Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T22:47:26.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crustal geodynamics from the Archaean Bundelkhand Craton, India: constraints from zircon U–Pb–Hf isotope studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2015

L. SAHA ,
D. FREI ,
A. GERDES ,
J. K. PATI ,
S. SARKAR ,
V. PATOLE ,
A. BHANDARI  and
P. NASIPURI
L. SAHA*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
D. FREI
Affiliation:
Central Analytical Facility, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
A. GERDES
Affiliation:
Institute of Geosciences, Goethe University Frankfurt, Altenhöferallee 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
J. K. PATI
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Allahabad, India
S. SARKAR
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
V. PATOLE
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research-Bhopal, India
A. BHANDARI
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
P. NASIPURI
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research-Bhopal, India
*
†Author for correspondence: saha.lopamudra@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A comprehensive study based on U–Pb and Hf isotope analyses of zircons from gneisses has been conducted along the western part (Babina area) of the E–W-trending Bundelkhand Tectonic Zone in the central part of the Archaean Bundelkhand Craton. 207Pb–206Pb zircon ages and Hf isotopic data indicate the existence of a felsic crust at ~ 3.59 Ga, followed by a second tectonothermal event at ~ 3.44 Ga, leading to calc-alkaline magmatism and subsequent crustal growth. The study hence suggests that crust formation in the Bundelkhand Craton occurred in a similar time-frame to that recorded from the Singhbhum and Bastar cratons of the North Indian Shield.

Keywords

Bundelkhand CratonBundelkhand Tectonic ZoneArchaeantonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite gneiss (TTG)U–Pb zircon ages

Information

Type
Rapid Communication
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 153 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 179 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

1. Introduction

Tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite (TTG) rocks are the major components of Archaean continental crust (Condie, Reference Condie2000). Available evidence from zircon geochemistry and U–Pb geochronology suggests that continental crust has been forming since ~ 4.4 Ga (Wilde et al. Reference Wilde, Valley, Peck and Graham2001). Although the existence of 4.4 Ga old crust (Wilde et al. Reference Wilde, Valley, Peck and Graham2001) is disputable, magmatic emplacement ages of TTG rocks clustering around ~ 3.9–3.8 Ga are reported from the Itsaq Gneiss Complex and Saglek–Hebron Block in the North Atlantic Craton, the Napier Complex in Antarctica and the North China Craton, and such rocks also yielded abundant detrital grains to the Jack Hills Quartzite in Western Australia (Myers, Reference Myers1988; Nutman et al. Reference Nutman, Chadwick, Ramakrishnan and Viswanatha1992; Friend & Nutman, Reference Friend and Nutman2005). These occurrences indicate widespread continental crust formation from ~ 3.8 Ga onwards (for detailed discussions see van Kranendonk, Smithies & Bennett, Reference van Kranendonk, Smithies and Bennett2007). In peninsular India, relatively younger crust formation ages have been reported for trondhjemite and leucogranite from the Bastar Craton (3.5–3.4 Ga; Sarkar et al. Reference Sarkar, Corfu, Paul, McNaughton, Gupta and Bishui1993; Ghosh, Reference Ghosh2004), felsic volcanic and trondhjemitic xenoliths from the Singhbhum Craton (~ 3.4 Ga; Sengupta et al. Reference Sengupta, Corfu, McNutt and Paul1996; Mishra et al. Reference Mishra, Deomurari, Wiedenbeck, Goswami, Ray and Saha1999) and TTG from the Bundelkhand Craton (~ 3.6 Ga; Kaur, Zeh & Chaudhri, Reference Kaur, Zeh and Chaudhri2014). Apart from sparse zircon ages recorded from a few localities in these cratons, no comprehensive study has been conducted to chart the processes related to the origin of Archaean continental crust in these Indian cratons.

Geochronological studies based on combined U–Pb and Lu–Hf systematics of zircon are considered to be very powerful tools to understand the timing and processes of formation of Archaean crust, their recycling and related magma generation processes (Condie, Reference Condie2000; Kröner et al. Reference Kröner, Wan, Liu and Liu2014). The U, Pb and Hf contents in magmatic zircons are usually high and the mineral can even preserve original isotopic compositions under extreme granulite facies conditions. Consequently, they can be used as a geochronometer to constrain crustal formation and subsequent recycling processes (Nutman et al. Reference Nutman, Bennett, Friend, Horie and Hikada2007, Reference Nutman, Bennett, Friend and Mcgregor2000; Iizuka et al. Reference Iizuka, Komiya, Ueno, Katayama, Uehara, Maruyama, Hirata, Johnson and Dunkley2007; Harrison et al. Reference Harrison, Schmitt, McCulloch and Lovera2008; Nebel-Jacobsen et al. Reference Nebel-Jacobsen, Munker, Nebel, Gerdes, Mezger and Nelson2010).

In this study we present new U–Pb zircon ages and Lu–Hf isotope data from the TTG gneisses of the Bundelkhand Craton, North Central India, in order to constrain the timing of Palaeoarchaean crustal building processes (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

(a) Tectonic map of peninsular India showing the location of the Bundelkhand Craton with respect to the Archaean cratons and Proterozoic mobile belts. (b) Geological map of the Bundelkhand Craton modified after Basu (Reference Basu1986) showing the geochronological data from different terrains (after Mondal et al. Reference Mondal, Goswami, Deomurari and Sharma2002; Kaur, Zeh & Chaudhri, Reference Kaur, Zeh and Chaudhri2014) and localities of the present study (represented by the box).

2. Geological background

The Bundelkhand Craton forms the eastern part of the Aravalli–Bundelkhand protocontinent (Mondal et al. Reference Mondal, Goswami, Deomurari and Sharma2002). Proterozoic sedimentary basins (Vindhyan Basin) and tectonic belts (Central Indian Tectonic Zone) separate the Bundelkhand Craton from the Aravalli Craton to the west, the Singhbhum Craton to the east and the Bastar Craton to the south (Fig. 1a). The northern part of the Bundelkhand Craton is mostly covered by Indo-Gangetic alluvium. Major lithological components of the craton are intensely deformed granitoid-greenstone terrains that are intruded by undeformed granitoids (Basu, Reference Basu1986; Sharma & Rahman, Reference Sharma, Rahman and Deb2000; Pati et al. Reference Pati, Patel, Pruseth, Malviya, Arima, Raju, Pati and Prakash2007; Meert et al. Reference Meert, Pandit, Pradhan, Banks, Sirianni, Stroud, Newstead and Gifford2010; Fig. 1b).

The oldest crustal components of the craton are represented by the ~ 3.58–3.5 Ga trondhjemitic gneisses from Baghora (whole-rock Rb–Sr age) and Mauranipur (U–Pb zircon ages) in the central part of the craton (Sarkar, Paul & Potts, Reference Sarkar, Paul and Potts1996; Kaur, Zeh & Chaudhri, Reference Kaur, Zeh and Chaudhri2014). Mondal et al. (Reference Mondal, Goswami, Deomurari and Sharma2002) reported zircon evaporation ages of ~ 3.3–3.2 Ga for high-aluminium trondhjemite gneiss from Kuraicha and Mahoba and tonalitic gneisses from Panchwara. Neoarchaean zircon evaporation ages and SHRIMP ages of ~ 2.7 and 2.5 Ga, have been recorded for tonalite gneiss, granitoids and felsic schists from the central Bundelkhand Craton (Fig. 1b; Mondal et al. Reference Mondal, Goswami, Deomurari and Sharma2002; Kumar et al. Reference Kumar, Yi, Raju, Pathak, Kim, Lee, Molina, Scarrow, Bea and Montero2011; Singh & Slabunov, Reference Singh and Slabunov2014). Geochemical signatures of the craton's Mesoarchaean TTG gneisses indicate emplacement in a suprasubduction environment (Ram Mohan et al. Reference Ram Mohan, Singh, Santosh, Siddiqui and Balaram2012).

Nd isotopic data for the amphibolites in the Mahoba, Mauranipur and Babina areas indicate depleted mantle model ages of ~ 3.4–3.3 Ga, suggesting an origin of these mafic supracrustal rocks from a depleted mantle during the Mesoarchaean Era (Malviya, Arima & Pati, Reference Malviya, Arima and Pati2005). An intrusive contact of the ~ 3.3 Ga old Mahoba TTG gneiss with the associated supracrustal units and a zircon evaporation age of ~ 3.25 Ga obtained from a metabasic enclave within the gneiss indicate the minimum age of formation of the supracrustal units (Mondal et al. Reference Mondal, Goswami, Deomurari and Sharma2002). The last phase of magmatism in the craton was the intrusion of the NW-trending mafic dykes between ~ 1.97 and 1.8 Ga (Pradhan et al. Reference Pradhan, Meert, Pandit, Kamenov and Mondal2012).

Lead-loss events and post-magmatic overgrowth on magmatic zircons from the TTG gneisses around the Mahoba and Laliltpur areas occurred at ~ 3.1 Ga, ~ 3.05 Ga and ~ 2.9–2.8 Ga, and have been interpreted by Mondal et al. (Reference Mondal, Goswami, Deomurari and Sharma2002) as ages of metamorphism. The sole well-constrained study on the metamorphism of the craton was conducted by Saha et al. (Reference Saha, Pant, Pati, Upadhaya, Berndt, Bhattacharya and Satyanarayan2011) on the corundum-bearing white-schist in the Babina area (occurring in the western part of the Bundelkhand Tectonic Zone), where the authors noted a ~ 2.78 Ga high-pressure metamorphic event indicating the occurrence of collisional tectonics. Geochemical signatures (strong heavy rare earth element depletion) of Neoarchaean felsic rocks in the craton indicate their emplacement in a convergence setting (Mondal et al. Reference Mondal, Goswami, Deomurari and Sharma2002; Kumar et al. Reference Kumar, Yi, Raju, Pathak, Kim, Lee, Molina, Scarrow, Bea and Montero2011; Singh & Slubanov, Reference Singh and Slabunov2014). Thus, collisional tectonics played a major role in the stabilization of the craton in the Neoarchaean Era.

3. Field observations

Near Babina, scattered outcrops of TTG gneisses show development of alternating leucocratic and melanocratic bands with mafic (amphibolite) enclaves displaying local partial melting (Fig. 2). The extremely deformed outcrops (Fig. 2c) indicate that the TTG gneisses have experienced multiple episodes of folding. Two samples of TTG gneisses, LB13 and DUR13, were collected from the Babina area for this study (Fig. 1b).

Figure 2.

Field photographs of the TTGs from the Babina and Sukwan–Dukwan dam areas. (a) TTG gneiss from the Babina area (sample LB13); (b) banding and foliation in the TTG gneiss; length of hammer for scale is 40 cm; (c) migmatitic banding in the TTG gneiss; length of pen for scale is 14 cm; (d) large-size mafic enclaves in the TTG gneiss; length of hammer for scale is 29 cm.

4. Zircon geochronology

4.a. U–Pb method

Zircon U–Pb age data were acquired at the Central Analytical Facility, Stellenbosch University, by laser ablation single-collector magnetic sector field inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-SF-ICP-MS) employing a Thermo Finnigan Element 2 mass spectrometer coupled to a NewWave UP213 laser ablation system. All age data were obtained by single spot analyses with a spot diameter of 30 µm and a crater depth of approximately 15–20 µm (online Supplementary Material available from http://journals.cambridge.org/geo). The methods employed for analysis and data processing are described in detail by Gerdes & Zeh (Reference Gerdes and Zeh2006, Reference Gerdes and Zeh2009) and Frei & Gerdes (Reference Frei and Gerdes2009). For quality control, the Plešovice (Sláma et al. Reference Sláma, Košler, Condon, Crowley, Gerdes, Hanchar, Horstwood, Morris, Nasdala, Norberg, Schaltegger, Schoene, Tubrett and Whitehouse2008) and M127 (Nasdala et al. Reference Nasdala, Hofmeister, Norberg, Mattinson, Corfu, Dörr, Kamo, Kennedy, Kronz, Reiners, Frei, Košler, Wan, Götze, Häger, Kröner and Valley2008; Mattinson, Reference Mattinson2010) zircon reference materials were analysed, and the results were consistently in excellent agreement with the published ID-TIMS ages. Full analytical details and the results for all quality control materials analysed are reported in Table S1 in the online Supplementary Material (available at http://journals.cambridge.org/geo). The calculation of concordia ages and plotting of concordia diagrams were performed using Isoplot/Ex 3.0 (Ludwig, Reference Ludwig2003).

4.b. Zircon data from the TTG gneiss near Babina (LB13)

Cathodoluminescence (CL) imaging reveals that most zircons separated from LB13 show oscillatory magmatic zoning (Fig. 3a, b). Some zircons show cores that are apparently overgrown by rims displaying oscillatory zoning; however, no age differences could be found between cores and rims, suggesting that individual zircon grains have been formed during a single magmatic event. In total 40 single spot analyses on 29 grains have been obtained. Although secondary textural features (e.g. alteration, metamictization and recrystallization) are not widespread as observed in CL images, a significant portion of the analyses yielded discordant ages (60% of the analyses are > 10% discordant; Table 1; Fig. 3c). In general, all analyses that yielded highly discordant ages also have U contents > 500 ppm, pointing to metamictization which enhanced lead loss. Subsequent Lu–Hf analyses (discussed in Section 5) have only been performed on those spots that yielded > 90% U–Pb concordance. As shown in a Wetherill Concordia plot in Figure 3c, the concordant to near-concordant analyses define two distinct age groups: c. 3.59 Ga and c. 3.44 Ga. The older zircon grains give an upper intercept age of 3589±7 Ma (MSWD = 0.83), identical to a concordia age of 3589±8 Ma (MSWD = 0.21) for the eight most concordant analyses. The younger zircon age group gives an upper intercept age of 3444±26 Ma (MSWD = 2.7) and a mean Pb–Pb age of 3440±3 Ma (MSWD = 0.83) for the four most concordant analysis. The data suggest that the younger ages reflect the timing of intrusion of TTG magmatism. The older zircon grains possibly represent xenocrysts derived from an older crustal component.

Figure 3.

(a, b) CL images of zircons from sample LB13. The position of the laser spots (30 μm in diameter) is indicated by white circles. Labels indicate analysis number, the estimated 207Pb–206Pb ages with 2σ errors (in Ma) and the degree of concordance (in %). (c) Concordia diagram showing the laser ablation analyses of zircons of two distinct age groups (3.59 Ga and 3.44 Ga).

Table 1.

U–Pb data for the zircons from the TTG gneiss of the Babina area (LB13)

a U and Pb concentrations and Th/U ratios are calculated relative to the GJ-1 reference zircon

b Corrected for background and within-run Pb/U fractionation and normalized to reference zircon GJ-1 (ID-TIMS values/measured value); 207Pb/235U calculated using (207Pb/206Pb)/(238U/206Pb * 1/137.88)

c Rho is the error correlation defined as the quotient of the propagated errors of the 206Pb/238U and the 207Pb/235U ratios

d Quadratic addition of within-run errors (2 s.d.) and daily reproducibility of GJ-1 (2 s.d)

e Corrected for mass-bias by normalizing to the GJ-1 reference zircon (~ 0.6 per atomic mass unit) and common Pb using the model Pb composition of Stacey &Kramers (Reference Stacey and Kramers1975)

4.c. Zircon data from the TTGs of the Sukwan–Dukwan dam area (DUR13)

The CL images of the zircons separated from DUR13 (Fig. 4a, b) show that all zircons are affected by a strong metamictization that in many cases has led to a dominant secondary alteration and recrystallization of the grains. A sufficient number of grains still exhibit magmatic oscillatory zoning, predominantly in the tips of individual zircon crystals, and these areas have been the primary targets for U–Pb age analysis. However, with the exception of one analysis that yielded a near-concordant Pb–Pb age of 3368±30 Ma (94% concordant, analysis 46 in Table 2 and Fig. 4b) and a comparatively low U content of 79 ppm, all analysis yielded ages that are highly discordant (74 to 26% discordance, Table 2), indicating large degrees of lead loss. The observed large extent of lead loss is in accordance with the very high U contents that range from 264 to 3274 ppm and are above 800 ppm for > 90% of the analyses. Consequently, the calculated discordia yields poorly defined upper (3220±79 Ma) and lower intercept ages (532±76 Ma) with a very high MSWD of 91, indicating that the dataset cannot be explained with a single lead-loss event and has excess scatter that is pointing to a petrogenetic evolution with multiple lead-loss events (Mezger & Krogstad, Reference Mezger and Krogstad1997; Corfu, Reference Corfu2012; Kröner et al. Reference Kröner, Wan, Liu and Liu2014). Nevertheless, we suggest that the 207Pb–206Pb age of the more concordant analysis (~ 3.44 Ga) may indicate the intrusion age for the protolith of the TTG gneiss DUR13.

Figure 4.

(a, b) CL images of zircons from sample DUR13. The position of the laser spots (30 μm in diameter) is indicated by white circles. Labels indicate analysis number, the estimated 207Pb–206Pb ages with 2σ errors (in Ma) and the degree of concordance (in %). (c) Concordia diagram showing the laser ablation zircon analyses, most of the zircons showing strong discordance with an upper intercept at ~ 3.22 Ga and one concordant analysis yielding an age of ~ 3.36 Ga.

Table 2.

U–Pb data for zircons from the TTG gneiss of the Sukwan–Dukwan area (DUR13)

a U and Pb concentrations and Th/U ratios are calculated relative to the GJ-1 reference zircon

b Corrected for background and within-run Pb/U fractionation and normalized to reference zircon GJ-1 (ID-TIMS values/measured value); 207Pb/235U calculated using (207Pb/206Pb)/(238U/206Pb * 1/137.88)

c Rho is the error correlation defined as the quotient of the propagated errors of the 206Pb/238U and the 207Pb/235U ratios

d Quadratic addition of within-run errors (2 s.d.) and daily reproducibility of GJ-1 (2 s.d)

e Corrected for mass-bias by normalizing to the GJ-1 reference zircon (~ 0.6 per atomic mass unit) and common Pb using the model Pb composition of Stacey & Kramers (Reference Stacey and Kramers1975)

5. Lu–Hf zircon data

5.a. Lu–Hf methodology

Hafnium isotope measurements were performed with a Thermo Finnigan NEPTUNE multi-collector ICP-MS at Goethe University Frankfurt (GUF) coupled to a RESOlution M50 193 nm ArF excimer (Resonetics) laser system following the method described in Gerdes & Zeh (Reference Gerdes and Zeh2006, Reference Gerdes and Zeh2009). Spots of 40 µm in diameter were drilled with a repetition rate of 5.5 Hz and an energy density of 6 J cm−2 during 40 seconds of data acquisition. Accuracy and external reproducibility of the method was verified by repeated analyses of reference zircons GJ-1 and Plešovice, which yielded 176Hf/177Hf of 0.282010 ± 0.000025 (2 s.d., n = 7) and 0.0282475 ± 0.000020 (n = 7), respectively. This is in perfect agreement with previously published results (e.g. Gerdes & Zeh, Reference Gerdes and Zeh2006; Sláma et al. Reference Sláma, Košler, Condon, Crowley, Gerdes, Hanchar, Horstwood, Morris, Nasdala, Norberg, Schaltegger, Schoene, Tubrett and Whitehouse2008) and with the LA-MC-ICP-MS seven-year long-term averages for the GJ-1 (0.282010 ± 0.000024; n > 900) and Plešovice (0.282478 ± 0.000023, n > 500) reference zircons at GUF.

The initial 176Hf/177Hf values are expressed as εHf(t), which is calculated using a decay constant value of 1.867×10−11 year−1, CHUR after Bouvier, Vervoort & Patchett (Reference Bouvier, Vervoort and Patchett2008; 176Hf/177HfCHUR,today = 0.282785 and 176Lu/177Hf CHUR,today = 0.0336) and the Pb–Pb ages obtained from the upper intercept ages of two zircon populations (method discussed by Corfu, Reference Corfu2012). For the calculation of Hf two-stage model ages (TDM) in billions of years the measured 176Lu/177Hf of each spot (first stage = age of zircon), a value of 0.0113 for the average continental crust and a depleted mantle (DM) 176Lu/177LuDM = 0.0384 and 176Hf/177Hf DM = 0.283165 (average MORB; Chauvel et al. Reference Chauvel, Lewin, Carpentier, Arndt and Marini2008) were used.

5.b. Zircon Lu–Hf analyses of LB13

As discussed by Fisher et al. (Reference Fisher, Vervoort and Hanchar2014), in the case of multiple zircon populations in any ancient rock, it is important to verify whether zircons represent single or mixed generations. Figure 3c and also the Terra-Wasserburg Concordia plot in the online Supplementary Material (available at http://journals.cambridge.org/geo) show that the two zircon populations of LB13 (~ 3.59 Ga and 3.44 Ga) occur as separate age groups without evidence of mixing. So it is concluded that the zircon ages in LB13 reflect two distinct crystallization events, and initial εHf(t) values have been calculated for each age group on the basis of their respective upper intercept ages.

Zircons with an apparent Pb–Pb age of ~ 3.44 Ga yield 176Hf/177Hf of 0.280539 to 0.280592 corresponding to εHf(t) values of −0.6 to +1.3 (Table 3). A TDM model age of ~ 3.55 Ga obtained from the ~ 3.44 Ga zircons and near-chondritic average εHf3.44Ga (+0.3) indicates that the calc-alkaline magma was formed by partial melting of a 3.55 Ga mafic crust. The analyses of the older zircon population (~ 3.59 Ga) of TTG gneiss LB13 yield 176Hf/177Hf of 0.280524 to 0.280496 corresponding to εHf(t) values of +2.4 to +1.4. Average εHf3.59Ga values (+1.9) of the older zircon population are more suprachondritic, indicating influence of depleted mantle (Table 3; Fig. 5).

Table 3.

LA-MC-ICP-MS Lu–Hf isotope data for zircons from TTG gneiss (LB13) from the Babina area

Quoted uncertainties (absolute) relate to the last quoted figure. The effect of the inter-element fractionation on the Lu/Hf was estimated to be about 6% or less based on analyses of the GJ-1 and Plešovice zircons. Accuracy and reproducibility were checked by repeated analyses (n = 7) of reference zircon GJ-1 and Plesoviče (data given as mean with 2 standard deviation uncertainties)

(a) 176Yb/177Hf = (176Yb/173Yb)true × (173Yb/177Hf)meas × (M173(Yb)/M177(Hf))b(Hf), b(Hf) = ln(179Hf/177Hf true / 179Hf/177Hfmeasured)/ ln (M179(Hf)/M177(Hf)), M = mass of respective isotope. The 176Lu/177Hf were calculated in a similar way by using the 175Lu/177Hf.

(b) Mean Hf signal in volts

(c) Uncertainties are quadratic additions of the within-run precision and the daily reproducibility of the 40 ppb-JMC475 solution. Uncertainties for the JMC475 quoted at 2 s.d.

(d) Initial 176Hf/177Hf and εHf calculated using the apparent Pb–Pb age determined by LA-ICP-MS dating (see column f), and the CHUR parameters:

176 Lu/177Hf = 0.0336 and 176Hf/177Hf = 0.282785 (Bouvier, Vervoort & Patchett, Reference Bouvier, Vervoort and Patchett2008)

(e) Two-stage model age in billions of years using the measured 176Lu/177Hf of each spot (first stage = age of zircon), a value of 0.0113 for the average continental crust (second stage) and a depleted mantle (DM<, Chauvel et al. Reference Chauvel, Lewin, Carpentier, Arndt and Marini2008) 176Lu/177Hf and 176Hf/177Hf of 0.0384 and 0.28316, respectively.

(f) Apparent Pb–Pb age determined by LA-ICP-MS

Figure 5.

Hf isotope data displayed in the εHf(t) versus U–Pb age diagram of zircons from TTG gneiss sample LB13. Symbols represent analysis of individual growth domains of zircons from the different samples. Shown for comparison are the depleted mantle (Chauvel et al. Reference Chauvel, Lewin, Carpentier, Arndt and Marini2008) and the fields of the Neoarchaean to Palaeoarchaean crust, assuming a crustal 176Lu/177Hf of 0.0113. Hf isotope data from the Archaean zircons of the Ancient Gneissic Complex, Swaziland (Zeh, Gerdes & Millonig, Reference Zeh, Gerdes and Millonig2011), Acasta Gneiss Complex, Barberton Belt, Pilbara Craton (Amelin, Lee & Halliday, Reference Amelin, Lee and Halliday2000), Zack Hills, Australia (Kemp et al. Reference Kemp, Wilde, Hawkesworth, Coath, Nemchin and Pidgeon2010) and Mauranipur area of the Bundelkhand Craton (Kaur, Zeh & Chaudhri, Reference Kaur, Zeh and Chaudhri2014) are also shown.

6. Discussion: Palaeoarchaean crustal evolution of the central part of the Bundelkhand Craton

Our study reports zircon ages (magmatic) of ~ 3.44 Ga from the TTG gneiss (LB13) of the Babina area from the western part of the Bundelkhand Tectonic Zone (Table 1; Fig. 3c). These TTG gneisses are dominantly composed of sodic plagioclase, quartz, biotite, hornblende and chlorite. TDM model ages (~ 3.55 Ga) and near-chondritic εHf (−0.6 to +1.3) values of the zircons indicate an origin of the calc-alkaline magma from melting of a ~ 3.55 Ga mafic crust. A set of older zircons from the gneiss yield a Pb–Pb age of ~ 3.59 Ga (Table 1; Fig. 3c). Average εHf values of these zircons are more suprachondritic (+1.9). The ages of these zircons are similar to the crystallization age (~ 3.56 Ga) of the trondhjemite gneiss from the Mauranipur area of the central Bundelkhand Craton. It is, therefore, concluded that the older zircons (~ 3.59 Ga) represent xenocrystic zircons from a pre-existing felsic crust. Reports of older zircon xenocrysts in TTGs have been made by Acharyaa, Gupta & Orihashi (Reference Acharyaa, Gupta and Orihashi2010) from the 3.45 Ga Singhbhum Granite and also by Kröner et al. (Reference Kröner, Hofmann, Xie, Wu, Münker, Hegner, Wong, Wan and Liu2012) from the Ancient Gneiss Complex in Swaziland. More discordant ages have been obtained from the zircons of the TTG gneiss DUR13 in the study area (Table 2; Fig. 4c). A sole concordant age of ~ 3.44 Ga obtained from the sample indicates that the ~ 3.44 Ga TTG gneisses in the study area have been strongly metamorphosed and possibly re-melted (as observed from multiple melt or leucocratic phases in Fig. 2c, d) during later tectonothermal events.

A chronological correlation between the Palaeo- to Mesoarchaean crustal components of the Bundelkhand Craton with other Archaean cratons in peninsular India is given in Table 4. The present study thus indicates that crust-forming processes in the central Bundelkhand Craton initiated at ~ 3.59 Ga, a time-period much older than that of ~ 3.3 Ga as proposed by Mondal et al. (Reference Mondal, Goswami, Deomurari and Sharma2002) (Table 4). A second phase of calc-alkaline magmatism occurred in this part of the craton at ~ 3.44 Ga (Table 4).The correlation indicates that the ~ 3.59 Ga zircon age obtained from the Babina TTG gneiss and that obtained from the Mauranipur area by Kaur, Zeh & Chaudhri (Reference Kaur, Zeh and Chaudhri2014) are similar to that recorded from the TTG gneiss and granites from the central part of the Bastar Craton in central India, the felsic volcanic rocks from the Iron Ore Group and the detrital zircons from the Older Metamorphic Group of the Singhbum Craton in eastern India and the Sargur supracrustal rocks from the Dharwar Craton, southern India (Nutman et al. Reference Nutman, Chadwick, Ramakrishnan and Viswanatha1992; Ghosh, Reference Ghosh2004; Mukhopadhyay et al. Reference Mukhopadhyay, Beukes, Armstrong, Zimmermann, Ghosh and Medda2008; Rajesh et al. Reference Rajesh, Mukhopadhyay, Beukes, Gutzmer, Belyanin and Armstrong2009). The ~ 3.44 Ga age of TTG magmatism recorded from the central part of the Bundelkhand Craton can also be correlated with the time-frame of crystallization of the Older Metamorphic Tonalitic Gneiss and Singhbhum Granite-I in the Singhbhum Craton, and the age of the detrital zircons obtained from supracrustal sequences of the Sargur Group in the Western Dharwar Craton (Mishra et al. Reference Mishra, Deomurari, Wiedenbeck, Goswami, Ray and Saha1999; Maibam, Goswami & Srinivasan, Reference Maibam, Goswami and Srinivasan2011; Table 4). Thus, the crust-forming process in the Bundelkhand Craton initiated in the same time-frame (~ 3.6 Ga) as that recorded from the Bastar and Singhbhum cratons, a time-frame when continental crust formation became widespread throughout the world, as seen in the representative sketch of the Ur Supercontinent in Figure 6. A major episode of tectonothermal activity is recorded in the Bundelkhand Craton at ~ 3.44 Ga and this has so far been recorded only from the Singhbhum Craton. Therefore, it is possible that the North Indian Shield cratons had similar Palaeoarchaean tectonothermal histories. The similar Palaeoarchaean time-frames for the evolution of the Bundelkhand, Bastar and Singhbhum cratons is support for the Bundelkhand Craton being part of the Ur Supercontinent (Fig. 6). Discordant data from the TTG gneiss show three major peaks at ~ 3.0–2.8 Ga, 2.6–2.5 Ga and 2.2–2.0 Ga, indicating lead-loss events that can be correlated, respectively, with high-pressure metamorphism, large-scale granite magmatism and intrusion of mafic dyke swarms, reported from the craton.

Table 4.

Correlation of Palaeo–Mesoarchaean crustal components of the Bundelkhand Craton with that recorded from other Archaean cratons of peninsular India

Figure 6.

Schematic diagram showing position of the Bundelkhand Craton in the Ur Supercontinent (after Rogers, Reference Rogers1996) that may explain the similar crust-forming processes in the Palaeo–Mesoarchaean.

Acknowledgements

LS acknowledges the Competitive Research Grant (2010-2012) sponsored by the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa for providing funding for the field work in Bundelkhand Craton. DF acknowledges Fundisile Nkumenge for performing zircon separation and sample preparation. JKP acknowledges GRBM Project, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India for providing funding for field work. PN acknowledges the Director, IISER Bhopal, for providing funding for conducting field work. The authors also acknowledge Kåre Kullerud and Allen Nutman for their suggestions to improve the scientific contents of the manuscript. Technical help from Prof. Fernando Corfu is gratefully acknowledged to improve the scientific content and restructuring of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0016756815000692

References

Acharyaa, S. K., Gupta, A. & Orihashi, Y. 2010. New U–Pb zircon ages from Paleo–Mesoarchean TTG gneisses of the Singhbhum Craton, Eastern India. Geochemical Journal 44, 81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amelin, Y., Lee, D.-C. & Halliday, A. N. 2000. Early-middle Archaean crustal evolution deduced from Lu–Hf and U–Pb isotopic studies of single zircon grains. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 64, 4205–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandyopadhyay, P. K., Chakrabarti, A. K., Deomurari, M. P. & Misra, S. 2001. 2.8 Ga old anorogenic granite-acid volcanic association from western margin of Singhbhum–Orissa craton, eastern India. Gondwana Research 4, 465–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basu, A. K. 1986. Geology of parts of Bundelkhand granite massif, central India. Record of the Geological Survey of India 11, 61–124.Google Scholar
Beckinsale, R. D., Drury, S. A. & Holt, R. W. 1980. 3300-Myr old gneisses from the South Indian Craton. Nature 283, 469–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouvier, A., Vervoort, J. & Patchett, P. 2008. The Lu–Hf and Sm–Nd isotopic composition of CHUR: constraints from unequilibrated chondrites and implications for the bulk composition of terrestrial planets. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 273, 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauvel, C., Lewin, E., Carpentier, M., Arndt, N. T. & Marini, J. 2008. Role of recycled oceanic basalt and sediment in generating the Hf–Nd mantle array. Nature Geoscience 1, 64–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condie, K. C. 2000. Episodic continental growth models: afterthoughts and extensions. Tectonophysics 322, 153–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corfu, F. 2012. A century of U–Pb geochronology: the long quest towards concordance. Geological Society of America Bulletin 125, 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C. M., Vervoort, J. D. & Hanchar, J. M. 2014. Guidelines for reporting zircon Hf isotope data by LA-MC-ICPMS and potential pitfalls in the interpretation of these data. Chemical geology 363, 125–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frei, D. & Gerdes, A. 2009. Precise and accurate in situ U–Pb dating of zircon with high sample throughput by automated LA-SF-ICPMS. Chemical Geology 261, 261–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, C. R. L. & Nutman, A. P. 2005. Complex 3670–3500 Ma orogenic episodes superimposed on juvenile crust accreted between 3850 and 3690 MA, Itsaq Gneiss Complex, southern West Greenland. Journal of Geology 113, 375–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdes, A. & Zeh, A. 2006. Combined U–Pb and Hf isotope LA-(MC)-ICP-MS analyses of detrital zircons: comparison with SHRIMP and new constraints for the provenance and age of an Armorican metasediment in Central Germany. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 249, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdes, A. & Zeh, A. 2009. Zircon formation versus zircon alteration — new insights from combined U–Pb and Lu–Hf in-situ LA-ICP-MS analyses, and consequences for the interpretation of Archean zircon from the Central Zone of the Limpopo Belt. Chemical Geology 261, 230–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, J. G. 2004. 3.56 Ga tonalite in the central part of the Bastar craton, India: oldest Indian date. Journal of Asian Earth Science 23, 359–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopalan, K., Macdougall, J. D., Roy, A. B. & Murali, A. V. 1990. Sm–Nd evidence for 3.3 Ga old rock in Rajasthan, north-western India. Precambrian Research 48, 287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, J. N., Misra, S., Wiedenback, M., Ray, S. L. & Saha, A. K. 1995. 3.55 Ga-old zircon from Singhbhum-Orissa Iron Ore craton, eastern India. Current Science 69, 1008–11.Google Scholar
Harrison, T., Schmitt, A., McCulloch, M. & Lovera, O. 2008. Early (>4.5 Ga) formation of terrestrial crust: Lu-Hf, δ18O, and Ti thermometry results for Hadean zircons. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 268, 476–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iizuka, T., Komiya, T., Ueno, Y., Katayama, I., Uehara, Y., Maruyama, S., Hirata, T., Johnson, S. P. & Dunkley, D. J. 2007. Geology and zircon geochronology of the Acasta Gneiss Complex, northwestern Canada: new constraints on its tectonothermal history. Precambrian Research 153, 179–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayananda, M., Kanob, T., Peucat, J.-J. & Channabasappa, S. 2008. 3.35 Ga komatiite volcanism in the western Dharwar craton, southern India: constraints from Nd isotopes and whole-rock geochemistry. Precambrian Research 162, 160–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayananda, M., Moyen, J.-F., Martin, H., Peucat, J.-J., Auvray, B. & Mahabaleswar, B. 2000. Late Archean (2550–2520 Ma) juvenile magmatism in the Eastern Dharwar craton, southern India: constraints from geochronology, Nd–Sr isotopes and whole rock geochemistry. Precambrian Research 99, 225–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, P., Zeh, A., Chaudhri, N., Gerdes, A. & Okrusch, M. 2011. Archaean to Palaeoproterozoic crustal evolution of the Aravalli mountain range, NW India, and its hinterland: the U–Pb and Hf isotope record of detrital zircon. Precambrian Research 187, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, P., Zeh, A. & Chaudhri, N. 2014. Characteristic of U–Pb–Hf isotope record of the 3.55 Ga felsic crust from the Bundelkhand Craton, Northern India. Precambrian Research 255, 236–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, A. I. S., Wilde, S. A., Hawkesworth, C. J., Coath, C. D., Nemchin, A. & Pidgeon, R. T. 2010. Hadean crustal evolution revisited: new constraints from Pb–Hf isotope systematics of the Jack Hills zircons. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 296, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kröner, A., Hofmann, J., Xie, H., Wu, F., Münker, C., Hegner, E., Wong, J., Wan, Y. & Liu, D. 2012. Generation of early Archean felsic volcanics and TTG gneisses through crustal melting, eastern Kaapvaal craton, southern Africa. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2012, abstract #T14B-08.Google Scholar
Kröner, A., Wan, A., Liu, X. & Liu, D. 2014. Dating of zircon from high-grade rocks: which is the most reliable method? Geoscience Frontiers 5, 515–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S., Yi, K., Raju, K., Pathak, M., Kim, N. & Lee, T. H. 2011. SHRIMP U–Pb geochronology of felsic magmatic lithounits in the central part of Bundelkhand Craton, Central India. In 7th Hutton Symposium on Granites and Related Rocks (eds Molina, J. F., Scarrow, J. H., Bea, F. & Montero, P.), p. 83.Google Scholar
Ludwig, K. 2003. Isoplot/Ex Version 3: A Geochronological Toolkit for Microsoft Excel. Berkeley Geochronology Center Special Publication 1, 43 pp.Google Scholar
Maibam, B., Goswami, J. N. & Srinivasan, R. 2011. Pb–Pb zircon ages of Archean metasediments and gneisses from the Dharwar craton, southern India: implications for the antiquity of the eastern Dharwar craton. Journal of Earth System Sciences 120, 643–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malviya, V. P., Arima, M. & Pati, J. K. 2005. Island arc related Archean mafic volcanism from Bundelkhand craton, Central India – an implication from Nd model ages. Abstracts, Joint Meeting of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Japan.Google Scholar
Mattinson, J. M. 2010. Analysis of the relative decay constants of 235U and 238U by multi-step CA-TIMS measurements of closed-system natural zircon samples. Chemical Geology 275, 186–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meen, J. K., Rogers, J. J. W. & Fullagar, P. D. 1992. Lead isotopic composition in the western Dharwar craton, southern India: evidence for distinct middle Archaean terrains in a late Archaean craton. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 56, 2455–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meert, J. G., Pandit, M. K., Pradhan, V. R., Banks, J., Sirianni, R., Stroud, M., Newstead, B. & Gifford, J. 2010. Precambrian crustal evolution of Peninsular India: a 3.0 billion year odyssey. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 39, 483–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mezger, K. & Krogstad, E. J. 1997. Interpretation of discordant U-Pb zircon ages: an evaluation. Journal of Metamorphic Geology 15, 127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, S., Deomurari, M. P., Wiedenbeck, M., Goswami, J. N., Ray, S. & Saha, A. K. 1999. 207Pb/206Pb zircon ages and the evolution of the Singhbhum Craton, eastern India: an ion microprobe study. Precambrian Research 93, 139–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondal, M. E. A., Goswami, J. N., Deomurari, M. P. & Sharma, K. K. 2002. Ion microprobe 207Pb/206Pb ages zircons from Bundelkhand massif, north India: implications for crustal evolution of the Bundelkhand-Aravalli protocontinent. Precambrian Research 117, 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhopadhyay, J., Beukes, N. J., Armstrong, R. A., Zimmermann, U., Ghosh, G. & Medda, R. A. 2008. Dating the oldest Greenstone in India, a 3.51-Ga precise U–Pb SHRIMP zircon age for Dacitic Lava of the Southern Iron Ore Group, Singhbhum Craton. Journal of Geology 116, 449–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. S. 1988. Early Archaean Narryer Gneiss Complex, Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia. Precambrian Research 38, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasdala, L., Hofmeister, W., Norberg, N., Mattinson, J. M., Corfu, F., Dörr, W., Kamo, S. L., Kennedy, A. K., Kronz, A., Reiners, P. W., Frei, D., Košler, J., Wan, Y., Götze, J., Häger, T., Kröner, A. & Valley, J. W. 2008. Zircon M257 – a homogeneous natural reference material for the ion microprobe U–Pb analysis of zircon. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research 32, 247–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebel-Jacobsen, Y., Munker, C., Nebel, O., Gerdes, A., Mezger, K. & Nelson, D. 2010. Reworking of Earth's first crust: constraints from Hf isotopes in Archean zircons form Mt Narryer, Australia. Precambrian Research 182, 175–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutman, A. P., Bennett, V. C., Friend, C. R. L., Horie, K. & Hikada, H. 2007. 3,850 Ma tonalites in the Nuuk region, Greenland: geochemistry and their reworking within an Eoarchaean gneiss complex. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 154, 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutman, A. P., Bennett, V. C., Friend, C. R. L. & Mcgregor, V. R. 2000. The early Archaean Itsaq Gneiss Complex of southern West Greenland: the importance of field observations in interpreting age and isotopic constraints for early terrestrial evolution. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 64, 3035–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutman, A. P., Chadwick, B., Krishna Rao, B. & Vasudev, V. N. 1996. SHRIMP U–Pb zircon ages of acid volcanic rocks in the Chitradurga and Sandur Groups and granites adjacent to Sandur schist belt. Journal of the Geological Society of India 47, 153–61.Google Scholar
Nutman, A. P., Chadwick, B., Ramakrishnan, M. & Viswanatha, M. N. 1992. SHRIMP U–Pb ages of detrital zircon in Sargur supracrustal rocks in western Karnataka, Southern India. Journal of the Geological Society of India 39, 367–74.Google Scholar
Pati, J. K., Patel, S. C., Pruseth, K. L., Malviya, V. P., Arima, M., Raju, S., Pati, P. & Prakash, K. 2007. Geology and geochemistry of giant quartz veins from the Bundelkhand craton, Central India and their implications. Journal of Earth System Science 116, 497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peucat, J.-J., Mahabaleshwar, B. & Jayananda, M. 1993. Age of younger tonalitic magmatism and granulite metamorphism in the south Indian transition zone (Krishnagiri area): comparison with older peninsular gneisses from Hassan-Gorur area. Journal of Metamorphic Geology 11, 879–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peucat, J.-J., Bouhallier, H., Fanning, C. M. & Jayananda, M. 1995. Age of Holenarsipur greenstone belt, relationships with the surrounding gneisses (Karnataka, south India). Journal of Geology 103, 701–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pradhan, V. R., Meert, J. G., Pandit, M. K., Kamenov, G. & Mondal, M. E. A. 2012. Paleomagnetic and geochronological studies of the mafic dyke swarms of Bundelkhand craton, central India: implications for the tectonic evolution and paleogeographic reconstructions. Precambrian Research 198–199, 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajesh, H. M., Mukhopadhyay, J., Beukes, N. J., Gutzmer, J., Belyanin, G. A. & Armstrong, R. A. 2009. Evidence of an early Archaean granite from Bastar Craton, India. Journal of the Geological Society, London 166, 193–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramakrishnan, M., Venkatadasu, S. P. & Kröner, A. 1994. Middle Archaean age of Sargur Group by single grain zircon dating and geochemical evidence for the clastic origin of metaquartzite from J.C. Pura Greenstone belt, Karnataka. Journal of the Geological Society of India 44, 605–16.Google Scholar
Ram Mohan, M., 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 crustal evolution. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 58, 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, J. J. W. 1996. A history of continents in the past three billion years. Journal of Geology 104, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, A. B., Kröner, A., Rathore, S., Laul, V. & Purohit, R. 2012. Tectono-metamorphic and geochronologic studies from Sandmata Complex, northwest Indian shield: implications on exhumation of Late-Palaeoproterozoic granulites in an Archaean–early Palaeoproterozoic granite-gneiss terrane. Journal of the Geological Society of India 79, 323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saha, A. K., Bose, R., Ghosh, S. N. & Roy, A. 1977. Petrology and emplacement of Mayurbhanj Granite batholith, eastern India. Evolution of orogenic belts of India (Part 2) . Bulletin of the Geological Mineralogical Meteorological Society of India 49, 1–34.Google Scholar
Saha, L., Pant, N. C., Pati, J. K., Upadhaya, D., Berndt, J., Bhattacharya, A. & Satyanarayan, M. 2011. Neoarchean high pressure margarite-phengitic muscovite- chlorite corona mantled corundum in quartz-free high-Mg, Al phlogopite-chlorite schists from the Bundelkhand craton, north-central India. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 161, 511–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, G., Corfu, F., Paul, D. K., McNaughton, N. J., Gupta, S. N. & Bishui, P. K. 1993. Early Archean crust in Bastar craton, central India – a geochemical and isotopic study. Precambrian Research, 62, 127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, A., Paul, D. K. & Potts, P. J. 1996. Geochronology and geochemistry of Mid-Archean trondhjemitic gneisses from the Bundelkhand craton, central India. Recent Researches in Geology 16, 76–92.Google Scholar
Sengupta, S., Corfu, F., McNutt, R. H. & Paul, D. K. 1996. Mesoarchaean crustal history of the eastern Indian Craton – Sm–Nd and U–Pb isotopic evidence. Precambrian Research 77, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, K. K. & Rahman, A. 2000. The Early Archaean–Paleoproterozoic crustal growth of the Bundelkhand craton, northern Indian shield. In Crustal Evolution and Metallogeny in the Northwestern Indian Shield (ed. Deb, M.), pp. 51–72. New Delhi: Narosa Publishing House.Google Scholar
Singh, V. K. & Slabunov, A. 2014. The Central Bundelkhand Archean greenstone complex, Bundelkhand craton, central India: geology, composition, and geochronology of supracrustal rocks. International Geology Review 57, 1349–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sláma, J., Košler, J., Condon, D. J., Crowley, J. L., Gerdes, A., Hanchar, J. M., Horstwood, M. S. A., Morris, G. A., Nasdala, L., Norberg, N., Schaltegger, U., Schoene, B., Tubrett, M. N. & Whitehouse, M. J. 2008. Plešovice zircon—a new natural reference material for U–Pb and Hf isotopic microanalysis. Chemical Geology 249, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, J. S. & Kramers, J. D. 1975. Approximation of terrestrial Pb isotope evolution by a two-stage model. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 26, 207–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kranendonk, M. J., Smithies, R. H. & Bennett, V. C. (eds) 2007. Earth's Oldest Rocks. Developments in Precambrian Geology 15. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 856 pp.Google Scholar
Wiedenbeck, M. & Goswami, J. N. 1994. An ion-probe single zircon 207Pb/206Pb age from the Mewar Gneiss at Jhamarkotra, Rajasthan. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58, 2135–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilde, S. A., Valley, J. W., Peck, W. H. & Graham, C. M. 2001. Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago. Nature 409, 175–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeh, A., Gerdes, A. & Millonig, L. 2011. Hafnium isotope record of the Ancient Gneiss Complex, Swaziland, southern Africa: evidence for Archaean crust–mantle formation and crust reworking between 3.66 and 2.73 Ga. Journal of the Geological Society, London 168, 953–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. (a) Tectonic map of peninsular India showing the location of the Bundelkhand Craton with respect to the Archaean cratons and Proterozoic mobile belts. (b) Geological map of the Bundelkhand Craton modified after Basu (1986) showing the geochronological data from different terrains (after Mondal et al. 2002; Kaur, Zeh & Chaudhri, 2014) and localities of the present study (represented by the box).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Field photographs of the TTGs from the Babina and Sukwan–Dukwan dam areas. (a) TTG gneiss from the Babina area (sample LB13); (b) banding and foliation in the TTG gneiss; length of hammer for scale is 40 cm; (c) migmatitic banding in the TTG gneiss; length of pen for scale is 14 cm; (d) large-size mafic enclaves in the TTG gneiss; length of hammer for scale is 29 cm.

Figure 2

Figure 3. (a, b) CL images of zircons from sample LB13. The position of the laser spots (30 μm in diameter) is indicated by white circles. Labels indicate analysis number, the estimated 207Pb–206Pb ages with 2σ errors (in Ma) and the degree of concordance (in %). (c) Concordia diagram showing the laser ablation analyses of zircons of two distinct age groups (3.59 Ga and 3.44 Ga).

Figure 3

Table 1. U–Pb data for the zircons from the TTG gneiss of the Babina area (LB13)

Figure 4

Figure 4. (a, b) CL images of zircons from sample DUR13. The position of the laser spots (30 μm in diameter) is indicated by white circles. Labels indicate analysis number, the estimated 207Pb–206Pb ages with 2σ errors (in Ma) and the degree of concordance (in %). (c) Concordia diagram showing the laser ablation zircon analyses, most of the zircons showing strong discordance with an upper intercept at ~ 3.22 Ga and one concordant analysis yielding an age of ~ 3.36 Ga.

Figure 5

Table 2. U–Pb data for zircons from the TTG gneiss of the Sukwan–Dukwan area (DUR13)

Figure 6

Table 3. LA-MC-ICP-MS Lu–Hf isotope data for zircons from TTG gneiss (LB13) from the Babina area

Figure 7

Figure 5. Hf isotope data displayed in the εHf(t) versus U–Pb age diagram of zircons from TTG gneiss sample LB13. Symbols represent analysis of individual growth domains of zircons from the different samples. Shown for comparison are the depleted mantle (Chauvel et al.2008) and the fields of the Neoarchaean to Palaeoarchaean crust, assuming a crustal 176Lu/177Hf of 0.0113. Hf isotope data from the Archaean zircons of the Ancient Gneissic Complex, Swaziland (Zeh, Gerdes & Millonig, 2011), Acasta Gneiss Complex, Barberton Belt, Pilbara Craton (Amelin, Lee & Halliday, 2000), Zack Hills, Australia (Kemp et al.2010) and Mauranipur area of the Bundelkhand Craton (Kaur, Zeh & Chaudhri, 2014) are also shown.

Figure 8

Table 4. Correlation of Palaeo–Mesoarchaean crustal components of the Bundelkhand Craton with that recorded from other Archaean cratons of peninsular India

Figure 9

Figure 6. Schematic diagram showing position of the Bundelkhand Craton in the Ur Supercontinent (after Rogers, 1996) that may explain the similar crust-forming processes in the Palaeo–Mesoarchaean.

Supplementary material: File

Saha supplementary material S1

Saha supplementary material

Download Saha supplementary material S1(File)
File 47.1 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Saha supplementary material S2

Saha supplementary material

Download Saha supplementary material S2(Image)
Image 16.3 MB