Tectonothermal imprints in a suite of mafic dykes from the Chotanagpur Granite Gneissic complex (CGGC), Jharkhand, India: Evidence for late Tonian reworking of an early Tonian continental crust

The current status of orogenesis in the Central Indian Tectonic Zone: A view from its Southern Margin

“…Taken together with evidence for a broadly‐coeval Grenville‐aged continental collision tectonics in the adjoining Proterozoic mobile belts in eastern (Chottanagpur Gneissic Complex (Sanyal, Sengupta, & Goswami, ; Chatterjee, Banerjee, Bhattacharya, & Maji, ; Chatterjee, Crowley, & Ghose, ; Maji et al, ; Chatterjee & Ghose, ; Karmakar, Bose, Basu Sarbadhikari, & Das, ; Rekha et al, ; Sanyal & Sengupta, ; Dey, Mukherjee, Sanyal, Ibanez‐Mejia, & Sengupta, ; Mukherjee et al, ; Mukherjee, Dey, Sanyal, & Sengupta, ; Chatterjee, ; Bangriposi Shear Zone [Prabhakar, Bhattacharya, Sathyanarayanan, & Mukherjee, ]) Gangpur Schist belt (Chakraborty, Upadhyay, Ranjan, Pruseth, & Nanda, ) and north‐western India (Aravalli‐Delhi Mobile Belt [Pant, Kundu, & Joshi, ; Bhowmik, Bernhardt, & Dasgupta, ; Bhowmik, Dasgupta, Baruah, & Kalita, ; Bhowmik, Saha, Dasgupta, & Fukuoka, ; Bhowmik et al, ; Buick et al, ; Chattopadhyay, Mukhopadhyay, & Sengupta, ; Pandey, Pant, & Kumar, ; Hazarika, Upadhyay, & Mishra, ; Ozha, Mishra, Hazarika, Jeyagopal, & Yadav, ; Kaur et al, ; Bose, Seth, & Dasgupta, ]), it becomes evident that at least three microcontinental blocks (e.g., North and South Indian blocks and the Marwar Block) became amalgamated at ~1.0 Ga to produce the final configuration of the Greater Indian Landmass (Bhowmik et al, , , 2018; Prabhakar et al, ; Mukherjee et al, ; Chatterjee, ; Chakraborty et al, ). Although there is an ongoing debate on the exact location of the India in Rodinia supercontinent (Collins & Pisarevsky, ; Li et al, ; Meert & Torsvik, ; Merdith et al, ; Pisarevsky et al, ), these new results from the Indian shield reveal that the Greater Indian Landmass at c.1.0 Ga with discrete cratonic blocks being stitched by a network of interconnecting orogenic belts resembles a miniature Rodinia (see also Basu & Bickford, ; Bhowmik et al, , ; Bose & Dasgupta, ; Chatterjee, ).…”

“…See text for further details. Data sources are as follows: SMB: Ahmad et al, ; Bhowmik, ; Bhandari et al, ; Bhowmik et al, , , , ; Chattopadhyay et al, , ; Bhowmik & Chakraborty, ; MB: Bora et al, ; Deshmukh, Prabhakar, Bhattacharya, & Madhavan, ; Khanna et al, ; Saikia et al, ; CGC: Chatterjee et al, ; Maji et al, ; Rekha et al, ; Chatterjee & Ghose, ; Karmakar et al, ; Sanyal & Sengupta, ; Dey et al, ; Mukherjee et al, ; Mukherjee, Dey, Ibanez‐Mejia, et al, ; Mukherjee, Dey, Sanyal, & Sengupta, ; NSMB: Roy, Sarkar, Jeyakumar, Aggrawal, & Ebihara, ; Mahato, Goon, Bhattacharya, Mishra, & Bernhardt, ; Reddy, Clark, & Mazumder, ; GSB: Chakraborty et al, ; Vindhyan basin: Ray, Martin, Veizer, & Bowring, ; Rasmussen et al, ; Bickford et al, [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]…”

Tectonothermal evolution of the Central Indian Tectonic Zone and its implications for Proterozoic supercontinent assembly: the current status

“…While the sedimentation in the Sausar Basin initiated with a basal conglomerate-sandstone unit at its southern margin (Pal and Bhowmik, 1998;Bhowmik, 2019) on the shoulders of the BBG granulite basement, lithological association reveals progressive deepening of the basin towards the north and northwest. Previous studies linked the middle Proterozoic crustal extension event as part of disintegration of the proto-Greater Indian Landmass (Mukherjee et al, 2018;Bhowmik 2019). While there is scanty geological data to infer the extent of development of oceanic crust in the Sausar basin, metamorphic and chronological information from the central and RKG domains reveal underthrusting of the amalgamated BBG and SIB crust beneath the combined Mahakoshal and NIB crust during a Himalayan-style continental collision orogeny between 1.06 and 0.93 Ga (Bhowmik and Roy, 2003;Bhowmik and Spiering, 2004;Bhowmik et al, 2012;Chattopadhyay et al, 2015Chattopadhyay et al, , 2017.…”

Genesis of coronae and implications of an early Neoproterozoic thermal event: a case study from SE Chotanagpur Granite Gneissic Complex, India

“…The area has been intruded by maficultramafic, anorthositic-komatiitic rocks (Bhattacharya et al 2010). Domain I has suffered three major tectonothermal events, namely: D 1 -M 1 (1650-1600 Ma); D 2 -M 2 (1000-950 Ma); and D 3 -M 3 (c. 900 Ma) (Mukherjee et al 2018). The regional foliation is dominantly E-W-trending, except along the eastern margin where N-S-oriented open folds formed during D 3 -M 3 are found as a dominant structural feature (Chatterjee et al 2010;Chatterjee, 2018).…”

“…While D 1 -M 1 is indicative of ultra-hightemperature (UHT) metamorphism, the second tectonothermal event (D 2 -M 2 ) resulted in P-T conditions of c. 9-12 kbar and 800°C. Debate exists around the P-T conditions of metamorphism related to D 3 -M 3 (Mukherjee et al 2018(Mukherjee et al , 2019.…”