Thermal history of a Late Mesoproterozoic paired metamorphic belt (?) during Rodinia assembly: New insight from medium-pressure granulites from the Aravalli-Delhi Mobile Belt, Northwestern India

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, ).…”

Dynamics, EPMA Th‐U‐Total Pb Monazite Geochronology and Tectonic Implications of Deformational Fabric in the Lower‐Middle Crustal Rocks: A Case Study of Ambaji Granulite, NW India

“…Ours is the first report from entire SDT, about the age of metamorphism and shearing using monazite geochronology of granulites. The other ages available on granulite from the Pilwa-Chinwali in the northern part of the SDT indicate ages at 1.7-1.5 Ga (Pd isotope age, Fareeduddin et al, 1994) and 1.0 Ga (monazite age, Bhowmik et al, 2018) similar to Sandmata terrane-granulites. There is a difference in interpretation about the status of these granulites.…”

“…The Sandmata granulites occur as intrusive within migmatite gneisses. The granulites display metamorphic ages at circa 1.7‐1.5 and 1.0 Ga (Bhowmik et al, ; Fareeduddin et al, 1994; Sarkar et al, ). The Paleoproterozoic Aravalli terrane consists of low‐grade pelitic and carbonate metasedimentary rocks and also hosts ophiolite belts of the Rakhabdev shear zone (Deb & Thorpe, ).…”

“…Further, it exhibits multiple phases of folding (F 1‐4 ; Naha et al, , ) and greenschist to amphibolite facies of metamorphism (Sharma, ). Granulites are exposed at Ambaji (study area) and minor occurrence at Pilwa‐Chinwali (Figure b; Bhowmik et al, ; Fareeduddin et al, ; Fareeduddin & Kröner, ).…”

“…There is a difference in interpretation about the status of these granulites. Bhowmik et al (2018) interpreted the granulites to be part of the SDT and extrapolated the age (circa 1.0 Ga) to entire SDT and explained the granulite formation was a part of Grenvillian orogeny. However, Fareeduddin et al (1994) interpreted the granulites to be part of older Sandmata terrane, which has been tectonically emplaced along Phulad tectonic zone of the SDT.…”