Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Gondwana Research

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /gr

Geophysical and geological tests of tectonic models of the North China Craton

Timothy M. KuskyState Key Lab for Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, Three Gorges Research Center for Geohazards, Ministry of Education China University of Geosciences, Wuhan,Wuhan 430074, Hubei Province, China

E-mail address: tkusky@gmail.com.

1342-937X/$ – see front matter © 2011 International Adoi:10.1016/j.gr.2011.01.004

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 October 2010Received in revised form 4 January 2011Accepted 7 January 2011Available online 21 January 2011

Keywords:North China CratonArcheanSeismic reflection profilePrecambrian crustal evolution

The geometry and timing of amalgamation of the North China Craton have been controversial, with threemain models offering significantly different interpretations of regional structure, geochronology, andgeological relationships. One model suggests that the Eastern and Western Blocks of the NCC formedseparately in the Archean, and an active margin was developed on the Eastern Block between 2.5 and 1.85 Ga,when the two blocks collided above an east-dipping subduction zone. A second presumes the Eastern Blockrifted from an unknown larger continent at circa 2.7 Ga, and experienced a collision with an arc (perhapsattached to the western block) above a west-dipping subduction zone at 2.5 Ga, and the 1.85 Gametamorphism is related to a collision along the northern margin of the craton when the NCC joined theColumbia supercontinent. A third model suggests two collisions in the Central Orogenic Belt, at 2.1 and1.88 Ga, but recognizes an early undated deformation event. Recent seismic results reveal details of the deepcrustal and lithospheric structure that support both the second and third models, showing that subductionbeneath the Central Orogenic Belt was west-directed, and that there is a second, west-dippingpaleosubduction zone located to the east of the COB dipping beneath the Western Block (Ordos Craton).The boundaries identified through geophysics do not correlate with the boundaries of the Trans-North ChinaOrogen suggested in the first model, and the subduction polarity is opposite that predicted by that model.High-pressure granulite facies metamorphism at 1.85 Ga is not restricted to the “TNCO” as suggested by thefirst model, but is documented across the NCC, as predicted by the second model, suggesting a majorcontinent–continent collision along the north margin of the craton at 1.85 Ga. Further, it has recently beenshown that in the southern “TNCO”, there is no record of metamorphism at circa 1.85 Ga, but only at 2.7–2.5 Ga, showing that the “TNCO”, as defined as a circa 1.85 Ga orogen, does not exist. This is further confirmedby recent Re–Os isotopic studies which show that the subcontinental lithospheric mantle beneath thesouthern COB is late Archean in age, and that a province in the northern NCC is circa 1.8 Ga, correlating withthe proposed collision belt of the NCC with the Columbia supercontinent across the entire NCC. The COB is anArchean convergent belt, re-worked in the Paleoproterozoic, and the Paleoproterozoic tectonism iswidespread across the NCC, as predicted by the model whereby the previously amalgamated Eastern andWestern Blocks experienced a continental collision with Columbia at circa 1.85 Ga, but uplift/exhumationrates are slow, necessitating a re-evaluation of the tectonic models of the NCC.

© 2011 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: Precambrian geology of the North China Craton

The Archean North China Craton (NCC) occupies about 1.7million km2 (Fig. 1) in northeastern China, Inner Mongolia, theYellow Sea, and North Korea (Bai and Dai, 1996, 1998). It is boundedby the Qinling–Dabie Shan Orogen to the south, the Yinshan–YanshanOrogen to the north, the Longshoushan Belt to the west and theQinglong–Luznxian and Jiao–Liao Belts to the east (Bai and Dai, 1996;Kusky et al., 2007a; Li et al., 2007, 2009, 2010a). The craton consists oftwo major blocks, separated by the Central Orogenic Belt (e.g., Zhao,2001; Zhao et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2005; Kusky et al., 2001; 2004a,2004b; 2007a, 2007b; Kusky et al., 2007b). Major rock types include

ssociation for Gondwana Research.

circa 3.8–2.5 Ga gneiss, tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite (TTG),granite, migmatite, amphibolite, ultramafic bodies, mica schist,dolomitic marble, graphite- and sillimanite-bearing gneiss (khonda-lite), banded iron formation (BIF), and meta-arkose (Jahn and Zhang,1984a,b; Bai et al., 1992; Wu et al., 1998; Jahn et al., 1987; Bai, 1996;He et al., 1991, 1992; Wang et al., 1997). The Archean rocks areoverlain by quartzites, sandstones, conglomerates, shales, andcarbonates of the 1.85 to 1.40 Ga Mesoproterozoic Changcheng(Great Wall) Series (Li et al., 2000a, 2000b). In some areas of thecentral part of the NCC, 2.40 to 1.90 Ga Paleoproterozoic sequencesthat were deposited in cratonic graben are preserved (Kusky and Li,2003).

The North China Craton is divided into two major blocks (Easternand Western Blocks) but the boundaries and ages of the interveningorogen have been the subject of some recent debate. One group (e.g.,

Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Geological map of the North China Craton (from Kusky and Li, 2003).

27T.M. Kusky / Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

Kusky et al., 2001, 2004a, 2004b, 2007a, 2007b; Kusky and Li, 2003;Kusky and Santosh, 2009).) suggests that the boundary is a LateArchean – Paleoproterozoic orogen called the Central Orogenic Belt(COB), that suffered later deformation at c.a. 1.85 Ga. The other group(e.g., Zhao et al., 2001a) suggests that the orogen is a c.a. 1.85 Gafeature called the Trans-North China Orogen (TNCO) that representscollision of the two blocks at 1.85 Ga. It should be noted that the COBdiffers from the Trans-North China Orogen (TNCO) as defined by Zhaoet al. (2001a). The COB is an Archean orogen, with Archean structuresdefining its boundaries, whereas the TNCO is defined as a Proterozoicorogen, albeit one bound by Mesozoic structures. The Precambriangeology on either side of these Mesozoic faults is remarkably similar,with the only clear distinction between rocks inside and outside of theso-called “TNCO” being Zhao et al.'s definition of “exposed andunexposed Archean to Paleoproterozoic basement in the TNCO, andexposed and unexposed Archean to Paleoproterozoic basement in theeastern and western blocks.” In this review we assess these differentmodels for the tectonic evolution of the North China Craton in thelight of new geophysical and geochemical data, and present a unifiedmodel that is consistent with the new data and geological relation-ships in the craton. The Eastern and Western Blocks are separated byan orogenic belt (COB, or TNCO) in which nearly all U–Pb zircon ages(upper intercepts) fall between 2.55 and 2.50 Ga (Zhang, 1989; Zhaoet al., 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2005; Kröner et al.,1998, 2002; Li et al., 2000b; Wilde et al., 1998; Zhao, 2001; Kuskyet al., 2001; Kusky and Li, 2003; Kusky et al., 2004a, 2004b; Polat et al.,2005, 2006a,b). The stable Western Block, also known as the OrdosBlock (Bai and Dai, 1996; Li et al., 1998), is a stable craton with a thickmantle root, no earthquakes, low heat flow, and a lack of internaldeformation since the Precambrian. The Western Block contains athick platformal sedimentary cover intruded by a narrow belt of 2.55to 2.50 Ga arc plutons along its eastern margin. Much of the Archeangeology of the Western Block is poorly exposed because of thickArchean to Cretaceous platformal cover.

In contrast, the Eastern Block is atypical for a craton in that it istectonically active and has numerous earthquakes, high heat flow, anda thin lithosphere reflecting the lack of a thick mantle root (e.g., Zhai

et al., 2007). The Eastern Block contains a variety of ca. 3.80 to 2.50 Gagneissic rocks and greenstone belts locally overlain by 2.60 to 2.50 Gasandstone and carbonate units (Kusky and Li, 2003). Deformation iscomplex, polyphase, and indicates the complex collisional, rifting, andunderplating history of this block from the Early Archean through theMeso-Proterozoic (Zhai et al., 1992, 1995, 2002, 2010; Li and Kusky,2007; Kusky et al., 2001; Kusky and Li, 2003; Kusky et al., 2004a,2004b; Zhai, 2004, 2005; Polat et al., 2006a, 2006b), and again in theMesozoic-Cenozoic (Zhai et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2011).

2. Summary of tectonic models of the North China Craton

For the past decade there has been a controversy over thePrecambrian tectonic evolution of the North China Craton, with twomainmodels dominating the controversy, and the recent introduction oftwo new alternativemodels in the past few years. Stimulated by fundingfrom the “North China Interior Structure Project” of the Chinese NationalNatural Science Foundation, new seismic reflection and tomographicprofiles have been completed across various tectonic belts of the craton.The results of these geophysical surveys shed new light on the tectonicmodels of the North China Craton, and show that some of themodels areviable, andothers are not. In this section,wediscuss the variousproposedtectonic models, summarize the recently published geophysical profiles,then assess which tectonic models have survived the geophysical tests,and which have failed.

One of the most popular models for the tectonic evolution of theNorth China Craton is the one advocated by G.C. Zhao et al. (Zhao, 2001;Zhao et al., 1998, 1999a,b, 2000, 2001a,b, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2010; Liuet al., in review a). This group has usedmostly U–Pb geochronology andmetamorphic P–T paths to constrain the temporal and thermalevolution of rocks from different belts, and led to their definition ofthe North China Craton being divided into two major blocks (Easternand Western Blocks), separated by an intervening orogen they termedthe “Trans-North China Orogen (TNCO; Fig. 2A). Based on their data,these workers suggested that the two blocks formed independently inthe Archean, and thewesternmargin of the Eastern Blockwas an active,Andean-stylemargin from the late Archeanuntil the twoblocks collided

Fig. 2. A. Tectonic divisions of the North China Craton proposed by the Zhao et al. group (redrawn after Zhao et al., 2005). Note that there is no inherent difference between rocksinside and outside the “TNCO”, and that the different units are only described by Zhao et al. (2005) as exposed (and covered) rocks inside the boundaries of the TNCO, and exposed(and covered) rocks in the Eastern andWestern Blocks (Zhao, 2001; Zhao et al., 2005). B. Distribution of circa 1.9–1.8 Ga HP and HT–UHT granulite in NCC (modified after Zhai et al.,2010). Note the lack of correlation of granulite facies metamorphism with the proposed TNCO, but a concentration along the north margin of the craton cutting across “TNCO”, andscattered across the craton everywhere there are good exposures of Precambrian rocks (compare with Fig. 1), suggesting a craton-wide event at that time, triggered by an event inthe north. The two black stars indicate the location of documented circa 2.5 Ga high-grade metamorphism (from Kröner et al., 1998 and Liu et al., 2009) which do show a positivecorrelation with the Central Orogenic Belt. Other areas of pre-2.1 Ga deformation, metamorphism and partial melting are known fromwithin the COB (e.g., Trap et al., 2009), but areso far undated.

28 T.M. Kusky / Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

in a continent–continent collision at circa 1.85 Ga above an east-dippingsubduction zone. Polat andKusky (2007) commented that in thismodel,the proposed Andeanmarginwould be the longest-lived suchmargin inEarth history, and there is no record of a large accretionary orogen asimplied by the model. One of the major issues with the Zhao et al.

(2001a,, 2005, 2007) model is that these authors placed too muchemphasis on the zircon geochronology. Zircon geochronology shouldnot be isolated from field characteristics, magmatism, and deformation.As shown by Polat et al. (2010) zircon ages in poly-deformed orogenicbelts that experienced high-grade metamorphism tend to reflect the

Fig. 4.Model for Precambrian evolution of North China Craton proposed by Kusky et al.(2007a). Note that an arc in the COB (with ophiolitic fore-arc) is about to collide withthe Eastern Block at circa 2.5 Ga, and that there was likely a basin behind this arc,separating the COB from the Western Block. Abbreviations as follows: COB, CentralOrogenic Belt, EB, Eastern Block, WB, Western Block, IMNHO, Inner Mongolia NorthernHebei Orogen, NCC, North China Craton.

29T.M. Kusky / Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

timing of peak metamorphism rather that timing of magmatism andcollision. Thus, although the data collected by the Zhao et al. (2001a,2001b, 2005, 2007) group has clearly documented a tectonothermalevent at circa 1.9–1.85 Ga, the data are biased towards the most recenthigh-grade event and do not preclude earlier events in the TNCO.

Following the model of Kusky and Li (2003) that the northernmargin of the craton experienced a continent–continent collision atcirca 1.8–1.85 Ga, Zhao et al. (2005) modified their map of the NorthChina Craton to include a collision belt in the north, but only betweenthe Western Block and the orogen to the north, which they term theKhondalite Belt and Yinshan Block to the north (Fig. 2A). However, theHP granulite metamorphic rocks related to this collision extend pastthe Western Block and cut right across the so-called TNCO (Fig. 2B),showing that the entire, previously amalgamated Eastern andWestern Blocks were involved in this collision, as discussed below.

Kusky et al. (2001, 2003, 2007) proposed an alternative tectonicmap (Fig. 3) and model (Fig. 4) for the tectonic evolution of the NorthChina Craton that included the collision of an arc and ophiolitic fore-arc on the western edge of the Eastern Block at 2.5 Ga. Kusky and Li(2003) described a comprehensive model for the evolution of theNorth China Craton, that included microcontinental/arc collisionsforming the Eastern and Western Blocks between 3.5 and 2.7 Ga,rifting of the western edge of the Eastern Block at 2.7 Ga, collision ofan arc (on the eastern edge of the Western Block) at 2.5 Ga, then amajor continent–continent collision along the entire north margin ofthe craton at circa 1.85 Ga (Figs. 3, 4). This was followed by moredetailed and updated analyses by Kusky et al. (2007a, 2007b), Kuskyand Santosh (2009), and Kusky and Li (2010).

In the Kusky et al. model, they also divide the craton into theEastern and Western Blocks, but use changes in the Archean geologyto define the tectonic boundaries between the blocks and theintervening Central Orogenic Belt. Li and Kusky (2007) define aforeland basin on the eastern block to mark the transition into the

Fig. 3. Tectonic subdivisions of the North China Craton proposed by Kusky et al. (2007a, 2007b).

30 T.M. Kusky / Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

orogen), and call the intervening orogen the Central Orogenic Belt, notthe TNCO (Fig. 3). The TNCO as defined has Mesozoic faults as itsboundaries, and is supposed to delineate an orogen in which circa1.85 Ga deformation and metamorphism is restricted to, whereas theCOB is an Archean orogen, defined by transitions in structural style,sedimentation, rock types, and ages. The presence of circa 2.5 Gaaccreted arc and ophiolitic fore-arc rocks in the COB has beencontroversial, but well-documented through structural, geochemical,and geochronological studies (Kusky et al., 2001, 2004a, 2004b, 2007a,2007b; Polat et al., 2005, 2006a; Kusky and Li, 2010; Kusky et al.,2011).

The Central Orogenic Belt (COB) includes belts of TTG, granite, andsupracrustal sequences that were variably metamorphosed fromgreenschist to granulite facies. It can be traced for about 1600 km fromwest Liaoning in the north to west Henan Province in the south. High-grade regional metamorphism, including migmatization, occurredthroughout much of the Central Orogenic Belt between 2.60 and2.485 Ga (Kröner et al., 1998; Zhai and Liu, 2003; Liu et al., 2009), withfinal uplift of themetamorphic belt during circa 1.90 to 1.80 Ga, whichhas been related to extensional tectonism (Li et al., 2000a), or acollision on the northern margin of the NCC (Kusky and Li, 2003;Kusky and Santosh, 2009). Greenschist to amphibolite-grade meta-morphism predominates in the southeastern part of the COB (such asin the Qinglong Belt), but the northwestern part is dominated byamphibolite- to granulite facies rocks, including some high-pressureassemblages (10–13 kbar at 850±50 °C; Li et al., 2000b; Zhao et al.,2001b; see additional references in Kröner et al., 2002). The high-pressure assemblages occur in the linear Hengshan Belt (Figs. 1, 2B)that extends for more than 700 km in an ENE direction. Internal(western) parts of the orogen are characterized by thrust-relatedsubhorizontal foliations, shallow-dipping shear zones, recumbentfolds, and tectonically interleaved high-pressure granulite migmatiteand metasedimentary rocks. The Central Orogenic Belt is in manyplaces overlain by sedimentary rocks deposited in graben andcontinental shelf environments, and is intruded by ca. 2.5 to 2.4 and1.9 to 1.8 Ga dyke swarms. Several large 2.2 to 2.0 Ga anorogenicgranites have also been identified within the belt.

Fig. 5. Tectonic divisions of the NCC pr

Two linear zones of deformation have been documented withinthe belt, including a high-pressure granulite belt in the west (Li et al.,2000a) and a foreland-thrust fold belt in the east (Li et al., 2002a,b;Kusky and Li, 2003; Li and Kusky, 2007). The high-pressure granulitebelt is separated by normal-faults from the Western Block, which isoverlain by thick metasedimentary rocks (khondalites) that areyounger than 2.40 Ga, and were metamorphosed at 1.862.7±0.4 Ga(A. Kröner, oral comm., 2003).

Several other models have been proposed for the tectonicevolution of the North China Craton. Zhai et al. (2010, and referencestherein) suggest that there are more numerous blocks in the NorthChina Craton (Fig. 5) than depicted in either the Zhao or Kuskymodels(although the Kusky model accounts for older blocks, see Fig. 4), andnotes that the circa 1.85–1.8 Ga high-grade metamorphism is notrestricted to the TNCO (or COB) belt as predicted by the Zhao et al.model, but instead is recorded across many parts of the craton.Further, recent studies by Liu et al. (2009) have shown that in parts ofthe southern “TNCO” there is no record of circa 1.8–1.85 Gametamorphism, but only shows metamorphism at circa 2.7–2.5 Ga.

Faure et al. (2007) and Trap et al. (2009) examined the structuraland temporal evolution of part of the Central Orogenic Belt (TNCO) andconclude that there were two main deformation events, one (D2) atcirca 2.1 Ga, and one at circa 1.88 Ga, predating the regionalmetamorphism at circa 1.8 Ga. Trap et al. (2009) further note thatadditional work is needed in the “TNCO” to better understand theArchean and Paleoproterozoic tectonic events, especially sincethey recognize an earlier deformation event developed at high-temperature amphibolite to granulite facies conditions that is so farundated. Our correlation of this belt with the Wutai–Zunhua–Dongwanzi belts that saw deformation at 2.5 Ga, and other U–Pbdata from the Central Orogenic Belt (TNCO) supporting 2.5 Gadeformation (e.g., Kröner et al., 1998; Liu et al., 2009), and Os-isotopicevidence (Liu et al., in review b) showing a preserved 2.5 Ga mantlebeneath this region suggests that this older event may also be relatedto 2.5 Ga events along the Central Orogenic Belt. This early, enigmaticdeformation event includes the development of migmatites, strongfoliations and lineations, and km-scale N–NNW striking antiforms and

oposed by M.G. Zhai et al. (2010).

31T.M. Kusky / Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

synforms. Further work is needed to understand the significance ofthis early strong deformation event, and how it may or may notcorrelate with the circa 2.5 Ga accretionary mélange structuresdocumented in the Zunhua Belt to the NE (Kusky et al., 2004a,2004b; Li and Kusky, 2007; Kusky and Li, 2010).

The Faure et al. (2007) model is consistent with the Kusky et al.model, in that after the collision of the arc terranewith the Eastern Blockat 2.5 Ga, there was still a basin behind the arc to close, and thesedeformation events may correlate with those events. The observationsof Faure et al. (2007) could also befit into the Zhao et al. model, in that ifthere were an ocean basin open for 900 million years between theEastern and Western Blocks, one would expect different accretionaryevents, and a large accretionary orogen to form, perhaps similar in scaleto theMakran or SouthernAlaskanOrogens. The problem is that no suchaccretionary orogen is recognized in the Central Orogenic Belt.

3. Geophysical tests of models

Zheng et al. (2009) report the results of recent seismic imagingacross the Central Orogenic Belt (TNCO) of the North China Craton(Fig. 6). These images reveal the present day distribution of differentmaterials beneath the Central Orogenic Belt and surrounding crustalblocks, but caution needs to be applied when attempting to relate thepresent day crustal structure to specific ancient tectonic events. Theirdata, from radial receiver functions, were used to image the structure ofthe crust and upper mantle along a transect from the Eastern Block,across the Central Orogenic Belt, and well into theWestern Block. Theirresults reveal the presence of a west-dipping paleosubduction zonebeneath the COB (Fig. 6), as predicted by the Kusky et al. group, but instark contrast to the prediction of the Zhao et al. group models thatrequire an east-dipping paleosubduction zone. The seismic imagingresults of Zheng et al. (2009) also show a second paleosubduction zone,alsodippingwest, on thewest side of the CentralOrogenic Belt, showingthat another ocean basin closed there. This is in agreementwith the twoepisodes of possible subduction-related deformation predicted by the

Fig. 6. (Modified slightly after Zheng et al., 2009). (A) Common conversion point (CCP) rOrogenic Belt profile based on the inverted velocity model. Blue represents positive (browindicating velocity increase (or decrease) downward. Dots in CCP image mark velocity disgradient above L1 and L2 layers (blue), and the bottom interfaces of L1 and L2 (green). B:velocity model along east–west profile (A–B). L1 is a westward-dipping low-velocity zone below-velocity zone in the lower crust beneath TNCO and the Western Block. The geometry ocirca 2.5 Ga collision between the East and West Blocks proposed by Kusky et al. (2001, 2002001b, 2005) C. Location of profile, EB — Eastern Block, WB — Western Block, COB — Centrageophysical profile and surface structure (Zheng et al., 2009), whereas blue arrow represen

Faure et al. (2007) and Trap et al. (2009)model, and is acceptable in theKusky et al. (2007a, 2007b)model, in that therewas still a basin to closebehind the arc that collidedwith the easternmargin of the EasternBlockat 2.5 Ga. Santosh (2010) also examined the seismic results of Zhenget al. (2009), and interpreted them to reflect a repeated stacking ofoceanic plates subducted to the west beneath the Western (Ordos)Block. However, in that model, the older subduction zone should be inthe west, and the younger in the east, which is the opposite to thatdescribed by Faure et al. (2007), Trap et al. (2009) and Kusky et al.(2001, 2004, 2007). The seismic results are not compatible with themodels of the Zhao et al. group, which require long-lived eastwarddipping subduction beneath the Eastern Block.

Zhao et al. (2010) commented on the Zheng et al. (2009) data andinterpretation, claiming that the paleosubduction zones do not appear toextend into the mantle, that the position of the seismic profile was notideal for imaging the structure of the Central Orogenic Belt (TNCO), andthat the seismic profiles are not consistentwith the interpretations of thesurface geology as described by Zhao et al. (2001a, 2001b), 2007) and Liet al. (2010b). Zheng et al. (2010) replied toZhao et al. (2010) stating thattheir work also incorporated, and is consistent with, geological surfacestructure, and that the seismic traces of the paleosubduction zones doextend into the mantle, but that if only common conversion point (CCP)stacking is used multiples from shallow crustal structure can bemisinterpreted as mantle structure, so they used an integrated receiverfunction technique to better define the crustal structure. Zheng et al.(2010) state thepaleosubductiondirection is clearly to thewest. Zhengetal. (2010) note that the alternative geological interpretations for theseismic profile suggested by Zhao et al. (2010) involving overthrust slicesof the western block emplaced during collision is unlikely because if thatwere the case, the rocks in the hanging wall would have a high seismicvelocity, not lower as observed. Zheng et al. (2010) stand by theirinterpretation of two west-dipping paleosubduction zones beneath theCentral Orogenic Belt (TNCO). Zheng et al. (2010) criticize Zhao et al.'sstatement that the collisionmust have been at 1.85 Ga because there areno recognized older metamorphic events (which is not true, see below),

eceiver function image of crust and uppermost mantle along Western Block–Centraln represents negative) amplitude of receiver function annotated in the right color bar,continuities in the best-fitting models, including the interfaces with negative velocityShear-wave velocity structure of crust and uppermost mantle compiled from invertedneath stations 274–296 that separates the COB andWestern Block, and L2 is a horizontalf these west-dipping paleosubduction zone are remarkably similar in geometry for the3, 2007a,b, 2009), but opposite in polarity to the model proposed by Zhao et al. (2001a,l Orogenic Belt. Red arrows indicate borders of Central Orogenic Belt determined fromts western edge of TNCO defined by Zhao et al. (2005).

32 T.M. Kusky / Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

stating that “continent–continent collisions and arc–continent collisionsare not necessarily identified by high-pressure metamorphism; it mostcases, it depends on crustal depth” (see also Polat and Kusky, 2007).Zheng et al. (2010) note that there is ample evidence for older partialmelting and deformation events in the Central Orogenic Belt.

In summary, the seismic profiles of Zheng et al. (2009) clearlyshow two westward dipping paleosubduction zones beneath theeastern part of the Central Orogenic Belt, and beneath the Ordos Block.What the geophysics can not reveal alone however, is the age of thepaleosubduction zones.

4. Other geological, metamorphic, and geochemical tests ofthe models

4.1. High-pressure granulites

Circa 1.85 Ga high-pressure granulites are distributed in severalbelts across the NCC (Zhai et al., 2010), and are in no way confined tothe so-called “Trans-North China Orogen” as suggested by Zhao et al.(2001a, 2001b, 2005). Most are located along the northern margin ofthe craton (Fig. 2B), cutting across the boundary of the “TNCO” (Zhaiet al., 2010), but other belts are located on the Shandong Peninsulaand near the southern boundary of the craton. The Hengshan High-Pressure Granulite (HPG) belt consists of several metamorphicterrains, including the Hengshan, Huaian, and Chengde Complexes,and is geographically related to the medium pressure West Liaoning,and Southern Taihangshan Metamorphic Complexes (Figs. 1 and 2B).The HPG commonly occur as isolated pendants within intenselysheared TTG (2.60 to 2.50 Ga) and granitic gneiss (2.50 Ga), and arewidely intruded by 2.20 to 1.90 Ga K-granite and mafic dike swarms(2.45 to 2.40 Ga, 1.77 Ga) (Li et al., 2000b; Kröner et al., 2002; Li et al.,2010b). Locally, thrust slices of lower metamorphic grade khondaliteand metamorphosed turbiditic sediments are interleaved with thehigh-pressure granulite rocks. The main rock type of the complexes isa garnet-bearing mafic granulite with characteristic plagioclase–orthopyroxene coronas surrounding the garnets, which show evi-dence for rapid exhumation-related decompression (at ca. 1.9 to1.8 Ga) from peak PT of 1.2–0.9 GPa, and 700–800 °C (Zhao et al.,2000; Kröner et al., 2002). At least three types of REE patterns areshown by the mafic rocks from flat to moderately LREE enriched,indicating original crystallization in a continental margin or island arcsetting (Li et al., 2002a, 2002b). Another kind of high-pressuregranulite occurs as deformed and broken dikes. They yield SHRIMPzircon ages of 1973±4 Ma and 1834±5 Ma, with a core residual ageof 2.0 to 2.1 Ga. (Peng et al., 2005, 2007).

One group of researchers (Zhao et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2005; Wildeet al., 2003) have suggested that the ~1.9–1.8 Ga granulite event in theNCC is related to the continent–continent collision between the Easternand Western Blocks of the craton. However, this model is basedpredominantly on the interpretation of metamorphic PTt paths, and isnot adequately linked with structural, sedimentological, or geologicalfield data. Kusky and Li (2003), and Kusky and Santosh (2009)suggested that the geological data indicate collision of the Eastern andWestern Blocks at 2.5 Ga, and that the 1.9 to 1.8 Ga granulite eventoccurs throughout rocks across the entire northern half of the craton,not just in the COB, and that it might be related to a collision along thenorthern margin of the craton, forming an east–west orogen by 1.8 Ga.O'Brien et al. (2005) recognize two main types of granulites, includinghigh-pressure (HP)mafic granulites in the north, andmedium pressuregranulites in the south, separated by the east–west striking ZhujiafangShear Zone. Depths of exhumation increase therefore to the north, noteast or west, implying that the granulite event is related to deformationand metamorphism in an east–west striking orogen. Further south,metamorphic facies are even lower grade, dominated by amphibolite togreenschist facies in the Wutaishan (O'Brien et al., 2005), providingevidence for north to south crustal staking of higher over lower grade

rocks at ~1.9 to 1.8 Ga. Santosh et al. (2007a,b) discovered and datedcirca 1.92 Ga UHT granulites on the north margin of the craton. Kuskyand Santosh (2009) and Santosh et al. (2010a,b) relate ultrahightemperature metamorphism (975 C at 9 kbar, and 900 C at 12 kbar) at1927±11Ma, and 1.1819±11Ma, to the formation of a 1.9 to 1.8 Gacollisional orogen along the north margin of the NCC during theamalgamation of the Columbia supercontinent, whereas Santosh andKusky (2009) and Peng et al. (in review) note the possibility that theUHT conditionsmayhave been reached during ridge subductionprior tothe amalgamation of theNCCwith the Columbia supercontinent. Zhai etal. (2010) further note that the circa 1.85 Ga high-grademetamorphismoccurred throughout the craton, including in large areas on theShandong Peninsula and in the south (Fig. 2B), and note that there isno correlation with the “TNCO”. Zhai et al. (2010) further note that thetemperatures, and uplifts rates are different from more recentcontinent–continent collision zones, and that all models for the tectonicevolution of the NCC should be re-evaluated.

4.2. 2.5 Ga foreland basin overlying a 2.7–2.5 Ga passive marginsequence

The Late Archean Qinglong foreland basin and fold–thrust belttrends north to northeast, and is now preserved as several relict foldedsequences (Kusky and Li, 2003; Li and Kusky, 2007). Its generalsedimentary rock sequence from bottom to top can be further dividedinto three subgroups of quartzite–mudstone–marble, interbeddedgreywacke and shale, and an upper predominantly conglomeratesection. These are interpreted as a passive margin, flysch sequence,and molasse basin (Kusky and Li, 2003). The lower subgroup ofquartzite–mudstone–marble is well preserved in central sections oftheQinglong forelandbasin (TaihangMountain, Fig. 3),which includesnumerous shallowly-dipping structures, and is interpreted to be aproduct of pre-2.5 Ga passive margin sedimentation on the EasternBlock. It is overlain by lower grade turbidite and molasse-typesediments. The western margin of the Qinglong foreland basin isintensely re-worked by thrusting and folding, and is overthrust byrocks of an active margin (TTG gneiss, ophiolite fragments, andaccretionary wedge type metasediments). To the east rocks of thebasin are less deformed, defining a gradual transition from high-grademetamorphism and ductile structures of the Central Orogenic Belt toan upper crustal level fold–thrust belt then foreland basin stylestructures to the east (Li and Kusky, 2007). The passive marginsedimentary rocks and the Qinglong foreland basin are intruded by aca. 2.40 Ga diorite and gabbroic dike complex (Li and Kusky, 2007),and are overlain by graben-related sedimentary rocks and 2.4 Ga floodbasalts. In theWutai and North Taihang Basins, many ophiolitic blocksare recognized along the western margin of the foreland fold-and-thrust belt. These typically consists of pillow lava, gabbroic cumulates,andharzburgite,with the largest block being 10-km long in theWutai–Taihang Mountains (Wang et al., 1997; Polat et al., 2005, 2006b).

4.3. Interpretation of 2.7 and 2.5 Ga greenstone belts

In the Zhai et al. (2010) division of the NCC (Fig. 5), there areseveral belts of circa 2.7 Ga greenstone belts in the Eastern Block ofthe NCC, cut by belts of circa 2.5 Ga greenstones. In the Taihang area,Cheng et al. (2007) and Polat et al. (2006a) studied the petrogenesis ofkomatiites and associated rocks in one of the circa 2.7 Ga belts, andconcluded that the mafic/ultramafic rocks were formed in a plume-related rifting setting. Interestingly, the 2.7 Ga greenstones form apattern that includes a well-developed triple junction in westernShandong, and two other triple junctions that are truncated by thecirca 2.5 Ga greenstone belts north of Beijing, and near the southernmargin of the craton (Fig. 7). This pattern is very reminiscent of riftsystems in continents that failed, other branches of which developedinto oceans, and others that later developed into aulocogens (e.g.,

33T.M. Kusky / Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

Burke and Dewey, 1973). Kusky et al. (2007a, 2007b), Kusky andSantosh (2009) related these circa 2.7 Ga greenstone belts to thebreak-up of the Eastern Block and formation of the ocean basin in theCentral Orogenic Belt, that then experienced an arc collision with theEastern Block at circa 2.5 Ga, emplacing the Dongwanzi, Zhunhua, andWutaishan ophiolites. Trap et al. (2009) further recognized a secondcollision and accretion event at 2.1 Ga where the Wutaishan arc wasproposed to have collided with the Eastern Block, with the possibilitythat an ocean was still open behind this arc, closing at a later time.

4.4. Re–Os isotopic constrains on the age of deep crustal and mantlerocks beneath the NCC

In a recent landmark study, Liu et al. (in review b) reportpetrological, mineral composition, whole and major trace element

Fig. 7. Precambrian tectonic evolution of the Central Orogenic Belt of the North China Craton1.8 Ga, to illustrate the main tectonic elements active at each time. Abbreviations as follomélange, EB, Eastern Block, HS, Hengshan granulite belt, WB, Western Block, IMNHO, InnerZunhua structural belt.

analyses, and Re–Os isotope analyses of 99 peridotite xenoliths fromseven locations in the central North China Craton, revealing a clearnorth to south trend, indicating that the deep lithosphere in the NorthChina Craton is circa 1.8 Ga old in the north, and circa 2.5 Ga in thesouth, along the Central Orogenic Belt (TNCO). Peridotite xenolithsfrom the northern part of the craton are also generally more fertilethan those from the south in the Central Orogenic Belt, consistent withthe age range as determined from the Re–Os isotopes. Liu et al. (inreview b) relate these trends to the southern Central Orogenic Beltpreserving a deep record of late Archean amalgamation between theWestern and Eastern Blocks, and that this deep lithosphere wasreplaced in the northby a collision along thenorthmargin of the cratonat circa 1.8 Ga. This result lends strong support to the proposedtectonic models of Kusky and Li (2003) Kusky et al. (2007a,b), andKusky and Santosh (2009), where the Central Orogenic Belt initially

. Note the gradual change in orientation of cross sections from E–W at 4.5 Ga, to NS byws: COB, Central Orogenic Belt, DWO, Dongwanzi ophiolite, ZOM, Zunhua ophioliticMongolia Northern Hebei Orogen, NCC, North China Craton, WA, Wutaishan arc, ZSB,

34 T.M. Kusky / Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

formed in the late Archean, and was overprinted in the north by circa1.8 Ga tectonism related to the collision of the NCC with the ColumbiaSupercontinent. The result is inconsistent with the models of Zhao etal. (2001a, 2001b, 2005, 2007)which require that the deep lithospherebeneath the entire TNCO be circa 1.8 Ga in age, and younger than thecollision they propose between only theWestern Block of the NCC andthe Yinshan Block in the northwest. The younger mantle clearly cutsacross the Central Orogenic Belt, and reflects amajor tectonic event onthe surface extending across the entire NCC, with a replacement of themantle at depth. Liu et al. (in review b) suggest that this event wasmost likely the collision of the already amalgamated NCC with theColumbia Supercontinent.

5. Conclusions

In accordance with the geological and geophysical data summa-rized above, we present a new tectonic model for the evolution of theNorth China Craton that is consistent with the structural, geochrono-logical, PTt, sedimentological, and new geophysical and Re–Os isotopegeochemical data for the craton (Fig. 7).

Parts of the North China Craton had a long history prior to the lateArchean, with the amalgamation of several different crustal blocksbetween 3.8 and 2.7 Ga to form the present Eastern and WesternBlocks (e.g., Zhai et al., 2010, and Figs. 4 and 7). By 2.7 Ga, the EasternBlock had rifted from whatever continental block it was adjacent toprior to then, forming komatiites (Cheng et al., 2007; Polat et al.,2006b), and a passive margin sequence on the western edge of theEastern Block. From 2.55 to 2.5 Ga (Fig. 7) an arc terrain, nowpreserved in Wutai Shan (Polat et al., 2005, 2006a) with a fore-arcophiolite belt on its leading edge (Kusky et al., 2001, Kusky et al.,2004a, 2004b) collided with the passive margin on the western edgeof the Eastern Block, above a west-dipping subduction zone,emplacing ophiolites including the Dongwanzi and Zunhua belts(Kusky et al., 2004a, 2004b). From 2.4 to 2.3 Ga, the ocean basinbehind the collided arc began closing, either by westward-dipping, ordouble-sided subduction, with the collision of theWestern Block withthe arc-collision modified western margin of the Eastern Block.

The final major event in the Precambrian tectonic evolution of theNorth China Craton is the pan-craton 1.8 Ga high-grade metamorphicevent. Kusky and Li (2003), Kusky et al. (2007a, 2007b) and Kusky andSantosh (2009) have related this to collision of the northernmargin ofthe craton with the Columbia supercontinent. This continent–continent collision caused the widespread metamorphic overprintingof all older events, including thewell-studied rock in theWutai Shan –

Heng Shan areas (Zhao, 2001; Zhao et al., 1998, 1999a,b, 2000, 2001a,b, 2002, 2005). The collision also resulted in the replacement of thedeep lithosphere with new fertile mantle along the north margin ofthe craton (Liu et al., in review b). It remains enigmatic, however, howsuch a large area affected by granulite facies metamorphismexperienced such a slow post-orogenic uplift and exhumation history(Zhai et al., 2005, 2010), an observation not explained by any of thecurrent tectonic models for the North China Craton.

Acknowledgements

Funds were provided by the National Natural Science Foundationof China (Grants 91014002, and 40821061) and the Ministry ofEducation of China (B07039). Huang Xuya is thanked for help draftingthe figures.

References

Bai, J., 1996. Precambrian Crustal Evolution of China. Geological Publishing House,Beijing. 165 pp.

Bai, J., Dai, F.-Y., 1996. The early Precambrian crustal evolution of China. Journal ofSoutheast Asian Earth Sciences 13, 205–214.

Bai, J., Dai, F.-Y., 1998. Archean crust of China. In: Ma, X.Y., Bai, J. (Eds.), PrecambrianCrustal Evolution of China. Springer-Geological Publishing, Beijing, pp. 15–86.

Bai, J., Wang, R.-Z., Guo, J.-J., 1992. The Major Geological Events of Early Precambrianand Their Dating in Wutaishan Region. Geological Publishing House, Beijing, pp.1–60.

Burke, K., Dewey, J.F., 1973. Plume-generated triple junctions: key indicators inapplying plate tectonics to old rocks. Journal of Geology 81, 406–433.

Cheng, Suhua, Li, Jianghai, Kusky, T.M., 2007. Komatiites from West Shandong, NorthChina Craton: implications for Plume Tectonics. In: Zhai, M.G., Xiao, W.J., Kusky, T.M.,Santosh, M. (Eds.), Tectonic Evolution of China and Adjacent Crustal Fragments:Special Issue of Gondwana Research, 12, pp. 77–83.

Faure, M., Trap, P., Lin, W., Moine, P., Bruguier, O., 2007. Polyorogenic evolution of thePaleo-Proterozoic Trans-North China Belt, new insights from the Luliangshan–Hengshan–Wutaishan and Fuping massifs. Episodes 30, 95–106.

He, G.-P., Lu, L.-Z., Ye, H.-W., 1991. The Early PrecambrianMetamorphic Evolution of theeastern Heibei and the Southeastern Inner Mongolia (in Chinese with Englishabstract). Jilin University Press, Changchun. 1–17.

He, T.-X., Lin, Q., Fang, Z.-R., 1992. The Petrogenesis of Granitic Rocks in Eastern Hebei (inChinese with English abstract). Jiling Science and Technology Press, Changchun. 1–4.

Jahn, B.M., Zhang, Z.Q., 1984a. Archean granulite gneisses from Eastern Hebei Province,China: Rare Earth geochemistry and tectonic implications. Contributions toMineralogy and Petrology 85, 225–243.

Jahn, B.M., Zhang, Z.Q., 1984b. Radiometric ages (Rb–Sr, Sm–Nd, U–Pb) and REEgeochemistry of Archean granulite gneisses from Eastern Hebei Province, China. In:Kröner, A., Hanson, G., Goodwin, A. (Eds.), Archean Geochemistry. Springer-Verlag,Berlin, pp. 204–244.

Jahn, B.M., Auvray, B., Cornichet, J., Bai, Y.-L., Shen, Q.-H., Liu, D.-Y., 1987. 3.5 Gaamphibolites from Eastern Hebei Province, China; field occurrence, petrography,Sm–Nd isochron age and REE geochemistry. Precambrian Research 34, 311–346.

Kröner, A., Cui, W.Y., Wang, S.Q., 1998. Single zircon ages from high-grade rocks of theJianping complex, Liaoning province, NE China. Journal of Asia Earth Sciences 16,519–532.

Kröner, A., Wilde, S., Wang, K., Zhao, G.C., 2002. Age and evolution of a late Archean toearly Proterozoic upper to lower crustal section in the Wutaishan/Hengshan/Fuping terrain of northern China, a field guide. GSA Penrose Conference, Beijing,China, September 2002.

Kusky, T.M., Li, J.H., 2003. Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolution of the North ChinaCraton. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 22, 383–397.

Kusky, T.M., Li, J.H., 2010, Origin and emplacement of ophiolites of the Central Orogenicbelt, North China craton, Journal of Earth Science 21, (5) 744–781. doi:10.1007/s12583-010-0119-8.

Kusky, T.M., Santosh, M., 2009. The Columbia Connection in North China. In: Reddy,S.M., Mazumder, R., Evans, D., Collins, A.S. (Eds.), Paleoproterozoic Supercontinentsand Global Evolution: Geological Society of London Special Publication, 323,pp. 49–71.

Kusky, T.M., Li, Jianghai, Tucker, R.T., 2001. The Archean Dongwanzi ophiolite complex,North China Craton: 2.505 billion year old oceanic crust and mantle. Science 292,1142–1145.

Kusky, T.M., Li, Z.H., Glass, A., Huang, H.A., 2004a. Archean ophiolites and ophiolitefragments of the North China Craton. In: Kusky, T.M. (Ed.), Precambrian Ophiolitesand Related Rocks. : Developments in Precambrian Geology, 13. Elsevier,Amsterdam, pp. 223–274.

Kusky, T.M., Li, Z.H., Glass, A., Huang, H.A., 2004b. Archean ophiolites and ophiolitefragments of the North China Craton. In: Kusky, T.M. (Ed.), Precambrian Ophiolitesand Related Rocks. : Developments in Precambrian Geology, 13. Elsevier,Amsterdam, pp. 223–274.

Kusky, T.M., Windley, B.F., Zhai, M.G., 2007a. Tectonic evolution of the North ChinaBlock: from orogen to craton to orogen. In: Zhai, M.G., Windley, B.F., Kusky, T.M.,Meng, Q.R. (Eds.), Mesozoic Sub-Continental Lithospheric Thinning Under EasternAsia: Geological Society of London Special Publication, 280, pp. 1–34.

Kusky, T., Li, J.H., Santosh, M., 2007b. The Paleoproterozoic North Hebei Orogen:North China Craton's collisional suture with Columbia Supercontinent. In: Zhai,M.G., Xiao, W.J., Kusky, T.M., Santosh, M. (Eds.), Tectonic Evolution of China andAdjacent Crustal Fragments: Special Issue of Gondwana Research, 12, no. 1–2,pp. 4–28.

Kusky, T.M.,Wang, L., Dilek, Y., Robinson, P., Peng, S.B., and Huang, X.Y., 2011, Application ofthemodern ophiolite conceptwith special reference to Precambrian ophiolites, ScienceChina, Earth Sciences 54 (3), 1–27.

Li, J.H., Kusky, T.M., 2007. A Late Archean foreland fold and thrust belt in the NorthChina Craton: implications for early collisional tectonics. In: Zhai, M.G., Xiao, W.J.,Kusky, T.M., Santosh, M. (Eds.), Tectonic Evolution of China and Adjacent CrustalFragments: Special Issue of Gondwana Research, 12, pp. 47–66.

Li, J.-H., Qian, X.-L., Gu, Y.-C., 1998. Outline of Paleoproterozoic tectonic division andplate tectonic evolution of North China Craton. Earth Science 23, 230–235.

Li, J.-H., Qian, X.-L., Huang, X.-N., Liu, S.-W., 2000a. The tectonic framework of thebasement of North China Craton and its implication for the early Precambriancratonization. Acta Petrologica Sinica 16, 1–10.

Li, J.-H., Kröner, A., Qian, X.-L., O'Brien, P., 2000b. The tectonic evolution of earlyPrecambrian high-pressure granulite belt, North China Craton (NCC). ActaGeological Sinica 274, 246–256.

Li, J.-H., Kusky, T.M., Huang, X., 2002a. Neoarchean podiform chromitites andharzburgite tectonite in ophiolitic melange, North China Craton, Remnants ofArchean oceanic mantle. GSA Today 12, 4–11.

Li, J.H., Kusky, T.M., Huang, X., 2002b. Neoarchean podiform chromitites andharzburgite tectonite in ophiolitic melange, North China Craton, Remnants ofArchean oceanic mantle. GSA Today 12 (7), 4–11 (plus cover).

35T.M. Kusky / Gondwana Research 20 (2011) 26–35

Li, S.Z., Kusky, T.M., Wang, L., Zhang, G.W., Lai, S.C., Liu, X.C., Dong, S.W., Zhao, G.C., 2007.Collision leading to multiple-stage large-scale extrusion in the Qinling orogen:insights from the Mianlue suture. Gondwana Research 12 (1–2), 121–143.

Li, S.Z., Kusky, T.M., Liu, X.C., Zhang, G.W., Zhao, G.C., Wang, L., Wang, Y.J., 2009. Two-stage collision-related extrusion of the western Dabie HP–UHP metamorphicterranes, central China: evidence from quartz c-axis fabrics and microstructures.Gondwana Research 16, 294–309.

Li, S.Z., Kusky, T.M., Zhao, G.C., Liu, X.C., Zhang, G.W., Kopp, H., Wang, L., 2010a. Two-stage Triassic exhumation of HP–UHP terranes in the Dabie orogen of China:constraints from structural geology. Tectonophysics 490, 267–293.

Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Jian, Z., Sun, M., Zhang, G.W., Dai, L.M., 2010b. Deformation history ofthe Hengshan–Wutai–Fuping Complexes: implications for the evolution of theTrans-North China Orogen. Gondwana Research 18, 611–631.

Liu, D.Y., Wilde, S.A., Wan, Y.S., Wang, S.Y., Valley, J.W., Kita, N., Dong, C.Y., Xie, H.Q.,Yang, C.X., Zhang, Y., Gao, L., 2009. Combined U–Pb, hafnium and oxygen isotopeanalysis of zircons from meta-igneous rocks in the southern North China Cratonreveal multiple events in the Late Mesoarchean–Early Neoarchean. ChemicalGeology 261, 140–154.

Liu, C., Zhao, G., Sun, M., Zhang, J., He, Y., Yin, C., Wu, F., Yang, J., in review a. U–Pb and Hfisotopic study of detrital zircons from the Hutuo group in the Trans-North ChinaOrogen. Gondwana Research, doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.016.

Liu, J.G., Rudnick, R.L., Walker, R.J., Gao, S., Wu, F.Y., Picolli, P.M., Yuan, H.L., Xu, W.L., Xu,Y.G., in review b. Mapping lithospheric boundaries using Os isotopes of mantlexenoliths: an example from the North China Craton, Geochemica et CosmochemicaActa.

O'Brien, P.J., Walte, N., Li, J.H., 2005. The petrology of two distinct granulite types in theHengshan Mts, China, and tectonic implications. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 24,615–627.

Peng, P., Zhai, M.G., Zhang, H.F., Guo, J.H., 2005. Geochronological constraints on thePaleoproterozoic evolution of the North China Craton: SHRIMP zircon ages ofdifferent types of mafic dikes. International Geology Reviews 47, 1–17.

Peng, P., Zhai, M.G., Guo, J.H., Kusky, T.M., Zhao, T.P., 2007. Nature of mantle sourcecontributions and crystal differentiation in the petrogenesis of the 1.78 Ga maficdykes in the central North China Craton. In: Zhai, M.-G., Xiao, W.J., Kusky, T.M.,Santosh, M. (Eds.), Tectonic Evolution of China and Adjacent Crustal Fragments:Special Issue of Gondwana Research, 12, pp. 29–46.

Peng, P., Guo, J.-H., Windley, B.F., Li, X.-H., in review, Halaqin volcano-sedimentarysuccession in the central-northern margin of the North China Craton: products ofLate Paleoproterozoic ridge, subduction. Precambrian Research.

Polat, A., Kusky, T.M., 2007. Discussion of geochemistry of the Late Archean (ca. 2.55–2.50 Ga) volcanic and ophiolitic rocks in the Wutaishan Greenstone Belt, CentralOrogenic Belt, North China Craton: implications for geodynamic setting andcontinental growth, Reply to G. Zhao and A. Kroner. Geological Society of AmericaBulletin 119, 490–492.

Polat, A., Kusky, T., Li, J.H., Fryer, B., Patrick, K., 2005. Geochemistry of the Late Archean(ca. 2.55–2.50 Ga) volcanic and ophiolitic rocks in the Wutaishan Greenstone Belt,Central Orogenic Belt, North China Craton: implications for geodynamic setting andcontinental growth. Geological Society of America Bulletin 117, 1387–1399.

Polat, A., Li, J.H., Fryer, B., Kusky, T.M., Gagnon, J., Zhang, S., 2006a. Geochemicalcharacteristics of the Neoarchean (2800–2700 Ma) Taishan greenstone belt, NorthChina Craton: evidence for plume–craton interaction. Chemical Geology 230,60–87.

Polat, A., Herzberg, C., Munker, C., Rodgers, R., Kusky, T., Li, J.H., Fryer, B., Delany, J.,2006b. Geochemical and petrological evidence for a suprasubduction zone origin ofNeoarchean (ca. 2.5 Ga) peridotites, central orogenic belt, North China Craton.Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 118, 771–784.

Polat, A., Frei, R., Schersten, A., Appel, P.W.U., 2010. New age (ca. 2970 Ma), mantlesource composition and geodynamic constraints on the Arhcean Fiskenaessetanorthosite complex, SW Greenland. Chemical Geology 277, 1–20.

Santosh, M., 2010. Assembling North China Craton within the Columbia superconti-nent: the role of double-sided subduction. Precambrian Research 178, 149–167.

Santosh, M., Kusky, T.M., 2009. Origin of paired high pressure–ultrahigh temperatureorogens: a ridge subduction and slab window model. Terra Nova 22 (1), 35–42.

Santosh, M., Tsunogae, T., Li, J.H., Liu, S.J., 2007a. Discovery of sapphirine-bearing Mg–Algranulites in the North China Craton: implications for Palaeoproterozoic ultrahigh-temperature metamorphism. Gondwana Research 11, 263–285.

Santosh, M., Wilde, S.A., Li, J.H., 2007b. Timing of Palaeoproterozoic ultrahigh-temperature metamorphism in the North China Craton: evidence from SHRIMPU–Pb zircon geochronology. Precambrian Research 159, 178–196.

Santosh, M., Zhao, D.P., Kusky, T.M., 2010. Mantle dynamics of the PaleoproterozoicNorth China Craton: a perspective based on seismic tomography. Journal ofGeodynamics 49, 39–53.

Trap, P., Faure, M., Lin, W., Monie, P., Meffre, S., Melleton, J., 2009. The Zanhuang Massif,the second and eastern suture zone of the Paleoproterozoic Trans-North Chinaorogen. Precambrian Research 172, 80–98.

Wang, K.Y., Li, J.L., Hao, J., 1997. Late Archean mafic–ultramafic rocks from theWutaishan, Shanxi Province: a possible ophiolite melange. Acta Petrologica Sinica13, 139–151.

Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P., Wang, K.-Y., Nemchin, A., 1998. SHRIMP U–Pb zircon dating ofgranites and gneisses in the Taihangshan–Wutaishan area: implications for thetiming of crustal growth in the North China Craton. Chinese Science Bulletin 43,1–144.

Wilde, S.A., Zhou, X.-H., Nemchin, A.A., Sun, M., 2003. Mesozoic crust–mantleinteraction beneath the North China Craton — a consequence of the dispersal ofGondwanaland and accretion of Asia. Geology 31, 817–820.

Wu, J.S., Geng, Y.S., Shen, Q.H., 1998. Archean geology characteristics and tectonicevolution of Sino-Korean paleocontinent. Geological Publishing House, Beijing,pp. 192–211 (in Chinese).

Zhai, M.G., 2004. Precambrian Geological Events in the North China Craton. In: Malpas,J., Fletcher, C.J.N., Ali, J.R., Aitchison, C. (Eds.), Aspects on Tectoinc Evolution ofChina: Geological Society Special Publication, 226. Geological Society of London,Oxford, pp 57–72.

Zhai, M.G., 2005. 2.1–1.7 Ga geological event group and its geotectonic significance.Acta Petrologica Sinica 20, 1343–1354.

Zhai, M.-G., Liu, W.J., 2003. Paleoproterozoic tectonic history of the North China Craton:a review. Precambrian Research 122, 183–199.

Zhai, M.-G., Guo, J.-H., Yan, Y.-H., 1992. Discovery and preliminary study of Archeanhigh-pressure granulites in the North China Craton. Science in China 12, 28–50 (inChinese).

Zhai, M.-G., Guo, J.-H., Li, Y.-G., Yan, Y.-H., 1995. Discovery of Archean retrogradedeclogites in the North China Craton and their tectonic implications. Bulletin ofScience in China 40, 706–721.

Zhai, M.G., Yang, J.-H., Fan, H.-R., Miao, L.-C., Li, Y.-G., 2002. A large-scale cluster of golddeposits and metallogenesis in the eastern North China Craton. InternationalGeology Reviews 44, 458–476.

Zhai, M.G., Guo, J.H., Liu, W., 2005. Neoarchean to Paleoproterozoic continentalevolution and tectonic history of the North China Craton. Journal of Asian EarthSciences 24, 547–561.

Zhai, M.G., Windley, B.F., Kusky, T.M., Meng, Q.R., 2007. Mesozoic Sub-ContinentalLithospheric Thinning Under Eastern Asia. Geological Society of London SpecialPublication, 280. 352 pp.

Zhai, M.G., Li, T.S., Peng, P., Hu, B., Liu, F., Zhang, Y.B., 2010. Precambrian key tectonicevents and evolution of the North China Craton. In: Kusky, T.M., Zhai, M.G., Xiao, W.J.(Eds.), The Evolving Continents: Understanding Processes of Continental Growth:Geological Society of London Special Publication, 338, pp. 235–262.

Zhang, K., 1989. Tectonics and Resources of Ordos Fault-Block. Geological PublishingHouse, Beijing.

Zhang, H.-F., Jing, J.-F., Tang, Y.-J., Li, X.-H., Feng, C., Santosh, M., 2011. Phanerozoicreactivation of the Archean North China Craton through episodic magmatism:Evidence from zircon U–Pb geochronology and Hf isotopes from the LiadongPeninsula. Gondwana Research, doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.09.002.

Zhao, G.-C., 2001. Paleoproterozoic assembly of the North China Craton. GeologyMagazine 138, 87–91.

Zhao, G.-C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.-Z., 1998. Thermal evolution of basementrocks from the eastern part of the North China Craton and its bearing on tectonicsetting. International Geology Reviews 40, 706–721.

Zhao, G.-C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.-Z., 1999a. Thermal evolution of two texturaltypes of mafic granulites in the North China Craton: evidence for both mantleplume and collisional tectonics. Geology Magazine 136, 223–240.

Zhao, G.-C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.-Z., 1999b. Tectonothermal history of thebasement rocks in the western zone of the North China Craton and its tectonicimplications. Tectonophysics 310, 37–53.

Zhao, G.-C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.-Z., 2000. Petrology and P–T–t path of theFuping mafic granulites: implications for tectonic evolution of the central zone ofthe North China Craton. Journal of Metamorphic Petrology 18, 375–391.

Zhao, G.-C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Sun, M., 2001a. Archean blocks and theirboundaries in the North China Craton: lithological, geochemical, structural and P–Tpath constraints and tectonic evolution. Precambrian Research 107, 45–73.

Zhao, G.-C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.-Z., 2001b. High-pressure granulites(retrograded eclogites) from the Hengshan Complex, North China Craton:petrology and tectonic implications. Journal of Petrology 42, 1141–1170.

Zhao, G.-C., Cawood, P.A., Wilde, S.A., Sun, M., Lu, L.-Z., 2002. Metamorphism ofbasement rocks in the Central Zone of the North China Craton: implications forPaleoproterozoic tectonic evolution. Precambrian Research 103, 55–88.

Zhao, G., Sun, M., Wilde, S., Li, S.Z., 2005. Late Archean to Paleoproterozoic evolution ofthe North China Craton: key issues revisited. Precambrian Research 136, 177–202.

Zhao, G.C., Kroner, A., Wilde, S.A., Sun, M., Li, S.Z., Li, X.P., Zhang, J., Xia, X.P., He, Y.H.,2007. Lithotectonic elements and geological events in the Hengshan–Wutai–Fuping belt: a synthesis and implications for the evolution of the Trans-North ChinaOrogen. Geological Magazine 144, 753–775.

Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Zhang, J., 2010. New evidence from seismic imaging for subductionduring assembly of the North China craton: COMMENT. Geology 38, e206.

Zheng, T.Y., Zhao, L., Zhu, R.X., 2009. New evidence from seismic imaging for subductionduring assembly of the North China Craton. Geology 37, 395–398.

Zheng, T.Y., Zhao, L., Zhu, R.X., 2010. New evidence from seismic imaging for subductionduring assembly of the North China craton: REPLY. Geology 38, e207.