2000
DOI: 10.1130/0016-7606(2000)112<324:tothas>2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tectonics of the Himalaya and southern Tibet from two perspectives

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

15
675
1
4

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,080 publications
(695 citation statements)
references
References 227 publications
15
675
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…This model provided a plausible mechanism to explain both the double crustal thickness of Tibet and surface uplift of the plateau. Subsequent geological mapping and structural studies in the Himalaya showed that the Himalayan range is composed of folded and thrust Neoproterozoic to Palaeogene rocks that in the middle crustal levels were metamorphosed to Barrovian-facies metamorphic rocks during the OligoceneMiocene (Searle et al 1997a;Hodges 2000). The ArchaeanMesoproterozoic Indian plate lower crust that originally underlay the Phanerozoic passive margin sediments prior to the IndiaAsia collision is never exposed along the Himalaya and must therefore have underthrust the Tibetan Plateau to the north after the collision (Fig.…”
Section: Crustal Deformation Models For Tibetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This model provided a plausible mechanism to explain both the double crustal thickness of Tibet and surface uplift of the plateau. Subsequent geological mapping and structural studies in the Himalaya showed that the Himalayan range is composed of folded and thrust Neoproterozoic to Palaeogene rocks that in the middle crustal levels were metamorphosed to Barrovian-facies metamorphic rocks during the OligoceneMiocene (Searle et al 1997a;Hodges 2000). The ArchaeanMesoproterozoic Indian plate lower crust that originally underlay the Phanerozoic passive margin sediments prior to the IndiaAsia collision is never exposed along the Himalaya and must therefore have underthrust the Tibetan Plateau to the north after the collision (Fig.…”
Section: Crustal Deformation Models For Tibetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The end of marine sedimentation and the first onlap of fluvio-deltaic sediments and redbeds on the Indian northern passive margin in the western Himalaya is dated as foraminiferal Zone P8 (38), correlative with Chron C22r of latest Early Eocene age [Ϸ50.5 Ma (39,40)]. This first direct timing constraint on the initiation of collision between India and Asia has stood up well (41)(42)(43) and is supported, for example, by field studies in northwest Pakistan, where the suture and Indian craton were overlapped by shallow-marine strata of latest Early Eocene age (Zone P9), showing that suturing was largely completed by Ϸ49 Ma (44). Evidence of subduction and final collision derives also from the occurrence of island arc volcanics and related intrusives, and massive calc-alkaline plutonism associated with the last major pulse dated at Ϸ50 Ma in the Ladakh Himalayas, for example (45)(46)(47).…”
Section: Drift Of India and Collision With Eurasiamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The leucogranites are typical Miocene Greater Himalayan leucogranites [Gansser, 1983;Edwards et al, 1999;Hodges, 2000] and form major plutons, like the Khula-Kangri Pluton, the Monlokarchung-Pasalum Pluton, and the Gophu-La Pluton west and south of the study area (Figure 1).…”
Section: Tc3001mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[3] It is generally recognized that the Himalayan orogen grew along south directed and southward propagating crustal-scale thrust imbricates since the Eocene [e.g., Le Fort, 1975;Searle et al, 1987;Dewey et al, 1988;Hodges, 2000, and references cited therein; Stüwe and Foster, 2001]. Today about 80% of recent convergence between the Indian and Asian crustal plates are taken up mainly by thrusting kinematics in an orogen-normal direction along the Himalayan frontal thrust Jackson and Bilham, 1994].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%