intruded by a series of granites and gneisses thatprovide minimum age constraints for the metamorphic protolithsof .c. 2500 Ma. Basalts from the Ramigiri greenstone belt aredated to 2746 + 64 Ma (Pb/Pb; Zachariah et al. 1995) andappear to be coeval with those of the nearby Sandur greenstone.Jayananda et al. (2013) summarized geochronological data fromthis region and ages range from c. 2470 to 2707 Ma. The olderages (c. 2700 Ma) are derived from pyroclastic and metabasaltswhereas gneiss and granitoid ages from Chenna and Central Rami-giri belts date to between 2550 and 2650 Ma (Balakrishnan et al.1999; Zachariah et al. 1995).

The Kolar–Kadiri–Jonnagiri–Hutti (KKJH) superbelt is locatedin the southern portion of the EDD and is a discontinuous band oflinear belts (Fig. 3.11). The southern portion of the superbeltgrades into a characteristic charnockitic terrain, while the northend (Kadiri belt) disappears beneath the Cuddapah Basin. Felsicvolcanics in the Kadiri belt were recently dated to 2556 Ma (Jaya-nanda et al. 2013). The Kolar region contains mostly amphibolitegrade metamorphic rocks. As with the other greenstone belts in theregion, the KKJH is intruded by various felsic dykes that provideminimum age constraints. Pb/Pb isochron data provide an upperestimate at 2700 Ma for the protolith. This age is consistent withSHRIMP U–Pb zircon analysis of granites and gneisses locatedin the belt (Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan 2008). A secondSHRIMP U–Pb zircon age of c. 2550 Ma was found in variousintrusions within the KKJH, which provides a younger limit forthe superbelt (Rogers et al. 2007). Ages in the Hutti belt (granitoids,




rhyolites, felsic volcanics) cluster around 2550 Ma (Vasudev et al.2000; Anand 2007; Rogers et al. 2007; Sarma et al. 2008; Jaya-nanda et al. 2013).

The Velligallu–Raichur–Gadwal (VRG) belt is located to thesouth of, beneath and north of the Cuddapah Basin (Fig. 3.11).The group is split to the south of the basin and emerges to thenorth as a single unit before diverging again. The southernportion is divided by granite and is composed of metabasalts(amphibolites). The northern portion contains pillowed metaba-salts and boninites that are typically formed during the earlystages of subduction. Jayananda et al. (2013) report a secondaryion mass spectrometry (SIMS) U–Pb age of 2697 Ma for felsicvolcanic rocks in the Veligallu belt.

Maibam et al. (2011) obtained a number of 207Pb/206Pb agesfrom metasedimentary rocks in the southern part of the DharwarCraton near Bangalore. Older ‘cores’ yielded ages in the rangefrom 3.3 to 3.5 Ga (along with younger 2.5–2.9 Ga ages).

In summary, age constraints on the greenstone belts in the EDDare known from only a few locations and all appear to be Neoarch-aean in age as compared with those in the Western Dharwardomain (WDD) described below. The relationships and stratigra-phy of the gneissic rocks in the region are difficult to discernmainly owing to the dismembered nature of the outcrop and thelimited geochronology.

Dharwar Batholith. The Dharwar Batholith is a term first usedby Chadwick et al. (2000) to describe a series of parallel plutonicbelts (Fig. 3.11). Peninsular gneisses refer to the majority of thefelsic basement rocks within the EDD; however, the EDD rocksare compositionally different than the WDD gneisses, more grani-tic than gneissic, and hence the new terminology of Dharwar Bath-olith is more appropriate for these plutonic belts (Ramakrishnan &Vaidyanadhan 2008). Age constraints from the WDD Peninsulargneisses suggest an early Archaean age, whereas the graniticgneisses of the Dharwar Batholith are of late Archaean age. Theplutonic belts are approximately 15–25 km wide, hundreds ofkilometres long and separated by greenstone belts (describedabove). They trend NW–SE except for in the south, where thetrends become predominantly north–south. The belts are mostlymixtures of juvenile granites and diorites (Chadwick et al. 2000;Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan 2008). Geochronological infor-mation for these intrusions is derived from SHRIMP U–Pbzircon measurements that constrain the emplacement of theDharwar Batholith to between 2700 and 2500 Ma (Friend &Nutman 1991; Krogstad et al. 1995; Nutman et al. 1996;Nutman & Ehlers 1998). Ages for granitic units appear to decreasefrom west to east; however, gneissic protolith ages of .2900 Maare inferred from inherited zircons within younger dykes near Har-ohalli intruding the gneissic rocks (Pradhan et al. 2008).

East

ern

Gha

tsM

obile

Belt

Western DharwarDomain

Southern Granulites

BastarCraton

200 km

Deccan Basalts

Dharwar Batholith

Greenstone Belts

Closepet Granite

Proterozoic Basins

Cuddapah

BhimaBasin

Godavari Basin

KaladgiBasin

BasinA

TH&B

MH

N

76 78 8074 82

16

18

20

14

12

Kimberlite/Lamproite

KKJH

RPSH

Sa

VRG

VRG

Mafic dyke swarms

Fig. 3.11. Map of the Eastern Dharwar domain.

Regions in polygons represent major dyke

swarms within the EDD. H&B, Harohalli and

Bangalore dyke swarm; T, Tirupati dyke swarm;

A, Anantapur dyke swarm; M, Mahabubnagar

dyke swarm; H, Hyderabad dyke swarm; RPSH,

Ramagiri–Penakacherla–Sirigeri–Hundgund

Belt; VRG, Velligalu–Raichur–Gadwal Belt;

KKJH, Kolar–Kadiri–Jonnaguri–Hutti Belt

(modified from Meert et al. 2010).




Closepet Granite. The Closepet Granite is located on thewestern margin of the EDD and is a linear batholith that trendsc. north–south. The granite is 400 km long and approximately20–30 km wide with sheared margins. Recent studies suggestthat the similar convexities of adjacent schist belts and graniticplutons may indicate that the Closepet is a ‘stitching pluton’formed during the suturing of the Eastern and Western Dharwarcratons (Fig. 3.11; Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan 2008). Theexposed rock is divided into northern and southern componentsby a part of the Sandur Schist belt; however, both sectionsappear to be lithologically similar at the outcrop level (Naqvi &Rogers 1987). The Closepet Granite is dated to 2513 + 5 Ma(Friend & Nutman 1991) and appears to be part of a widespreadNeoarchaean phase of plutonism (Mojzsis et al. 2003; Maibamet al. 2011; Jayananda et al. 2013) in both the eastern andwestern Dharwar domains that we consider to mark the stabiliz-ation age for the WDD and EDD.

Post-cratonization intrusive events. The majority of intrusiveevents of the EDD are represented by mafic dykes, kimberlitesand lamproites. Many of the clusters occur around the CuddapahBasin and have three main trends: NW–SE, east–west and NE–SW. These trends are associated with various palaeostress orien-tations during the Proterozoic to Late Cretaceous (Srivastava &Shah 2008). Most of the dykes disappear beneath the CuddapahBasin, indicating that intrusion of the host granitic–gneiss tookplace before the basin developed. These dykes all formed afterthe migmatitic activity of the host granitoids and are virtuallyfree of any effects of metamorphism and deformation (Chakrabartiet al. 2004; Radhakrishna et al. 2013). Five major dyke clusters ofthe EDC, described below, include: (1) Hyderabad, (2) Mahbubna-gar, (3) Harohalli/Bangalore, (4) Anantapur and (5) Tirupati/Chitoor (Fig. 3.11).

The Hyderabad cluster is located to the north of the CuddapahBasin (Fig. 3.11). Widely spaced NNE–SSW- to north–south-trending dykes traverse ENE–WSW- and WNW–ESE-orienteddykes. The majority of the dykes present are doleritic in compo-sition (Murthy 1995). Whole-rock K–Ar ages of local dykes indi-cate emplacement between 1471 + 54 and 1335 + 49 Ma(Mallikarjuna et al. 1995), but these may well reflect a younger iso-topic disturbance. Recent geochronological studies in the areademonstrate that some of the east–west-trending dykes arearound 2.4 Ga (Kumar et al. 2012a) or the north–south-trendingdykes are around 2.2 Ga (Kumar et al. 2012b).

Located to the NW of the Cuddapah Basin (Fig. 3.11), the Maha-bubnagar dyke swarm intrudes local granitic gneisses with Rb–Srages of 2.5–2.4 and 2.2–2.1 Ga. The mafic dykes are predomi-nantly gabbroic; however, dolerite and metapyroxenite are alsopresent. They are oriented NW–SE and can be up to 50 km longand average 5–30 m wide. Chilled margins are common withcoarse aphyric or plagioclase-rich interiors. Pooled regressionresults from Sm–Nd analysis give an emplacement age of2173 + 64 Ma (Pandey et al. 1997). These results are duplicatedby French et al. (2004), who obtained ages of c. 2180 Ma usingU–Pb techniques on nearby dykes. In light of the Sm–Nd andU–Pb ages for the dykes, it appears that the 2.2–2.1 Ga Rb–Srages cited above for the gneisses in the region may reflect disturb-ance owing to dyke intrusion.

The Harohalli/Bangalore swarm is located between the south-western portion of the Cuddapah Basin and the southeasternlimb of the Closepet Granite (Fig. 3.11). The dyke cluster is splitinto an older group made up of dolerites, trending east–west (Ban-galore dyke swarm), and a younger group of alkaline dykes thattrend approximately north–south (Harohalli alkaline dykes;Pradhan et al. 2008). The Bangalore dyke swarm providedrobust U–Pb ages of 2365.5 + 1.1 and 2370 + 1 Ma (Frenchet al. 2004; Halls et al. 2007). Initial Rb–Sr whole-rock measure-ments of the Harohalli alkaline dykes constrained ages to 850–800 Ma (Ikramuddin & Stueber 1976; Anil-Kumar et al. 1989).

However, U–Pb ages of 1192 + 10 Ma produced by Pradhanet al. (2008) on the alkaline dykes challenge these earlier esti-mates. East–west-, north–south- and NE–SW-trending dykesare also found nearby in the Tiptur–Hassan region. These dykesare assigned to the 2.4 Ga cluster (Halls et al. 2007; Belica et al.2014), the 2.2 Ga swarm (Kumar et al. 2012b) or the 1.9 Gaswarm (Belica et al. 2014).

Just west of the Cuddapah Basin is the Anantapur dyke swarm(Fig. 3.11). This cluster is less studied than other areas; however,some poorly constrained ages are available. The NE–SW- andENE–WSW-oriented dykes of the Anantapur swarm are datedusing K–Ar measurements and are poorly constrained between1900–1700 and 1500–1350 Ma, respectively (Murthy et al.1987; Mallikarjuna et al. 1995). Several detailed palaeomagneticstudies on dykes from this region indicate that the dykes are partof several larger swarms, including the 2.4 and 1.9 Ga swarmsseen elsewhere in the Dharwar and Bastar cratons (Halls et al.2007; Meert et al. 2011; Piispa et al. 2011; Belica et al. 2014).Additional considerations based on cross-cutting relationshipsbetween dykes in this area suggest that a c. 2.0–2.1 Ga dykeswarm is also present in the region (Belica et al. 2014).

To the south of the Cuddapah Basin is a very dense cluster ofmostly east–west-trending dykes (with subordinate NW–SEtrends). These are the so-called Tirupati (or Chitoor) cluster.There are K–Ar and 40Ar/39Ar age determinations on dykes inthe Tirupati/Chitoor swarm. The east–west-trending dykes haveK–Ar ages of 1073 and 1349 Ma and one 40Ar/39Ar total fusionage of 1333 + 4 Ma (Mallikarjuna et al. 1995); however, it islikely that these ages reflect some disturbance in the K–Arsystem rather than crystallization ages. NW–SE-trending dykeshave K–Ar ages of 935 and 1280 Ma (Mallikarjuna et al. 1995),but French & Heaman (2010) show that at least one of thesedykes is c. 2.2 Ga. Disturbed 40Ar/39Ar ages by Goutham et al.(2011) yielded ages of 1200 and 800 Ma, but the palaeomagneticdirections in that study are consistent with Neoproterozoic over-prints seen elsewhere in the Dharwar Craton or with well-dated1.9 Ga palaeomagnetic poles (Halls et al. 2007; Pradhan et al.2008; Belica et al. 2014).

Kimberlites and lamproites are found in relative abundance infour areas within the EDC. Concentrations can be found distribu-ted around the Cuddapah Basin (Kumar et al. 2007; Fig. 3.11).They are characteristically potassic volcanic rocks that are some-times diamondiferous. The main areas of kimberlite–lamproiteintrusions are known as the Wajrakarur, Narayanpet, Krishna andNallamalai fields. Each of these fields contains multiple pipes.There are excellent age constraints on many of these fields. TheWajrakur field is probably the best dated of the four. Rb–Srages on the Wajrakur field form a tight cluster between 1091 and1102 Ma and a recent U–Pb age on perovskite is 1124þ5/23 Ma (Kumar et al. 2007). A newly discovered cluster atSidanpalli (north of Wajrakur) yielded an Rb–Sr whole-rockmineral isochron age of 1093 + 4 Ma (Kumar et al. 2007).Miller & Hargraves (1994) report a U–Pb perovskite age of1079 Ma for the Mulgiripalli pipe, but analytical details were notprovided. Rb–Sr ages on kimberlites from the Kotakondaand Mudalbid kimberlite intrusions yielded ages of 1084 + 14and 1098 + 12 Ma (Kumar et al. 2001). It should be noted thatthere are 40Ar/39Ar ages from the Kotakonda kimberlite that aremuch older. Chalapathi Rao et al. (1999) obtained plateau agesof 1401 + 5 Ma for a phlogopite separate from Kotakonda and1417 + 8 Ma from a lamproite at Chelima. The discrepancy inthe Rb–Sr and 40Ar/39Ar ages from Kotakonda was recentlyaddressed by Gopalan & Kumar (2008), who applied KCa dat-ing to samples from the Kotakonda swarm and obtained agesof 1068 + 19 Ma. Gopalan & Kumar (2008) argue that the40Ar/39Ar results of Chalapathi Rao et al. (1999) are affected byexcess argon and the Kotakonda field is c. 1100 Ma. It is unclearif the intrusion at Chelima represents an older suite of lamproiticintrusion. It is possible that the kimberlitic intrusions into the




Dharwar Craton all occurred within a relatively narrow time framefrom c. 1050 to 1100 Ma. It should be noted that many other kim-berlites around the globe were emplaced during this same intervalof time, including elsewhere in India (Majhgawan, MadhyaPradesh for example).

Sedimentary basins in the Dharwar CratonCuddapah basin. The Cuddapah Basin, located in the eastern

portion of the EDD, is one of the best studied basins in India(Figs 3.10–3.12). It covers an area of approximately 44 500 km2

and the convex western margin spans nearly 440 km. Theeastern margin of the basin is demarcated by a thrust fault whileall other boundaries are part of the ‘Epi-Archaean Unconformity’(a non-conformity associated with undisturbed contact with olderArchaean rocks). The sediments and minor volcanics of thebasin are estimated to be approximately 12 km thick and madeup of two distinct stratigraphic groups (Fig. 3.12). The CuddapahSupergroup is the older unit and is present throughout the basin.The Kurnool Group was deposited unconformably over the Cudda-pah rocks and is concentrated in the western portion of the basin.The Cuddapah Basin is surrounded by granitic gneisses, dykesand sills, which terminate at the basin boundary and appear topredate deposition within the basin. The youngest igneous activityin the basin is the kimberlite and lamproite field located near thebasin centre (Fig. 3.11; Chakrabarti et al. 2007).

Two competing hypotheses for the initiation of basinal subsi-dence and deposition were forwarded. Chatterjee & Bhattacharji(2001) propose that the basin was formed owing to a mantle-induced thermal trigger. Evidence for this comes from the pres-ence of a large subsurface mafic body in the southwesternportion of the basin that provided episodic magmatism to formthe abundant dykes and lava flows in and around the basin. Theages for this magmatic event cluster around 1.9–2.1 Ga (ages ofdykes, sills and volcanics near the basal part of the CuddapahSupergroup). A second hypothesis suggests that deep basin marginfaults played a major role in controlling the evolution of the basin(Chaudhuri et al. 2002). Evidence for these marginal faults comesfrom seismic studies and Bouguer anomaly interpretations.

Lower limits for the onset of basin formation (assuming athermal origin) can be inferred by ages of a mafic dyke on theSW border of the craton and the Pullivendla sill along the west-ern margin of the basin. Chatterjee & Bhattacharji (2001) reportan 40Ar–39Ar age of 1879 + 5 Ma for the mafic dyke that iscoeval with the 1885.4 + 3.1 Ma U–Pb age on the Pulivendla Sillby French et al. (2008). Palaeomagnetic data from the c. 1.9 GaBastar dykes are identical to the Cuddapah traps volcanics, Cudda-pah Basin sediments and the Pullivendla sill (Clark 1982; Meertet al. 2011; Belica et al. 2014). The available evidence suggestsa thermal pulse of c. 1.9 Ga for the initiation of Purana-I basin for-mation in the Cuddapah (Cuddapah Supergroup sediments).

Fig. 3.12. Cuddapah Basin stratigraphic nomenclature includes (from base to top of section), the Papaghni Group, Chitravati Group, Nallamalai Group and Kurnool

Group (after Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan 2008).




Sedimentation in the Cuddapah Basin was discontinuous andnumerous unconformities exist within the Cuddapah Supergroup.A major unconformity separates the Cuddapah Supergroup fromthe overlying Kurnool Group, but there are also important uncon-formities present within the Cuddapah Supergroup as well. Anangular unconformity exists between the Chitravati Group andthe overlying Nallamalai Group (Fig. 3.12). The NallamalaiGroup and overlying Srisailam quartzite may represent Purana-IIbasinal development although there no age controls to confirmthis hypothesis.

Temporal constraints on the Kurnool Supergroup (Fig. 3.12) arelacking, but Goutham et al. (2006) correlate the Kurnool Groupsediments with those in the Upper Vindhyan and assign all to theNeoproterozoic; however, such a correlation is based more on tra-dition rather than on strong correlative evidence and radiometricdating. The Kurnool Group would therefore be one of thePurana-III basins in India.

Pranhita–Godavari Basin. The Pranhita–Godavari (P–G)Basin is made up of two NW–SE-trending basins sandwichedbetween the Dharwar and Bastar cratons (Figs 3.1, 3.10 & 3.11).It is one of several Purana basins formed (at least partially) onthe Dharwar Craton. The Cuddapah (see above) lies to the southof the P–G Basin and the Bhima (discussed below) Basin lies tothe SW. The Palaeozoic–Mesozoic-aged Gondwana sedimentslay between the eastern and western portions of the P–G Basin(Chaudhuri 2003; Ramakrishnan & Vaidyanadhan 2008). Thesedimentary sequence within the basin consists of a series ofunconformity-bounded packages reaching an aggregate thicknessof up to 6000 m. The rocks are mildly deformed and weaklymetamorphosed.

There are numerous stratigraphic interpretations (and names)for the P–G sequence, but we present the version favoured byChaudhuri (2003) and Conrad et al. (2011). According to theseclassification schemes, the basinal sediments are collectively refer-red to as the Godavari Supergroup and contain three unconformity-bounded groups (from oldest to youngest) known as the PakhalGroup, the Penganga (or Albaka) Group and the Sullavai Group(Fig. 3.10).

In the southwestern basin, the basal Pakhal Group is composedof two subunits called the Mallampalli and Mulug subgroups. TheMallampalli Subgroup is predominantly limestone and quartzarenite whereas the Mulug Subgroup contains a basal conglomer-ate followed by a carbonate-rich shelfal sequence. Unconformablyoverlying the Pakhal Group is the Penganga (Albaka) Group com-posed of mature sandstones and shales and the Chanda limestone.The uppermost Sullavai Group is floored by a conglomerate andis composed of aeolian sandstones (Fig. 3.9; Conrad et al. 2011).

The northeastern basin contains Mulug Subgroup (PakhalGroup), the Penganga (Albaka) Group and the Sullavai Groupsediments. The Proterozoic sedimentary sequence is unconform-ably overlain by the Palaeozoic–Mesozoic-aged GondwanaSupergroup.

Age constraints are limited within the basin. Chaudhuri (2003)gives a range between 1330 and 790 Ma for the sequence.Conrad et al. (2011) provided 40Ar/39Ar ages for diagenetic glau-conite at various levels within the P–G basin. The Pakhal Group(Purana-1 Basin) yielded ages between 1565 and 1686 Ma and asingle age determination of 1180 Ma was obtained from the over-lying Penganga Group. Given the lacunae present in the sequenceand the correlations made between the Pranhita–Godavari Basin(Dharwar Craton) and the nearby Chhattisgarh, Indravati andKhariar basins (Bastar Craton), we conclude that all three mainbasinal sequences (Purana-I, II and III) may be represented inthis region of India (Fig. 3.10).

Bhima–Kaladgi basins. The Bhima Basin is located betweenthe northern margin of the EDD and the Deccan Trap flows(Figs 3.10 & 3.11). The basin is much smaller than the Cuddapah

and covers 5200 km2, with the longest portion having an axis of160 km (NE–SW). The southern portion of the basin is boundedby an unconformity with the underlying granitic gneisses whilethe east–west and NW–SE borders are fault bounded. The fullextent of the basin is unknown owing to the Deccan Traps coveringthe basin to the north. The Bhima Group is predominantly com-posed of limestones; however, sandstone and conglomerate bedsrest between the basement and the upper sequence limestones.The oldest age for the formation of the Bhima Basin is constrainedby the underlying granitic gneisses to c. 2500 Ma (Sastry et al.1999). It is currently under debate as to whether the basin formedduring the Meso- (Purana II) or Neoproterozoic (Purana-III;Patranabis-Deb et al. 2007; Malone et al. 2008).

Western Dharwar Domain

The WDD is located in SW India (Fig. 3.13). It is bounded tothe east by the EDD, to the west by the Arabian Sea and to thesouth by a transition into the so-called ‘Southern Granuliteterrane’. The remaining boundary to the north is buried underyounger sediments and the Cretaceous-age Deccan Traps. Thedivision between the Western and EDDs is based on the natureand abundance of greenstones, as well as the age of surround-ing basement and degree of regional metamorphism (Rollinsonet al. 1981).

The Archaean TTGs are found throughout the WDD, dated at3.3–3.4 Ga via whole-rock Rb–Sr and Pb/Pb methods (Pitcha-muthu & Srinivasan 1984; Bhaskar Rao et al. 1991; Naha et al.1991). U–Pb zircon ages ranging from 3.5 to 3.6 Ga have alsobeen published. Three generations of volcanic–sedimentarygreenstone granite sequences are present in the WDC: the 3.1–3.3 Ga Sargur Group, the 2.6–2.9 Ga Dharwar Supergroup (Rad-hakrishna & Vaidyanadhan 1997) and 2.5–2.6 Ga calc-alkalineto high potassic granitoids, the largest of which is the ClosepetGranite (Jayananda et al. 2008). The Dharwar supracrustal rocksuncomformably overlie widespread gneiss–migmatite of thePeninsular Gneiss Complex (3.0–3.3 Ga) that encloses theSargur schist belts (Naqvi & Rogers 1987).

The WDC shows an increase in regional metamorphic gradefrom greenschist and amphibolite facies in the north and granulitefacies in the south. The metamorphic grade increase corresponds toa palaeopressure increase from 3 to 4 kbar in the amphibolite faciesto as much as 9–10 kbar (35 km palaeodepth) in the highest-gradegranulite-transition zone along the southern margin of the craton(Mojzsis et al. 2003). A nearly continuous cross-section of LateArchaean crust that has been tectonically upturned and channelledby erosion is exposed in the WDC.

The Sargur Group

The Sargur Group greenstone belts display well-preserved volcano-sedimentary sequences. Generally, the Sargur contains ultramaficto mafic volcanic rocks (komatiitic to tholeiitic sources) thatshows an up-section transition to calc-alkaline felsic volcanicrocks (Naqvi 1981; Srikantia & Bose 1985; Charan et al. 1988; Sri-kantia & Venkataramana, 1989; Srikantia & Rao 1990; Venkata-dasu et al. 1991; Devapriyan et al. 1994; Subba Rao & Naqvi1999; Paranthaman 2005). These volcano-sedimentary sequencesare found in the Ghattihosahalli, J.C. Pura, Bansandra, Kalyadiand Nuggihalli areas (Jayananda et al. 2008).

The Sargur Group developed from several distinct geodynamicprocesses across a span of millions of years. Detrital zirconsfrom the schist yield a Pb/Pb evaporation age of c. 3.3 Ga.SHRIMP U–Pb analysis yielded ages between 3.1 and 3.3 Ga,with some analyses yielding a 3.6 Ga age inherited from the pro-tolith. Sm–Nd model ages of c. 3.1 Ga were calculated from theultramafic units. When taken together, this geochronological




dataset may constrain the age of the Sargur group to c. 3.1 Ga. Theolder ages present in these analyses are probably inherited from thebasement material, and may represent the older limit of the group.The Sargur unit appears to have formed in a subduction setting,probably derived from the melting of oceanic slab materials(Martin 1986). Komatiites found in the Sargur Group are inter-preted by Jayananda et al. (2008) to be related to plume events,and may have originally been elements of oceanic plateaus.These accreted oceanic plateaus then served as a base for furthersubduction-related processes, represented by the series of maficto felsic volcanic units emplaced over and intruded the ultramaficplateau sequences (Jayananda et al. 2008).

The komatiitic–tholeiitic volcanism observed in the WDCis part of a larger-scale process that led to the growth of theproto-craton. The 3.35 Ga volcanism appears to have been pene-contemporaneous with the formation of the TTG basement, andprovided hosting for the intrusion of the TTG protoliths. The melt-ing events that led to the ultra-mafic volcanism occurred over arange of depths and co-existed with mantle peridotite; however,evidence for the presence of garnet in the residue is unclear (Jaya-nanda et al. 2008). Trace element and Nd isotope data rule out theassimilation of continental materials into the magma. Instead, thekomatiite magmas show the characteristic geochemical evidenceof a depleted mantle source (Boyet & Carlson 2005). Mantledepletion at 3.35 Ga is potentially significant. It would suggestthat the earlier extraction of enriched materials from the mantlehad depleted the upper mantle prior to 3.35 Ga.

The Dharwar Supergroup. The Dharwar Supergroup is exposed intwo large schist belts that have been divided into two subsections,the Bababudan Group and the Chitradurga Group (Hokada et al.2013). The Bababudan Group is spread over a 300 km-long and100–150 km-wide area, and is made up of the Babadudan schistbelt, the Western Ghats belt and the Shimoga schist belt. The Baba-budan schist belt covers an area of approximately 2500 km2. Thebase of this unit is represented by the Kartikere conglomeratethat discontinuously extends along the southern margin of thebelt for c. 40 km. This unit grades into a quartzite. The detrital

zircon population from the quartzite suggests that the sedimentswere mainly derived from the Chikmagalur granodiorite. Theoverlying formations typically consist of metabasalts with interca-lated metasedimentary units, with occasional gabbroic sills, minorBIF and phyllites. These are thought to represent a variety of ter-restrial environments, ranging from braided fluvial systems to sub-aereal lava flows. The Western Ghats Belt is a large schist beltabout 2200 km2 in extent, and about 150 by 15 km in dimension.The stratigraphy closely resembles the Babaudan belt; however,a major group of basalts, felsic volcanics and pyroclastic units isalso seen in the upper levels. The Shimoga schist belt is a large(25 000 km2) NW-trending belt separated from the previous twoby outcropping TTG basement gneiss. The contact betweenthese basement gneisses and the schist belt is observed as a zoneof high-grade metamorphism, often with kyanite and garnetphases present. Granitioid intrusions are also present in the northof the belt.

Proterozoic dyke swarms. Mafic dyke swarms varying in orien-tation and composition intrude many areas of the WDC. Murthyet al. (1987) noted that the dykes are prevalent north of latitude138N and east of longitude 788E, but that the dykes trend outtowards latitude 128N and are nearly gone south of latitude118N. All of the dykes post-date migmatitic activity in the hostgranitoids and are thus free from overprints of deformationand metamorphism.

There are three main dyke swarms of Proterozoic age in theWestern Dharwar Craton known as (a) the Hassan–Tiptur dykes;(b) the Mysore dykes; and (c) the ‘Dharwar’ dykes (Radhakrishna& Mathew 1993).

The Hassan–Tiptur dyke swarm contains two suites of dykes anolder amphibolite and epidioritic swarm and younger and morewidespread doleritic dykes. Age constraints are lacking on bothsuites of dykes. The Mysore dykes trend east–west and form adense swarm near the town of Mysore. Recent geochronologicaland palaeomagnetic studies on these dyke swarms indicate thatthree phases of dyke intrusions are present in the swarms (c. 2.4,c. 2.2 and 1.9 Ga; Belica et al. 2014).

Fig. 3.13. Sketch map of the western Dharwar

Craton showing major lithological boundaries

after Naqvi & Rogers (1987) and Ramakrishnan

& Vaidyanadhan (2008).




Proterozoic sedimentary basins. The east–west-trending Kaladgi–Badami basin is the only significant Proterozoic intracratonicbasin of the Western Darwar craton located along the northernedge of the craton (Fig. 3.13). This basin formed on TTG gneissesand greenstones of Archaean age. The Kaladgi Supergroup pre-serves the record of sedimentation in the basin, and consists ofsandstones, mudstones and carbonates. The textural and miner-alogical maturity of this basin increased over time, indicatingthat the regional relief surrounding the basin declined over time,with the clastic sediments being derived from the local gneissand greenstone rock (Dey et al. 2009). An angular unconformitybetween the two constituent groups (the lower Bagalkot and over-lying Badami) suggests a period of uplift in the basin’s history(Jayaprakash et al. 1987). Deformation in the Bagalkot group issignificant, whereas the upper group exhibited only mild defor-mation (Kale & I’hansalkar 1991).

Granitic intrusions. Late to post-tectonic Dharwar potassicgranite plutons (c. 2.5–2.6 Ga) that are assumed to reflect crustalreworking in WDC occur as isolated intrusions cutting across thefoliation and banding of the Peninsular genisses (c. 3.0 Ga; Jaya-nanda et al. 2006). In many cases, these plutons occur as distincttypes either separately or as parts of larger composite intrusions,probably related to the generation of melts at differing depthswithin the crust (Sylvester 1994). Several classes of TTGs arepresent as well, broadly split into classical TTG and transitionalTTG that formed 500 Ma later. These transitional TTGs arebelieved to be lower crustal-derived melts, and share the garnetresidue signal of the high-K granites; however, this similaritymay also indicate a mixing between these two melts (Jayanandaet al. 2006). There is still uncertainty as to the role the late potassicgranites played in the cratonization of the WDC. Jayananda et al.(2006) suggest that either they may be related to a thermal eventprior to the termination of craton stabilization, or they actuallyrepresent part of a longer-term (c. 100 Ma long) stabilization.Geochronological controls on these intrusions are taken fromTaylor et al. (1984) and range from 3080 + 110 Ma (Rb–Sr)and 3175 + 45 Ma (Pb/Pb Isochron) for the ChikmagalurGranite to 2605 + 18 Ma (Pb/Pb isochron). Much of the data isbased on older, whole-rock isotopic work and thus it is not pos-sible to resolve the temporal sequence of intrusions based on avail-able data.

The Chitradurga Granite is an elongate, lenticular body of late topost-tectonic granite, about 60 km long and 15 km wide. Thegranite is clearly intrusive into the Jogimaradi lavas of the Baba-budan Group as well as into the TTG basement. The Chitradurgais biotite granite grading into granodiorite and quartz monzonite.Chadwick et al. (2007) dated the granite using Pb/Pb and Rb–Srisochrons yielding an age of c. 2.6 Ga, as well as SIMS U–Pbzircon age of c. 2610 Ma. The Jampalnaikankote Granite is ac. 2.6 Ga (Rb–Sr) roughly oval-shaped pluton that intrudes theChitradurga schist belt. The Arsikere and Banavara granites arethought to be from a single pluton that is connected at depth. TheArsikere granitic batholith is approximately 75 km2 and oval inshape. The intrusion is primarily a potassic biotite granite thatyielded a Rb–Sr age of c. 2.6 Ga, and a SIMS U–Pb zircon ageof c. 2615 Ma. The Chamundi Granite is another potassic pluton,with associated radial and parallel dykes, that intrudes the peninsu-lar gneiss. The granite has been dated via Rb–Sr at c. 800 Ma.

Summary

Peninsular India is an amalgam of Archaean nuclei that weresutured together by at least mid-Proterozoic time (c. 1.6 Ga) orperhaps by the end of the Archaean (c. 2.5 Ga). Following stabil-ization of the individual blocks, a series of Proterozoic to earlyPalaeozoic sedimentary basins were developed. These basinalsequences are most commonly known as the ‘Purana’ basins. In

this review, we suggest that most of the basins can be assignedto three separate phases of formation which we call Purana-I(oldest), -II or -III (youngest). New age constraints on thePurana basins are broadly consistent with tectonic events relatedto the assembly (or dispersal) of the supercontinents Columbia(Purana-I), Rodinia (Purana-II) and Gondwana (Purana-III),although definitive cause/effect relationships need to be estab-lished with further study.

This research was made possible through grants by the US National Science Foun-

dation (to JGM) grants EAR04-09101 and EAR09-10888. The authors also wish

to thank the many students and colleagues who participated in various aspects of

the work described in this chapter and two anonymous reviewers for their com-

ments that helped improve the manuscript.

References

Acharyya, S. K., Gupta, A. & Orihashi, Y. 2008. U–Pb zircon dates(LA-ICP-MS) of some felsic magmatic rocks from the basal partsof the Dhanjori basin and their stratigraphic implication, East Singhb-hum, India. IAGR Conference Series, 5, 151–152.

Acharyya, S. K., Gupta, A. & Orihashi, Y. 2010. New U–Pb zirconages from Paleo-Mesoarchean TTG gneisses of the Singhbhumcraton, Eastern India. Geochemical Journal, 44, 81–88.

Anand, R. 2007. Geochemical and Geochronological Studies on Meta-volcanics of the Hutti Schist Belt and Granitoids Around the SchistBelt, Eastern Dharwar Craton, India. PhD thesis, Pondicherry Uni-versity, Puducherry.

Anil-Kumar, A., Sivaraman, T. V., Bhaskararao, Y. J. & Gopalan,K. 1989. Rb–Sr ages of two dyke swarms from the Dharwarcraton, Karnataka. (Abstract.) In: International Symposium on theStructure and Dynamics of the Indian Lithosphere NGR 1:3.

Ashwal, L. D., Solanki, A. M., Pandit, M. K., Corfu, F., Hendriks,B. W. H., Burke, K. & Torsvik, T. H. 2013. Geochronology and geo-chemistry of Neoproterozoic Mt. Abu Granitoids NW India: regionalcorrelation and implications for Rodinia paleogeography. Precam-brian Research, 236, 265–281.

Azmi, R. J., Joshi, D., Tewari, B. N., Joshi, M. N. & Srivastava, S. S.2008. A synoptic view on the current discordant geo-and biochrono-logical ages of the Vindhyan Supergroup, central India. Journal ofHimalayan Geology, 29, 177–191.

Balakrishnan, S. 1990. Late Archean suture zone at Kolar schist belt;isotopic and geochemical evidences. Group discussion on Suturezones, young and old. Seminar on Himalayan geology, Abstracts, 23.

Balakrishnan, S., Rajamani, V. & & Hanson, G. N. 1999. U–Pb Agesfor zircon and titanite from the Ramagiri Area, southern India: evi-dence for accretionary origin of the Eastern Dharwar Craton duringthe Late Archean. Journal of Geology, 107, 69–86.

Bandopadhyay, P. C. & Sengupta, S. 2004. The Paleoproterozoic supra-crustal Kolhan Group in Singhbhum Craton, India and the Indo-African supercontinent. Gondwana Research, 7, 1228–1235.

Bandyopadhyay, B. K., Roy, A. & Huin, A. K. 1995. Structure and tec-tonics of a part of the Central Indian Shield. In: Sinha-Roy, S. &Gupta, K. R. (eds) Continental Crust of Northwestern and CentralIndia. Geological Society of India, Bangalore, Memoirs, 31,433–467.

Banerjee, D. M., Khan, M. W. Y., Srivastava, N. & Saigal, G. C. 1982.Precambrian phosphorites in the Bijawar rocks of Hirapur–Bassiaarea, Sagar District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Mineralium Deposita,17, 349–362.

Barman, G. 1987. Stratigraphical position of the Marwar Supergroup inthe light of stromatolite study. Geological Survey of India, Hydera-bad, Special Publications, 11, 72–80.

Basu, A. K. 1986. Geology of the Bundelkhand Granite massif, centralIndia. Records of the Geological Survey of India, 117, 61–124.

Basu, A. K. 2007. Role of the Bundelkhand Granite Massif and theSon-Narmada megafault in Precambrian crustal evolution and tec-tonism in Central and Western India. Journal of the GeologicalSociety of India, 70, 745–770.

Basu, A. R., Sharma, M. & Premo, W. R. 1996. U–Pb age of an OlderMetamorphic Group mica schist: earliest terrain of the eastern




Indian Craton. In: Saha, A. K. (ed.) Recent Researches in Geologyand Geophysics of the Precambrians, RRG. Hindustan PublishingCorporation, New Delhi, 16, 93–102.

Belica, M. E., Piispa, E. J. et al. 2014. Paleoproterozoic mafic dykeswarms from the Dharwar craton; paleomagnetic poles for Indiafrom 2.37–1.88 Ga and rethinking the Columbia supercontinent. Pre-cambrian Research, 244, 100–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2013.12.005

Bhaskar Rao, Y. J., Naha, K., Srinivasan, R. & Gopalan, K. 1991.Geology, geochemistry and geochronology of the Archaean Peninsu-lar Gneiss around Gorur, Hassan District, Karnataka, India. IndianAcademy of Science (Earth and Planetary Sciences) Proceedings,100, 399–412.

Bhatt, D. K., Prasad, S., Jain, R. L. & Mathur, A. K. 2005. Some criti-cal field observations on the genesis and stratigraphical status of thePokaran boulder beds, Western Rajasthan. Journal of the GeologicalSociety of India, 65, 301–308.

Bhattacharya, H. N. & Mahapatra, S. 2008. Evolution of the Proter-ozoic rift margin sediments – North Singhbhum Mobile Belt, Jhark-hand–Orissa, India. Precambrian Research, 162, 302–316.

Bhowmik, S. K. & Dasgupta, S. 2012. Tectonothermal evolution of theBanded Gneiss Complex in central Rajasthan, NW India: presentstatus and correlation. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 49, 339–348.

Bhowmik, S. K., Saha, L., Dasgupta, S. & Fukuoka, M. 2009.Metamorphic phase relations in orthopyroxene-bearing granitoids:implication for high-pressure metamorphism and prograde melt-ing in the continental crust. Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 27,295–315.

Bhowmik, S. K., Wilde, S. A., Bhandari, A., Pal, T. & Pant, N. C.2012. Growth of the Greater Indian Landmass and its assembly inRodinia: geochronological evidence from the Central Indian TectonicZone. Gondwana Research, 22, 54–72.

Bhushan, S. K. 2000. Malani rhyolites – a review. Gondwana Research,3, 65–77.

Bickford, M. E., Basu, A. et al. 2011a. New U–Pb SHRIMPzircon ages of the Dhamda Tuff in the Mesoproterozoic ChhattisgarhBasin, Peninsular India: stratigraphic implications and significance ofa 1-Ga thermal-magmatic event. Journal of Geology, 119, 535–548.

Bickford, M. E., Basu, A., Patranabis-Deb, S., Dhang, P. C. & Schie-

ber, J. 2011b. Depositional history of the Chhattisgarh Basin, CentralIndia: constraints from New SHRIMP Zircon Ages. Journal ofGeology, 119, 33–50.

Biju-Sekhar, S., Yokoyama, K., Pandit, M. K., Okudaira, T., Yoshida,M. & Santosh, M. 2003. Late Paleoproterozoic magmatism in DelhiFold Belt, NW India and its implication: evidence from EPMAchemical ages of zircons. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 22,189–207.

Bose, M. K. 2008. Petrology and geochemistry of Proterozoic ‘NewerDolerite’ and associated ultramafic dykes within Singhbhum granitepluton, eastern India. In: Srivastava, R. K., Shivaji, Ch. & Chala-

pathi Rao, V. (eds) Indian Dykes: Geochemistry, Geophysics andGeochronology. Narosa, New Delhi, 413–446.

Boyet, M. & Carlson, R. W. 2005. 143Nd evidence for early (.4.53 Ga)global differentiation of silicate Earth. Science, 309, 577–581.

Buick, I. S., Allen, C., Pandit, M., Rubatto, D. & Herman, J. 2006.The Proterozoic magmatic and metamorphic history of the bandedgneissic complex, central Rajasthan, India: LA-ICP-MS U–Pbzircon constraints. Precambrian Research, 151, 119–142.

Buick, I. S., Clark, C., Rubatto, D., Hermann, J., Pandit, M. & Hand,M. 2010. Constraints on the Proterozoic evolution of the Aravalli–Delhi Orogenic belt (NW India) from monazite geochronology andmineral trace element geochemistry. Lithos, 120, 511–528.

Chadwick, B., Vasudev, V. N. & Hegde, G. V. 2000. The Dharwarcraton, southern India, interpreted as the result of Late Archaeanoblique convergence. Precambrian Research, 99, 91–111.

Chadwick, B., Vasudev, V., Hegde, G. V. & Nutman, A. P. 2007. Struc-ture and SHRIMP U/Pb zircon ages of granites adjacent to the Chit-radurga schist belt: implications for Neoarchean convergence in theDharwar craton, southern India. Journal of the Geological Societyof India, 69, 5–24.

Chakrabarti, C., Pyne, T. K., Gupta, P., Basu Mallick, S. & Guha,D. 2004. A Manual of the Geology of India. Part IV: Northern and

Northwestern Part of the Peninsula. Geological Survey of India,Special Publications, 77.

Chakrabarti, R., Basu, A. R. & Paul, D. K. 2007. Nd–Hf, Sr–Pb iso-topes and trace element geochemistry of Proterozoic lamproites fromsouthern India: subducted komatiite in the source. Chemical Geology,236, 291–302.

Chakraborty, T. & Sensarma, S. 2008. Shallow marine and coastaleolian quartz arenites in the Neoarchean-Palaeoproterozoic KarutolaFormation, Dongargarh Volcano-sedimentary succession, centralIndia. Precambrian Research, 162, 284–301.

Chalapathi Rao, N. V., Miller, J. A., Gibson, S. A., Pyle, D. M. &Madhavan, V. 1999. Precise 40Ar/39Ar dating of the Kotakandakimberlite and Chelima lamproite, India: implication as to thetiming of mafic dyke swarm activity in the Eastern Dharwar craton.Journal of the Geological Society of India, 53, 425–433.

Charan, S. N., Naqvi, S. M. & Ramesh, S. L. 1988. Geology andgeochemistry of spinifex-textured peridotitic komatiite from Maya-sandra Schist Belt. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 32,343–350.

Chardon, D., Peucat, J-J., Jayananda, M., Choukroune, P. &Fanning, C. M. 2002. Archean granite–greenstone tectonics atKolar (South India): interplay of diapirism and bulk inhomogenouscontraction during juvenile magmatic accretion. Tectonics, 21,7-1–7-16.

Chatterjee, N. & Bhattacharji, S. 2001. Origin of the felsic and basal-tic dikes and flows in the Rajula–Palitana–Sihor area of the DeccanTraps, Saurashtra, India; a geochemical and geochronological study.International Geology Review, 43, 1094–1116.

Chatterjee, P., De, S., Ranaivoson, M., Mazumder, R. & Arima, M.2013. A review of the �1600 Ma sedimentation, volcanism andtectonothermal events in the Singhbhum craton, Eastern India.Geoscience Frontiers, 4, 277–287.

Chaudhuri, A. K. 2003. Stratigraphy and paleogeography of the Goda-vari Supergroup in the south-central Pranhita–Godavari Valley,south India. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 21, 595–611.

Chaudhuri, A. K., Saha, D., Deb, G. K., Deb, S. P., Mukherjee, M. K.& Ghosh, G. 2002. The Purana basins of southern cratonic provinceof India; a case for Mesoproterozoic fossil rifts. Gondwana Research,5, 23–33.

Chauhan, D. S., Mathur, K. M. & Ram, N. 2001. Geological nature ofthe Pokaran Boulder Bed: paleoenvironmental, paleoclimatic andstratigraphic implications. Journal of the Geological Society ofIndia, 58, 425–433.

Chore, S. A. & Mohanty, M. 1998. Stratigraphic and tectonic set-ting of the Trans-Aravalli Neoproterozoic volcanosedimentarysequences in Rajasthan. Journal of the Geological Society of India,51, 57–68.

Choudhary, A. K., Gopalan, K. & Sastry, C. A. 1984. Present status ofthe geochronology of the Precambrian rocks of Rajasthan. Tectono-physics, 105, 131–140.

Clark, D. A. 1982. Preliminary Paleomagnetic Results from the Cudda-pah Traps of Andhra Pradesh, Monograph-2, On Evolution of theIntracratonic Cuddapah Basin. HPG, Hyderabad, 47–51.

Conrad, J. E., Hein, J. R., Chaudhuri, A. K., Patranabis-Deb, S.,Mukhopadhyay, J., Deb, G. K. & Beukes, N. 2011. Constraintson the development of Proterozoic basins in Central India from40Ar/39Ar analysis of authigenic glauconite minerals. GeologicalSociety of America Bulletin, 123, 158–167.

Crawford, A. R. & Compston, W. 1970. The age of the VindhyanSystem of Peninsular India. Journal of the Geological Society ofLondon, 125, 351–371.

Das, K., Yokoyama, K., Chakraborty, P. P. & Sarkar, A. 2009.Basal Tuffs and contemporaneity of the Chattisgarh and KhariarBasins based on new dates and geochemistry. Journal of Geology,117, 88–102.

Das, P., Das, K., Chakraborty, P. P. & Balakrishnan, S. 2011.1420 Ma diabasic intrusive from the Singhora Group, ChhattisgarhSupergroup, India: Implications towards non-plume intrusiveactivity. Journal of Earth Systems Science, 120, 223–236.

Das Gupta, S. P. 1996. Marwar supergroup evaporates, Rajasthan. In:Bhattacharyya, A. (ed.) Recent advances in Vindhyan Geology.Geological Society of India, Bangalore, Memoirs, 36, 49–58.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2013.12.005




Das Gupta, S. K. & Bulgauda, S. S. 1994. An overview of the geologyand hydrocarbon occurrence in western part of Bikaner–Nagaurbasin. Indian Journal of Petroleum Geology, 3, 1–17.

Davis, J. K., Meert, J. G. & Pandit, M. K. 2014. Paleomagnetic analysisof the Marwar Supergroup, Rajasthan, India and proposed interbas-inal correlations. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 91, 339–351,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2013.09.027

Deb, M. 1999. Metallic mineral deposits of Rajasthan. In: Kataria, P.(ed.) Proceedings of Seminar on Geology of Rajasthan: Statusand Perspective. Geology Department, MLS University, Udaipur,213–237.

Deb, M. & Thorpe, R. I. 2004. Geochronological constraints in thePrecambrian geology of Rajasthan and their metallogenic impli-cations. In: Deb, M. & Goodfellow, W. D. (eds) Sediment-hostedLead–Zinc Sulphide Deposits; Attributes and Models of SomeMajor Deposits in India, Australia and Canada. Narosa, NewDelhi, 246–263.

Deb, M., Thorpe, R. I., Krstic, D., Corfu, F. & Davis, D. W. 2001.Zircon U–Pb and galena Pb isotopic evidence for an approximate1.0 Ga terrane constituting the western margin of the Aravalli–Delhi orogenic belt, northwestern India. Precambrian Research,108, 195–213.

Deb, M., Thorpe, R. & Krstic, D. 2002. Hindoli Group of rocks in theEastern Fringe of the Aravalli–Delhi Orogenic belt – Archean sec-ondary greenstone belt or Proterozoic supracrustals? GondwanaResearch, 5, 879–883.

Devapriyan, G. V., Anantharamu, T. R., Vidyadharan, K. T. &Raghu Nandan, K. R. 1994. Spinifex textured peridotitic komatiitefrom Honnabetta area, Nagamangala schist belt, Karnataka. Journalof the Geological Society of India, 44, 483–493.

de Wall, H., Pandit, M. K. & Chauhan, N. K. 2012. Paleosol at theArchean–Proterozoic contact in Udaipur. Precambrian Research,216–219, 120–131.

Dey, S., Rai, A. K. & Chaki, A. 2009. Palaeoweathering, composition andtectonics of provenance of the Proterozoic intracratonic Kaladgi–Badami basin, Karnataka, southern India: evidence from sandstonepetrography and geochemistry. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences,34, 703–715.

Dharma Rao, C. V., Santosh, M., Purohit, R., Wang, J., Jiang, X. &Kusky, T. 2011a. LA-ICP-MS U–Pb zircon age constraints on thePaleoproterozoic and Neoarchean history of the Sandmata Complexin Rajasthan within the NW Indian Plate. Journal of Asian EarthSciences, 42, 286–305.

Dharma Rao, C. V., Santosh, M. & Wu, Y. 2011b. Mesoproterozoicophiolite melange from the SE periphery of Indian plate: U–Pbzircon ages and tectonic implications. Gondwana Research, 19,384–401.

Eriksson, P. G., Mazumder, R., Catuneanu, O., Bumby, A. J. &Ilondo, B. O. 2006. Precambrian continental freeboard and geo-logical evolution: a time perspective. Earth-Science Reviews, 79,165–204.

Fareeduddin, K. A. 1998. Single zircon age constraints on the evolutionof Rajasthan granulite. In: Paliwal, B. S. (ed.) The Indian Precam-brian. Scientific Publishers, India, 547–556.

French, J. E. & Heaman, L. M. 2010. Precise U–Pb dating of Paleopro-toerozoic mafic dyke swarms of the Dharwar craton, India: impli-cations for the existence of the Neoarchean supercraton Sclavia.Precambrian Research, 183, 416–441.

French, J. E., Heaman, L. M., Chacko, T. & Rivard, B. 2004. Globalmafic magmatism and continental breakup at 2.2 Ga.: evidencefrom the Dharwar craton, India. Geological Society of AmericaAbstracts with Programs, 36, 340.

French, J. E., Heaman, L. M., Chacko, T. & Srivastava, R. K. 2008.1891–1883 a southern Bastar craton – Cuddapah mafic igneousevents, India: a newly recognized large igneous province. Precam-brian Research, 160, 308–322.

Friend, C. R. L. & Nutman, A. P. 1991. SHRIMP U–Pb Geochronologyof the Closepet Granite and Peninsular Gneiss, Karnataka, SouthIndia. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 38, 357–368.

Ghosh, J. G. 2004. 3.56 Ga tonalite in the central part of the Bastar Craton,India: oldest Indian date. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 23,359–364.

Goodwin, A. M. 1991. Precambrian Geology: The Dynamic Evolution ofthe Continental Crust. Academic Press, London.

Gopalan, K. & Kumar, A. 2008. Phlogopite K–Ca dating of Nara-yanpet kimberlites, south India: implications to the discordancebetween their Rb–Sr and Ar/Ar ages. Precambrian Research,167, 377–382.

Gopalan, K., MacDougall, J. D., Roy, A. B. & Murali, A. K. 1990.Sm–Nd evidence for 3.3 Ga old rocks in Rajasthan, northwesternIndia. Precambrian Research, 48, 287–297.

Gopalan, K., Kumar, A., Kumar, S. & Vijayagopal, B. 2013. Deposi-tional history of the Upper Vindhyan succession, central India: timeconstraints from Pb–Pb isochron ages of its carbonate components.Precambrian Research, 233, 108–117.

Goutham, M. R., Raghubabu, K., Prasad, C. V. R. K., Subbarao, K. V.& Damodar Reddy, V. 2006. A Neoproterozoic Geomagnetic FieldReversal frpm the Kurnool Group, India: implications for Strati-graphic Correlation and Formation of Gondwana. Journal of the Geo-logical Society of India, 67, 221–233.

Goutham, M. R., Subbarao, K. V., Prasad, C. V. R. K., Piper, J. D. A. &Miggins, D. P. 2011. Proterozoic mafic dykes from the southernmargin of the Cuddapah Basin, India: Part 2- Paleomagnetism andAr–Ar geochronology. In: Srivastava, R. (ed.) Dyke Swarms:Keys for Geodynamic Interpretation. Springer, Heidelberg, 73–93.

Gray, D. R., Foster, D. A., Meert, J. G., Goscombe, B. D., Armstrong,R., Truow, R. A. J. & Passchier, C. W. 2008. A Damaran perspectiveon the assembly of southwestern Gondwana. In: Pankhurst, R. J.,Trouw, R. A. J., de Brito Neves, B. B. & de Wit, M. J. (eds)West Gondwana: Pre-Cenozoic Correlations Across the South Atlan-tic Region. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 294,257–278, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP294.14

Gregory, L. C., Meert, J. G., Pradhan, V., Pandit, M. K., Tamrat, E.& Malone, S. J. 2006. A paleomagnetic and geochronologic study ofthe Majhgawan Kimberlite, India: implications for the age of theVindhyan Supergroup. Precambrian Research, 149, 65–75.

Gregory, L. C., Meert, J. G., Bingen, B. H., Pandit, M. K. & Torsvik,T. H. 2008. Paleomagnetic and geochronologic study of MalaniIngeous suite, NW India: implications for the configuration ofRodinia and the assembly of Gondwana. Precambrian Research,170, 13–26.

Gupta, A. & Basu, A. 2000. North Singhbhum Proterozoic mobile beltEastern India – a review. In: National Seminar CommemoratingDr M. S. Krishnan’s Birth centenary (Proceedings Volume). Geologi-cal Survey of India, Hyderabad, Special Publications, 55, 195–226.

Gupta, B. C. 1934. The geology of Central Mewar. Geological Societyof India, Bangalore, Memoirs, 65, 107–168.

Gupta, S. N., Arora, Y. K., Mathur, R. K., Iqballuddin Prasad, B.,Sahai, T. N. & Sharma, S. B. 1980. Lithostratigraphic Map of Ara-valli Region, Southern Rajasthan and Northeastern Gujarat. Geo-logical Survey of India, Hyderabad.

Gupta, S. N., Arora, Y. K., Mathur, R. K., Iqballuddin, P. B., Sahai,T. N. & Sharma, S. B. 1997. The Precambrian Geology of the Ara-valli Region, Southern Rajasthan and Northeastern Gujarat. Geo-logical Society of India, Bangalore, Memoirs, 123.

Haldar, D. & Ghosh, R. N. 2000. Eruption of Bijawar lava: an exampleof Precambrian volcanicity under stable cratonic conditions. Geo-logical Survey of India, Hyderabad, Special Publications, 57,151–170.

Halls, H. C., Kumar, A., Srinivasan, R. & Hamilton, M. A. 2007.Paleomagnetism and U/Pb geochronology of easterly trendingdykes in the Dharwar Craton, India; feldspar clouding, radiatingdyke swarms and the position of India at 2.37 Ga. PrecambrianResearch, 155, 47–68.

Heron, A. M. 1953. Geology of Central Rajputana. Geological Society ofIndia, Bangalore, Memoirs, 79.

Hokada, T., Horie, K., Satish-Kumar, M., Ueno, Y., Nasheeth, A.,Mishima, K. & Shiriashi, K. 2013. An appraisal of Archaean supra-crustal sequences in the Chitradurga Schist belt, Western Dharwarcraton, southern India. Precambrian Research, 227, 99–119.

Hussain, M. F., Ahmad, T. & Mondal, M. E. A. 2008. Geochemistry ofthe Precambrian mafic dykes of the central and northeastern parts ofBastar craton, Central India: constraints on their enrichment process.In: Srivastava, R. K., Shivaji, Ch. & Chalapathi Rao, V. (eds)



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2013.09.027

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2013.09.027

http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP294.14

http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP294.14


Indian Dykes: Geochemistry, Geophysics and Geochronology.Narosa, New Delhi, 397–412.

Ikramuddin, M. & Stueber, A. M. 1976. Rb–Sr ages of Precambriandolerite and alkaline dikes, Southeast Mysore State, India. Lithos,9, 235–241.

Iyengar, S. V. P. & Murthy, Y. G. K. 1982. The evolution of theArchaean Proterozoic crust in parts of Bihar and Orissa, easternIndia. Geological Survey of India Record, 112, 1–5.

Jayananda, M., Moyen, J. F., Martin, H., Peucat, J. J., Auvray, B. &Mahabalesawar, B. 2000. Late Archaean (2550–2520 Ma) juven-ile magmatism in the Eastern Dharwar craton, southern India: con-straints from geochronology, Nd–Sr isotopes and whole rockgeochemistry. Precambrian Research, 99, 225–254.

Jayananda, M., Chardon, D., Peucat, J.-J., Capdevila, R. & Martin,H. 2006. 2.61 Ga potassic granites and crustal re-working, westernDharwar craton (India): tectonic, geochronologic and geochemicalconstraints. Precambrian Research, 150, 1–26.

Jayananda, M., Kano, T., Peucat, J.-J. & Channabasappa, S. 2008.3.35 Ga komatiite volcanism in the western Dharwar craton, southernIndia: constraints from Nd isotopes and whole-rock geochemistry.Precambrian Research, 162, 160–179.

Jayananda, M., Peucat, J-J., Chardon, D., Krishna Rao, B.,Fanning, C. M. & Corfu, F. 2013. Neoarchean greenstone volcan-ism and continental growth, Dharwar craton, southern India: con-straints from SIMS U–Pb zircon geochronology and Nd isotopes.Precambrian Research, 227, 55–76.

Jayaprakash, A. V., Sundaram, V., Hans, S. K. & Mishra, R. N. 1987.Geology of the Kaladgi-Badami Basin, Karnataka. Geological Surveyof India, Hyderabad, Memoirs, 6, 201–226.

Just, J., Schulz, B., de Wall, H., Jourdan, F. & Pandit, M. K. 2011.Monazite CHIME/EPMA dating of the Erinpura granitoid defor-mation: implications for neoproterozic tectonothermal evolution ofNW India. Gondwana Research, 19, 402–412.

Kale, V. S. & I’hansalkar, V. G. 1991. Purana basins of peninsularIndia: a review. Basin Research, 3, 1–36.

Kaur, P., Chaudhri, N., Okrusch, M. & Koepke, J. 2006. Palaeoproter-ozoic A-type felsic magmatism in the Khetri Copper Belt, Rajasthan,northwestern India: petrologic and tectonic implications. Mineralogyand Petrology, 87, 81–122.

Kaur, P., Chaudhri, N., Raczek, I., Kroener, A. & Hofmann, A. W.2007a. Geochemistry, zircon ages and whole-rock Nd isotopic sys-tematics for Palaeoproterozoic A-type granitoids in the northernpart of the Delhi belt, Rajasthan, NW India: implications for latePalaeoproterozoic crustal evolution of the Aravalli craton. GeologicalMagazine, 144, 361–378.

Kaur, P., Chaudhri, N., Raczek, I., Kroener, A., Okrusch, M. &Hofmann, A. W. 2007b. Records of A-type and I-type plutonismfrom the northern Aravalli craton, NW India: age, petrogenesis andregional tectonic implications. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,71, 15.

Kaur, P., Chaudhri, N., Raczek, I., Kroener, A. & Hofmann, A. W.2009. Record of 1.82 Ga Andean-type continental arc magmatismin NE Rajasthan, India: insights from zircon and Sm–Nd ages, com-bined with Nd-Sr isotope geochemistry. Gondwana Research, 16,56–71.

Kaur, P., Chaudhri, N., Raczek, I., Kroener, A., Hofmann, A. W. &Okrusch, M. 2011a. Zircon ages of late Palaeoproterozoic(c. 1.72–1.70 Ga) extension-related granitoids in NE Rajasthan,India: regional and tectonic significance. Gondwana Research, 19,1040–1053.

Kaur, P., Zeh, A., Chaudhri, N., Gerdes, A. & Okrusch, M. 2011b.Archaean to Palaeoproterozoic crustal evolution of the Aravalli moun-tain range, NW India, and its hinterland: the U–Pb and Hf isotoperecord of detrital zircon. Precambrian Research, 187, 155–164.

Khan, E. A. 1973. Discovery of fossil brachiopod of Cambrian affinityfrom Trans-Aravalli Vindhyan sequence, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. In:Seminar on Recent Advances in the Geology of Rajasthan andGujarat, Abstract, 74–75.

Khan, M. S., Smith, T. E., Raza, M. & Huang, J. 2005. Geology, Geo-chemistry and tectonic significance of mafic–ultramafic rocks ofMesoproterozoic Phulad ophiolite suite of South Delhi Fold Belt.Gondwana Research, 8, 553–566.

Khilnani, B. V. 1968. Stromatolites of Vindhyan limestone, fromBilara, district Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Quarterly Journal of theGeological, Mineralogical and Meteorological Society of India, 40,1–6.

Krishnamurthy, P., Chaki, A., Pandey, B. K., Chimote, J. S. & Singh,S. N. 1988. Geochronology of the granite–rhyolite suites of the Don-gargarh supergroup central India. In: Proceedings of the FourthNational Symposium on Mass Spectrometry, EPS-2/1–EPS-2/3.

Krogstad, E. J., Hanson, G. N. & Rajamani, V. 1991. U–Pb ages ofzircon and sphene for two gneiss terranes adjacent to the KolarSchist Belt, South India: evidence for separate crustal evolution his-tories. Journal of Geology, 99, 801–816.

Krogstad, E. J., Hanson, G. N. & Rajamani, V. 1995. Sources of con-tinental magmatism adjacent to the late Archean Kolar suture zone,South India; distinct isotopic and elemental signatures of two lateArchean magmatic series. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrol-ogy, 122, 159–173.

Kruezer, H., Harre, W., Kursten, M., Schinitzer, W. A., Murthi, K.S. & Shrivastava, N. K. 1977. K/Ar dates of two glauconites fromthe Chanderpur-series (Chhattisgarh/India): on the stratigraphicstatus of the Late Precambrian Basins in Central India. GeologicalJournal, 28, 23–36.

Kumar, A., Gopalan, K., Rao, K. R. P. & Nayak, S. S. 2001. Rb–Sr ageof Kimberlites and Lamproites from Eastern Dharwar Craton, SouthIndia. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 58, 135–141.

Kumar, A., Heaman, L. M. & Manikyamba, C. 2007. Mesoproterozoickimberlites in South India: A possible link to �1.1 Ga global mag-matism. Precambrian Research, 154, 192–204.

Kumar, A., Hamilton, M. A. & Halls, H. C. 2012a. A Paleoproterozoicgiant radiating dyke swarm in the Dharwar Craton, southern India.Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003926

Kumar, A., Nagaraju, E., Besse, J. & Bhaskar Rao, Y. J. 2012b. Newage, geochemical and paleomagnetic data on a 2.21 Ga dyke swarmfrom south India: constraints on Paleoproterozoic reconstruction.Precambrian Research, 220–221, 123–138.

Kumar, S. 2012. Stratigraphy and correlation of the Neoproterozoicdeposits of central and western India: an overview. In: Bhat,G. M., Craig, J., Thurow, J. W., Thusu, B. & Cozzi, A. (eds)Geology, Hydrocarbon Potential of Neoproterozoic–CambrianBasins in Asia. Geological Society, London, Special Publications,366, 75–90.

Kumar, S. & Pandey, S. K. 2008. Discovery of trilobite tracefossils fromthe Nagaur Sandstone, the Marwar Supergroup, Dulmera area,Bikaner District, Rajasthan. Current Science, 94, 1081–1084.

Kumar, S. & Pandey, S. K. 2009. Note on the occurrence of ArumberiaBanksi and associated fossils from the Jodhpur Sandstone, MarwarSupergroup, Western Rajasthan. Journal of the PalaeontologicalSociety of India, 54, 41–48.

Kumar, S. & Pandey, S. K. 2010. Trace fossils from the Nagaur Sand-stone, Marwar Supergroup, Dulmera area, Bikaner district,Rajasthan, India. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 38, 77–85.

Kumar, V. 1999. Eocambrian sedimentation in Nagaur–GanganagarEvaporite Basin, Rajasthan. Journal of the Indian Association ofSedimentology, 18, 201–210.

Leelanandam, C., Burke, K., Ashwal, L. D. & Webb, S. J. 2006. Pro-terozoic mountain building in Peninsular India: an analysis based pri-marily on alkaline rock distribution. Geological Magazine, 143,195–212.

Li, Z. X., Bogdanova, S. V. et al. 2008. Assembly, configuration, andbreak-up history of Rodinia: a synthesis. Precambrian Research,160, 179–210.

Maheshwari, A., Sial, A. N., Gohey, R. & Ferreira, V. P. 2005.C-Isotope composition of carbonates from Indravati basin, India:Implications for regional stratigraphic correlation. GondwanaResearch, 8, 603–610.

Mahmoud, M. Y., Mitra, A. K., Dhar, R., Sarkar, S. & Mandal, N.2008. Repeated emplacement of syntectonic pegmatites in Precam-brian granite gneisses: indication of pulsating brittle-ductile rheologi-cal transitions. In: Srivastava, R. K., Sivaji, CH. & Chalapathi

Rao, N. V. (eds) Indian Dykes: Geochemistry, Geophysics, and Geo-chronology. Narosa, New Delhi, 495–510.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003926

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003926

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003926


Maibam, B., Goswami, J. N. & Srinivasan, R. 2011. Pb–Pb zirconages of Archean metasediments and gneisses from the Dharwarcraton, southern India: implications for the antiquity of the EasternDharwar craton. Journal of Earth System Science, 120, 643–661.

Mallikarjuna, R. J., Bhattacharji, S., Rao, M. N. & Hermes, O. D.1995. 40Ar–39Ar ages and geochemical characteristics of doleritedykes around the Proterozoic Cuddapah Basin, South India. In:Devaraju, T. C. (ed.) Mafic Dyke Swarms of Peninsular India. Geo-logical Society of India, Bangalore, Memoirs, 33, 307–328.

Malone, S. J., Meert, J. G. et al. 2008. Paleomagnetism and detritalzircon geochronology of the Upper Vindhyan sequence, Son Valleyand Rajasthan, India: a c. 1000 Ma closure age for the Puranabasins? Precambrian Research, 164, 137–159.

Martin, H. 1986. The effects of steeper Archaean geothermal gradientson geochemistry of subduction zone magmas. Geology, 14, 753–756.

Mazumder, A. & Bhattacharya, S. K. 2004. Stable isotopic study oflate Neoproterozoic–Early Cambrian (?) sediments from Nagaur–Ganganagar Basin, western India; possible signatures of global andregional C-isotopic events. Geochemical Journal, 38, 163–175.

Mazumder, A. & Strauss, H. 2006. Sulfur and Strontium isotopic com-positions of carbonate and evaporate rocks from the late Neoprotero-zoic–early Cambrian Bilara Group: constraints on intrabasinalcorrelation and global sulfur cycle. Precambrian Research, 149,217–230.

Mazumder, R. 2005. Proterozoic sedimentation and volcanism in theSinghbhum crustal province, India and their implications; sedimen-tary systems and sequence stratigraphy related to Precambrian sealevel change. Sedimentary Geology, 176, 167–193.

Mazumder, R. & van Loon, A. J. 2012. Depositional history of diamic-tites from the Late Paleoproterozoic Dalma Formation (E India).Sedimentary Geology, 251–252, 49–57.

Mazumder, R., Van Loon, A. J., Mallik, L., Reddy, S. M., Alter-

mann, W., Eriksson, P. G. & De, S. 2012. Mesoarchean–Paleopro-terozoic stratigraphic record of the Singhbhum crustal province,eastern India: a synthesis. In: Mazumder, R. & Saha, D. (eds)Palaeoproterozoic of India. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications, 365, 31–49.

McKenzie, N. R., Hughes, N. C., Myrow, P. M., Xiao, S. & Sharma, M.2011. Correlation of Precambrian-Cambrian sedimentary successionsacross northern India and the utility of isotopic signatures of Himala-yan lithotectonic zones. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 312,471–483.

Meert, J. G. 2012. What’s in a name? The Columbia (Palaeopangea/Nuna) Supercontinent. Gondwana Research, 21, 987–993.

Meert, J. G. 2014. Strange attractors, spiritual interlopers and lonely wan-derers: the search for pre-Pangean supercontinents. Geoscience Fron-tiers, 5, 155–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2013.12.001

Meert, J. G. & Lieberman, B. S. 2008. The Neoproterozoic assembly ofGondwana and its relationship to the Ediacaran–Cambrian Radi-ation. Gondwana Research, 14, 5–21.

Meert, J. G. & Pandit, M. K. 2013. Comment: paleomagnetism ofBhander sediments from Bhopal Inlier, Vindhyan Supergroup (Ven-kateshwarlu and Mallikarjuna Rao). Journal of the GeologicalSociety of India, 82, 588–589.

Meert, J. G., Pandit, M. K. et al. 2010. The Precambrian tectonic evol-ution of India: a 3.0 billion year odyssey. Journal of Asian EarthSciences, 39, 483–515.

Meert, J. G., Pandit, M. K., Pradhan, V. R. & Kamenov, G. D. 2011.Preliminary report on the paleomagnetism of 1.88 Ga dykes from theBastar and Dharwar cratons. Gondwana Research, 20, 335–343.

Meert, J. G., Pandit, M. K. & Kamenov, G. D. 2013. Further geochro-nological and paleomagnetic constraints on Malani (and pre-Malani)magmatism in NW India. Tectonophysics, 608, 1254–1267.

Miller, K. C. & Hargraves, R. B. 1994. Paleomagnetism of some Indiankimberlites and lamporites. Precambrian Research, 69, 259–267.

Mir, A. R., Alvi, S. H. & Balaram, V. 2012. Geochemistry of maficdykes in the Singhbhum–Orissa craton: implications for subduction-related metasomatism of the mantle beneath the craton. InternationalGeology Review, 52, 79–94.

Misra, S. 2006. Precambrian chronostratigraphic growth of Singhbhum–Orissa craton, Eastern Indian Shield: an alternative model. Journal ofthe Geological Society of India, 67, 356–378.

Misra, S. & Johnson, P. T. 2005. Geochronological constraints on evol-ution of the Singhbhum Mobile belt and associated basic volcanicsof Eastern Indian Shield. Gondwana Research, 8, 129–142.

Misra, S., Deomurari, M. P., Wiedenbeck, M., Goswami, J. N., Ray, S.& Saha, A. K. 1999. 207Pb/206Pb zircon age ages and the evolution ofthe Singhbhum craton, eastern India: an ion microprobe study. Pre-cambrian Research, 93, 139–151.

Mohan, M. R., Singh, S. P., Santosh, M., Siddiqui, M. A. & Balaram,V. 2012. TTG suite from the Bundelkhand Craton, Central India:Geochemistry, petrogenesis and implications for Archean crustalevolution. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 58, 38–50.

Mojzsis, S. J., Devaraju, T. C. & Newton, R. C. 2003. Ion microprobeU–Pb determinations on zircon from the late Archaean granulitefacies transition zone of southern India. Journal of Geology, 111,407–425.

Mondal, M. E. A. & Ahmad, T. 2001. Bundelkhand mafic dykes, centralIndian shield: implications for the role of sediment subduction in Pro-terozoic crustal evolution. Island Arc, 10, 51–67.

Mondal, M. E. A., Deomurari, M. P., Goswami, J. N., Rahman, A. &Sharma, K. K. 1997. 207Pb/206Pb zircon ages of samples from Bun-delkhand massif, Central India. International Conference on Isotopesin Solar System, 11–14 November, Abstracts, 80–81.

Mondal, M. E. A., Goswami, J. N., Deomurari, M. P. & Sharma, K. K.2002. Ion microprobe 207Pb/206Pb ages of zircons from the Bundelk-hand Massif, northern India: implications for crustal evolution of theBundelkhand–Aravalli supercontinent. Precambrian Research, 117,85–100.

Mondal, S. K., Frei, R. & Ripley, E. M. 2007. Os isotope systematics ofmesoarchean chromitite-PGE deposits in the Singhbhum Craton(India): implications for the evolution of lithospheric mantle. Chemi-cal Geology, 244, 391–408.

Mukherjee, A., Bickford, M. E., Hietpas, J., Schieber, J. & Basu, A.2012. Implications of a Newly Dated c. 1000-Ma Rhyolitic Tuff inthe Indravati Basin, Bastar Craton, India. Journal of Geology, 120,477–485.

Mukhopadhyay, D. 2001. The Archaean nucleus of Singhbhum: thepresent state of knowledge. Gondwana Research, 4, 307–318.

Mukhopadhyay, J., Ghosh, G., Nandi, A. K., Chaudhuri, A. K.,Gutzmer, J. & de Kock, M. 2006. Depositional setting of theKolhan group; its implications for the development of a meso to neo-proterozoic deep-water basin on the South Indian craton. SouthAfrican Journal of Geology, 109, 183–192.

Mukhopadhyay, J., Beukes, N. J., Armstrong, R. A., Zimmermann,U., Ghosh, G. & Medda, R. A. 2008. Dating the oldest greenstonein India: a 3.51 Ga precise U–Pb zircon age for dacitic lavas of theSouthern Iron Ore Group, Singhbhum Craton. Journal of Geology,116, 449–461.

Mukhopadhyay, J., Ghosh, G., Zimmerman, U., Guho, S. & Mukehr-

jee, T. 2012. A 3.51 Ga bimodal volcanics-BI-ultramafic successionfrom Singhbhum craton: implications for Paleoarchean geodynamicprocesses from the oldest greenstone succession of the Indian subcon-tinent. Geological Journal, 47, 284–311.

Murthy, N. G. K. 1995. Proterozoic mafic dykes in southern peninsularIndia: a review. In: Devaraju, T. C. (ed.) Mafic Dyke Swarms ofPeninsular India. Geological Society of India, Memoir, 33, 81–98.

Murthy, Y. G. K., Baburao, V., Guptasarma, D., Rao, J. M. & Rao, M.N. 1987. Tectonic, petrochemical and geophysical studies of maficdyke swarms around the Proterozoic Cuddapah basin, south India.In: Halls, H. C. & Fahrig, W. F. (eds) Mafic Dyke Swarms. Geologi-cal Association of Canada, Special Paper 34, 303–316.

Naha, K., Srinivasan, R. & Jayaram, S. 1991. Sedimentological,structural and migmatitic history of the Archaean Dharwar tectonicprovince, southern India. Proceedings of the Indian Academy ofScience (Earth Planetary Science), 100, 413–433.

Naqvi, S. M. 1981. The oldest supracrustals of the Dharwar craton, India.Journal of the Geological Society of India, 22, 458–469.

Naqvi, S. M. 2005. Geology and the Evolution of the India Plate. Capital,New Delhi.

Naqvi, S. M. & Rogers, J. J. W. 1987. Precambrian Geology of India.Oxford University Press, New York.

Naqvi, S. M., Manikyamba, C., Gnaneshwar, R., Subba Rao, T., Ram

Mohan, D. V. & Srinavasa Sarma, D. 2002. Geochemical and



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2013.12.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2013.12.001


isotopic constraints of Neoarchean fossil plume for evolution of vol-canic rocks of Sandur greenstone belt, India. Journal of the Geologi-cal Society of India, 47, 153–164.

Nelson, D. R., Bhattacharyay, H. N., Mishra, S., Dasgupta, N. &Altermann, W. 2007. New SHRIMP U–Pb zircon dates from theSinghbhum craton, Jharkhand–Orissa region, India. In: Banerjee,S. (ed.) Abstracts International Conference on Precambrian Sedi-mentation & Tectonics & 2nd Global Precambrian SedimentationSyndicate Meeting. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, 47.

Neogi, S., Miura, H. & Hariya, Y. 1996. Geochemistry of the Dongar-garh volcanic rocks, Central India: implications for the Precambrianmantle. Precambrian Research, 76, 77–91.

Nutman, A. P. & Ehlers, K. 1998. Evidence for multiple Palaeo-proterozoic thermal events and magmatism adjacent to the BrokenHill Pb–Zn–Ag orebody, Australia. Precambrian Research, 90,203–238.

Nutman, A. P., Chadwick, B., Krishna-Rao, B. & Vasudev, V. N.1996. SHRIMP U–Pb zircon ages of acid volcanic rocks in the Chit-radurga and Sandur Groups and granites adjacent to Sandur SchistBelt. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 47, 153–161.

Pandey, D. K. & Bahadur, T. 2009. A review of the stratigraphy ofMarwar Supergroup of west-central Rajasthan. Journal of the Geo-logical Society of India, 73, 747–758.

Pandey, B. K., Gupta, J. N., Sarma, K. J. & Sastry, C. A. 1997. Sm–Nd, Pb–Pb and Rb–Sr geochronology and petrogenesis of themafic dyke swarm of Mahbubnagar, South India: implications forPaleoproterozoic crustal evolution of the Eastern Dharwar Craton.Precambrian Research, 84, 181–196.

Pandey, U. K., Sastry, D. V. L. N., Pandey, B. K., Roy, M., Rawat,T. P. S., Ranjan, R. & Shrivastava, V. K. 2012. Geochronological(Rb–Sr and Sm–Nd) studies on intrusive gabbros and dolerite dykesfrom parts of northern and central Indian cratons: implications for theage and onset of sedimentation in the Bijawar and Chhattisgarh basinsand uranium mineralogy. Journal of the Geological Society of India,79, 30–40.

Pandit, M. K., Shekhawat, L. S., Ferreira, V. P., Sial, A. N. & Bohra,S. K. 1999. Trondhjemite and Granodiorite Assemblages from Westof Barmer: probable Basement for Malani Magmatism in WesternIndia. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 53, 89–96.

Pandit, M. K., Carter, L. M., Ahswal, L. D., Tucker, R. D., Torsvik,T. H., Jamtveit, B. & Bhushan, S. K. 2003. Age, petrogenesis andsignificance of 1 Ga granitoid and related rocks from the Sendra area,Aravalli craton, NW India. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 22,363–381.

Pandit, M. K., de Wall, H. & Chauhan, N. K. 2008. Paleosol at theArchean–Proterozoic contact in NW India revisited: evidence foroxidizing conditions during paleo-weathering? Journal of EarthSystem Science, 117, 201–209.

Panigrahi, M. K., Mookherjee, A., Pantalu, G. V. C. & Gopalan, K.1993. Granitoids around Malanjkhand copper deposit: types andrelationship. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences (Earthand Planetary Sciences), 102, 399–413.

Paranthaman, S. 2005. Geology and geochemistry of Archaean Ghatti-hosahalli mafic–ultramafic complex, Chitradurga, Karnataka.Journal of the Geological Society of India, 66, 653–657.

Pareek, H. S. 1984. Pre-Quaternary Geology and Mineral Resources ofNorthwestern Rajasthan. Geological Survey of India, Hyderabad,Memoirs, 115.

Pati, J. K., Raju, S., Mamgain, V. D. & Shankar, R. 1997. Gold miner-alization in parts of Bundelkhand Granitoid Complex (BGC). Journalof the Geological Society of India, 50, 601–606.

Patranabis-Deb, S. 2004. Lithostratigraphy of the NeoproterozoicChattisgarh Sequence, its bearing on the tectonics and palaeogeo-graphy. Gondwana Research, 7, 323–337.

Patranabis-Deb, S., Bickford, M. E., Hill, B., Chaudhari, A. K. &Basu, A. 2007. SHRIMP ages of zircon in the uppermost tuff in Chat-tisgarh Basin in central India require up to 500 Ma adjustments inIndian Proterozoic stratigraphy. Journal of Geology, 115, 407–416.

Piispa, E. J., Smirnov, A. V., Pesonen, L. J., Lingadevaru, M.,Anantha Murthy, K. S. & Devaraju, T. C. 2011. An integratedstudy of the paleomagnetism and geochemistry of Proterozoicdykes, Dharwar craton, southern India. In: Srivastava, R. (ed.)

Dyke Swarms: Keys for Geodynamic Interpretation. Springer,Heidelberg, 33–46.

Pisarevsky, S. A., Biswal, T. K. et al. 2012. Paleomagnetic, geochrono-logical and geochemical study of Mesoproterozoic Lakhna dykes,India: implications for the late Mesoproterozoic supercontinent.Lithos, 174, 125–143.

Pitchamuthu, C. S. & Srinivasan, R. 1984. The Dharwar Craton.Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, Perspective ReportSeries, 7, 3–34.

Poddar, B. C. & Mathur, R. K. 1965. A note on the repetitious sequenceof greywacke–slate–phyllite in the Aravalli System around Udaipur,Rajasthan. Bulletin Geological Society of India, 2, 83–87.

Pradhan, V. R., Pandit, M. K. & Meert, J. G. 2008. A cautionary noteon the age of the paleomagnetic pole obtained from the Harohallidyke swarms, Dharwar craton, southern India. In: Srivastava,R. K., Shivaji, Ch. & Chalapathi Rao, V. (eds) Indian Dykes: Geo-chemistry, Geophysics and Geochronology. Narosa, New Delhi,339–352.

Pradhan, V. R., Meert, J. G., Pandit, M. K., Kamenov, G., Gregory,L. C. & Malone, S. J. 2010. India’s changing place in global Proter-ozoic reconstructions: new geochronologic constraints on key paleo-magnetic poles from the Dharwar and Aravalli/Bundelkhand cratons.Journal of Geodynamics, 50, 224–242.

Pradhan, V. R., Meert, J. G., Pandit, M. K., Kamenov, G. D. &Mondal, E. A. 2012. Tectonic evolution of the Precambrian Bun-delkhand craton, central India: insights from paleomagnetic and geo-chronological studies on the mafic dyke swarms. PrecambrianResearch, 198–199, 51–76.

Prasad, B., Asher, R. & Borgohai, B. 2010. Late Neoproterozoic(Ediacaran)–Early Paleozoic (Cambrian) acritarchs from MarwarSupergroup, Bikaner–Nagaur Basin, Rajasthan. Journal of the Geo-logical Society of India, 75, 415–431.

Prasad, S. & De, C. 2011. Maiden paleontological delineation of thePrecambrian–Cambrian boundary from peninsular Proterozoic basinof Rajasthan, India. Indian Journal of Geosciences, 65, 243–244.

Radhakrishna, B. P. & Vaidyanadhan, R. 1997. Geology of Karnataka.Geological Society of India, Bangalore.

Radhakrishna, T. & Mathew, J. 1993. Proterozoic palaeomagmatism ofthe south Indian shield and tectonic constraints. Geological Society ofIndia, Bangalore, Memoirs, 26, 321–336.

Radhakrishna, T., Chandra, R., Srivastava, A. K. & Balasubramo-

nian, G. 2013. Central/Eastern Indian Bundelkhand and Bastarcratons in the Palaeoproterozoicsupercontinental reconstructions: apalaeomagnetic perspective. Precambrian Research, 226, 91–104.

Raghav, K. S., De, C. & Jain, R. L. 2005. The first record of VendianMedusoids and trace fossil- bearing algal matgrounds from thebasal part of the Marwar SuperGroup of Rajasthan, India. IndianMineralogy, 59, 22–30.

Rajesh, H. M., Mukhopadhyay, J., Beukes, N. J., Gutzmer, J., Belya-

nin, G. A. & Armstrong, R. A. 2009. Evidence for an earlyArchaean granite from Bastar craton, India. Journal of the GeologicalSociety, London, 166, 193–196.

Ramachandra, H. M., Mishra, V. P. & Deshmukh, S. S. 1995. Maficdykes in the Bastar Precambrian: study of the Bhanupratappur–Keskal mafic dyke swarm. In: Devaraju, T. C. (ed.) Mafic DykeSwarms of Peninsular India. Geological Society of India, Bangalore,Memoirs, 33, 183–207.

Ramakrishnan, M. 1990. Crustal development in southern Bastar CentralIndian Craton. Geological Society of India, Bangalore, Special Pub-lications, 28, 44–66.

Ramakrishnan, M. & Vaidyanadhan, R. 2008. Geology of India:Volume 1. Geological Society of India, Bangalore.

Rao, J. M. 2004. The wide-spread 2 Ga dyke activity in the Indian shield-evidences from Bundelkhand mafic dyke swarm, Central India andtheir tectonic implications. Gondwana Research, 7, 1219–1228.

Rasmussen, B., Bose, P. K., Sakar, S., Banerjee, S., Fletcher, I. R. &McNaughton, N. J. 2002. 1.6 Ga U–Pb zircon age for the ChorhatSandstone, Lower Vindhyan, India: possible implications for theearly evolution of animals. Geology, 20, 103–106.

Ratre, K., de Waele, B., Biswal, T. K. & Sinha, S. 2010. SHRIMP geo-chronology for the 1450 Ma Lakhna dyke swarm: its implication forthe presence of Eoarchaean crust in the Bastar Craton and 1450–




517 Ma depositional age for Purana basin (Khariar), Eastern IndianPeninsula. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 39, 565–577.

Ray, J. S., Martin, M. W., Veizer, J. & Bowring, S. A. 2002. U–PbZircon dating and Sr isotope systematic of the Vindhyan SuperGroup,India. Geology, 30, 131–134.

Ray, J. S., Veizer, J. & Davis, W. J. 2003. C, O, Sr and Pb isotope sys-tematics of carbonate sequences of the Vindhyan Supergroup,India: age, diagenesis, correlations, and implications for globalevents. Precambrian Research, 121, 103–140.

Reddy, S., Clark, C. & Mazumder, R. 2008. Was there a pre-NunaIndia-Antarctic connection? In: Evidence from SHRIMP U–Pbzircon dating. 33rd IGC Conference Abstracts, Oslo, 6–14 August,2008, 33, #1344159.

Reddy, S., Clark, C. & Mazumder, R. 2009. Temporal constraintson the evolution of the Singhbhum crustal province fromU–Pb SHRIMP data. In: Saha, D. & Mazumder, R. (eds) Inter-national Conference on Paleoproterozoic Supercontinents andGlobal Evolution, UNESCO-IGCP 509, Abstract Volume. Inter-national Association for Gondwana Research, Conference Series, 9,17–18.

Rogers, A. J., Kolb, J., Meyer, F. M. & Armstrong, R. A. 2007.Tectono-magmatic evolution of the Hutti-Maski greenstone belt,India: constrained using geochemical and geochronological data.Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 31, 55–70.

Rogers, J. J. W. & Santosh, M. 2002. Configuration of Columbia, aMesoproterozoic supercontinent. Gondwana Research, 5, 5–22.

Rogers, J. J. W. & Santosh, M. 2003. Supercontinents in Earth history.Gondwana Research, 6, 357–368.

Rollinson, H. R., Windley, B. F. & Ramakrishnan, M. 1981. Contrast-ing high and intermediate pressures of metamorphism in theArchaean Sargur Schists of southern India. Contributions to Mineral-ogy and Petrology, 76, 420–429.

Roy, A. & Sarkar, A. 2006. Discussion on paper by Misra and Johnson.Gondwana Research, 8, 129–142.

Roy, A. B. 1988. Stratigraphic and tectonic framework of the AravalliMountains Range. In: Roy, A. B. (ed.) Precambrian of AravalliMountain, Rajasthan. Geological Society of India, Bangalore,Memoirs, 7, 3–31.

Roy, A. B. & Jakhar, S. R. 2002. Geology of Rajasthan (NW India) –Precambrian to Recent. Scientific Publishers (India), Jodhpur.

Roy, A. B. & Kroner, A. 1996. Single zircon evaporation ages constrain-ing the growth of the Archean Aravalli Craton, northwestern Indianshield. Geological Magazine, 133, 333–342.

Roy, A. B., Sharma, B. L. et al. 1993. Lithostratigraphy and tectonicevolution of the Aravalli Supergroup: a Protogeosynclinal sequence.In: Casshyap, S. M. (ed.) Rift Basins and Aulacogens. Gyanoday Pra-kashan, Naini Tal, 73–90.

Roy, A. B., Kroner, A., Bhattacharya, P. K. & Rathore, S. 2005.Metamorphic evolution and zircon geochronology of early Protero-zoic granulites in the Aravalli Mountains of northwestern India. Geo-logical Magazine, 142, 287–302.

Roy, A. B., Kagami, H., Yoshida, M., Roy, A., Bandyopadhyay, B. K.& Chattopadhyay, A. 2006. Rb/Sr and Sm/Nd dating of differentmetamorphic events from the Sausar mobile belt, central India; impli-cations for Proterozoic crustal evolution. Journal of Asian EarthSciences, 26, 61–76.

Roy, A. B., Kroner, A., Rathore, S., Laul, V. & Purohit, R. 2012.Tectono-metamorphic and geochronologic studies from SandmataComplex, northwest Indian shield: implication on exhumation of late-Paleoproterozoic granulites in and Archaean-early Paleoproterozoicgranite–gneiss terrane. Journal of the Geological Society of India,79, 323–334.

Saha, A. K. 1994. Crustal Evolution of Singhbhum–North Orissa,Eastern India. Geological Survey of India, Hyderabad, Special Pub-lications, 27.

Saha, A. K., Ray, S. L. & Sarkar, S. N. 1988. Early history of the Earth:evidence from the Eastern Indian Shield. In: Mukhopadhyay, D.(ed.) Precambrian of the Eastern Indian Shield. Geological Societyof India, Bangalore, Memoirs, 8, 13–37.

Santosh, M., Yokoyama, K. & Accharya, S. K. 2004. Geochronologyof tectonic evolution of Karimnagar–Bhopalpatnam granulite belts,Central India. Gondwana Research, 7, 501–518.

Sarangi, S., Gopalan, K. & Kumar, S. 2004. Pb–Pb age of earliestmegascopic, eukaryotic alga bearing Rhotas formation, VindhyanSuperGroup, India: implications for Precambrian atmosphericoxygen evolution. Precambrian Research, 121, 107–121.

Sarkar, A. 1997. Geochronology of Proterozoic Mafic dykes from theBundelkhand craton, Central India. In: International Conference onIsotopes in Solar System, 11–14 November, Abstracts, 98–99.

Sarkar, A., Sarkar, G., Paul, D. K. & Mitra, N. D. 1990. Precambriangeochronology of central Indian shield: a review. Geological Surveyof India, Hyderabad, Special Publications, 28, 453–482.

Sarkar, G., Corfu, F., Paul, D. K., Mc Naughton, N. J., Gupta, S. N.& Bishui, P. K. 1993. Early Archaean crust in Bastar Craton, CentralIndia: a geochemical and isotopic study. Precambrian Research, 62,127–137.

Sarkar, S. N. & Saha, A. K. 1983. Structure and tectonics of the Singhb-hum–Orissa Iron Ore craton, eastern India Structure and Tectonics ofthe Precambrian Rocks. In: Recent Researches in Geology. Hin-dusthan, New Delhi, 10, 1–25.

Sarkar, S. N., Gopalan, K. & Trivedi, J. R. 1981. New data on the geo-chronology of Precambrian of Bhandara–Durg, Central India. IndianJournal of Earth Sciences, 8, 131–151.

Sarma, D. S., Fletcher, I. R., Rasmussen, B., McNaughton, N. J.,Ram Mohan, M. & Groves, D. I. 2008. The timing of gold mineral-ization of Hutti gold deposit, Dharwar craton, South India. EconomicGeology, 103, 1715–1727.

Sastry, R. G., Pujari, P. R. & Lal, S. 1999. Basement structure belowthe Indo-Gangetic alluvial plains (IGP), western U.P., based ongravity and magnetic data. Gondwana Research Group Memoir, 6,321–327.

Saxena, A. & Pandit, M. K. 2012. Geochemistry of Hindoli Group meta-sediments, SE Aravalli craton, NW India: implications for paleo-weathering and provenance. Journal of the Geological Society ofIndia, 79, 267–278.

Sengupta, S., Sarkar, G., Roy, A. K. G., Bhaduri, S. K., Gupta, S. N.& Mandal, A. 2000. Geochemistry and Rb–Sr geochronology ofacid tuffs from the northern fringe of the singhbhum craton andtheir significance in the Precambrian evolution. Indian Minerals,54, 43–56.

Sharma, K. K. & Rahman, A. 2000. The Early Archaean–Paleoprotero-zoic crustal growth of the Bundelkhand craton, northern Indianshield. In: Deb, M. (ed.) Crustal Evolution and Metallogeny in theNorthwestern Indian Shield. Narosa, New Delhi, 51–72.

Sharma, R. 2010. Cratons and Fold Belts of India. Lecture Notes in EarthSciences, 127. Springer, Berlin.

Sharma, R. S. 1999. Crustal development in Rajasthan Craton. IndianJournal of Geology, 71, 65–80.

Sinha Roy, S. 1988. Proterozoic Wilson cycles in Rajasthan. In: Roy,A. B. (ed.) Precambrian of the Aravalli mountain, Rajasthan, India.Geological Society of India, Memoirs, 7, 95–108.

Sinha Roy, S., Malhotra, G. & Mohanty, M. K. 1998. Geology ofRajasthan. Geological Society of India, Bangalore.

Srikantia, S. V. & Bose, S. S. 1985. Archaean Komatiites from Banasan-dra area of Kibbanahalli arm of Chitradurga Supracrustal belt in Kar-nataka. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 26, 407–417.

Srikantia, S. V. & Rao, M. S. 1990. Unusual concentric structure inkomatiite of Kibbanahalli Arm of Chitradurga supracrustal belt nearBanasandra, Karnataka. Journal of the Geological Society of India,36, 424–429.

Srikantia, S. V. & Venkataramana, P. 1989. The Archaean komatiitesof Nagamangala supracrustal belt, Karnataka. Journal of the Geologi-cal Society of India, 33, 210–214.

Srivastava, D. C. & Shah, J. 2008. Limitations of conjugate fractures andscope of reactivated faults in palaeostress analysis. Journal of theGeological Society of India, 71, 303–312.

Srivastava, R. K. 2008. Global intracratonic boninite-norite magmatismduring the Neoarchaean–Paleoproterozoic: Evidence from thecentral Indian Bastar craton. International Geology Review, 50,61–74.

Srivastava, R. K. & Singh, R. K. 2003. The Paleoproterozoic doleritedyke swarm of the southern Bastar craton, Central East India: evi-dence for the Columbia supercontinent. Geological Society ofIndia, Bangalore, Memoirs, 52, 163–177.




Srivastava, R. K., Singh, R. K. & Verma, S. P. 2000. Juxtaposition ofIndia and Antarctica during the Precambrian: inferences from geo-chemistry of mafic dykes. Gondwana Research, 3, 227–234.

Srivastava, R. K., Singh, R. K. & Verma, S. P. 2004. Neoarchaean maficvolcanic rocks from the southern Bastar greenstone belt, CentralIndia: petrological and tectonic significance. Precambrian Research,131, 305–322.

Stein, H. J., Hannah, J. L., Zimmerman, A., Markey, R. J., Sarkar, S.C. & Pal, A. B. 2004. A 2.5 Ga porphyry Cu–Mo–Au deposit atMalanjkhand, central India: implications for Late Archaean continen-tal assembly. Precambrian Research, 134, 189–226.

Subba Rao, D. V. & Naqvi, S. M. 1999. Archaean Komatiites from theolder schist belt of Kalyadi in Western Dharwar Craton, Karnataka.Journal of the Geological Society of India, 53, 347–354.

Subba Rao, D. V., Sridhar, D. N., Balaram, V., Nagaraju, K.,Gnaneshwara Rao, T., Keshavakrishna, A. & Singh, U. P.2008. Proterozoic mafic–ultramafic dyke swarms in the vicinity ofChattisgarh–Khariar–Singhora basins in northern Bastar craton,Central India. In: Srivastava, R. K., Shivaji, Ch. & Chalapathi

Rao, V. (eds) Indian Dykes: Geochemistry, Geophysics and Geo-chronology. Narosa, New Delhi, 377–396.

Sylvester, P. J. 1994. Archean granite plutons. In: Condie, C. (ed.)Archaean Crustal Evolution. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 261–314.

Taylor, P. N., Chadwick, B., Moorbath, S., Ramakrishnan, M. & Vis-

wanatha, M. N. 1984. Petrography, chemistry and isotopic ages ofPeninsular Gneiss, Dharwar acid volcanic rocks and the Chitradurgagranite with special reference to the late Archaean evolution of theKarnataka craton. Precambrian Research, 23, 349–375.

Torsvik, T. H., Carter, L., Ashwal, L. D., Bhushan, S. K., Pandit,M. K. & Jamtveit, B. 2001a. Rodinia refined or obscured: paleo-magnetism of the Malani Igneous Suite (NW India). PrecambrianResearch, 108, 319–333.

Torsvik, T. H., Ashwal, L. D., Tucker, R. D. & Eide, E. A. 2001b. Neo-proterozoic geochronology and palaeogeography of the Seychellesmicrocontinent: the India link. Precambrian Research, 110, 47–59.

Turner, C. C., Meert, J. G., Pandit, M. K. & Kamenov, G. D. 2014. Adetrital zircon U–Pb and Hf isotopic transect across the Son Valleysector of the Vindhyan basin, India: implications for basin evolutionand paleogeography. Gondwana Research, 26, 348–364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2013.07.009

van Lente, B., Ashwal, L. D., Pandit, M. K., Bowring, S. A. &Torsvik, T. H. 2009. Neoproterozoic hydrothermally-altered basalticrocks from Rajasthan, northwest India; implications for late Pre-cambrian tectonic evolution of the Aravalli Craton. PrecambrianResearch, 170, 202–222.

Vasudev, V. N., Chadwick, B., Nutman, A. P. & Hegde, G. V. 2000.Rapid development of late Archaean Hutti schist belt, northernKarnataka: implications of new field data and SHRIMP zircon ages.Journal of the Geological Society of India, 55, 529–540.

Venkatadasu, S. P., Ramakrishnan, M. & Mahabaleswar, B. 1991.Sargur–Dharwar relationships around the komatiite rich Jayachamar-ajapura greenstone belt, Karnataka. Journal of the Geological Societyof India, 38, 577–592.

Venkateshwarlu, M. & Chalapathi Rao, N. V. 2013. New palaeo-magnetic and rock magnetic results on Mesoproterozoic kimberlitesfrom the Eastern Dharwar craton, southern India: towards constrain-ing India’s position in Rodinia. Precambrian Research, 224,588–596.

Vijaya Rao, V., Rajendra Prasad, B., Reddy, P. R. & Tewari, H. C.2000. Evolution of Proterozoic Aravalli Delhi fold belt in the north-western Indian shield from seismic studies. Tectonophysics, 327,109–130.

Wani, H. & Mondal, M. E. A. 2011. Evaluation of provenance, tectonicsetting, and paleoredox conditions of the Mesoproterozoic–Neopro-terozoic basins of the Bastar craton, central Indian shield: using pet-rography of sandstones and geochemistry of shales. Lithosphere, 3,143–154.

Wiedenbeck, M. & Goswami, J. N. 1994. An ion-probe single zircon207Pb/206Pb age from the Mewar Gneiss at Jhamarkotra, Rajasthan.Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 58, 2135–2141.

Wiedenbeck, M., Goswami, J. N. & Roy, A. B. 1996a. Stabilisation of theAravalli craton of the north-western India at 2.5 Ga: an ion-microprobe zircon study. Chemical Geology, 129, 325–340.

Wiedenbeck, M., Goswami, J. N. & Roy, A. B. 1996b. An ion microprobestudy of single zircons from the Amet granite, Rajasthan. Journal ofthe Geological Society of India, 48, 127–137.

Zachariah, J. K., Hanson, G. N. & Rajamani, V. 1995. Postcrystalliza-tion disturbance in the neodymium and lead isotope systems of meta-basalts from the Ramigiri schist belt, southern India. Geochimica etCosmochimica Acta, 59, 3189–3203.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2013.07.009




Documents

Chapter 3 The Archaean and Proterozoic history of ... · Chapter 3 The Archaean and Proterozoic history of Peninsular India: tectonic framework for Precambrian sedimentary basins