Late Archean to Paleoproterozoic evolution of the North China Craton: key issues revisited

Precambrian Research 136 (2005) 177–202

Late Archean to Paleoproterozoic evolution of theNorth China Craton: key issues revisited

Guochun Zhaoa,∗, Min Suna, Simon A. Wildeb, Li Sanzhongc

a Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kongb Department of Applied Geology, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley 6012, Western Australia

c College of Marine Geosciences, Ocean University of China, 266003, Qingdao, China

Received 1 July 2003; accepted 28 October 2004

Abstract

A recently proposed model for the evolution of the North China Craton envisages discrete Eastern and Western Blocksthat developed independently during the Archean and collided along the Trans-North China Orogen during a Paleoproterozoicorogenic event. This model has been further refined and modified by new structural, petrological and geochronological dataobtained over the past few years. These new data indicate that the Western Block formed by amalgamation of the Ordos Blockin the south and the Yinshan Block in the north along the east-west-trending Khondalite Belt some time before the collisionof the Western and Eastern Blocks. The data also suggest that the Eastern Block underwent Paleoproterozoic rifting along

JingshanJilin, andfa major

matic arcsontinent-

morphismsulting in

to. It

h-

its eastern continental margin in the period 2.2–1.9 Ga, and was accompanied by deposition of the Fenzishan andGroups in Eastern Shandong, South and North Liaohe Groups in Liaoning, Laoling and Ji’an Groups in Southernpossibly the Macheonayeong Group in North Korea. The final closure of this rift system at∼1.9 Ga led to the formation othe Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt. In the late Archean to early Paleoproterozoic, the western margin of the Eastern Block facedocean, and the east-dipping subduction beneath the western margin of the Eastern Block led to the formation of magthat were subsequently incorporated into the Trans-North China Orogen. Continued subduction resulted in a major ccontinent collision, leading to extensive thrusting and high-pressure metamorphism. The available age data for metaand deformation in the Trans-North China Orogen indicate that this collisional event occurred at about 1.85 Ga ago, rethe formation of the Trans-North China Orogen and final amalgamation of the North China Craton.© 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:North China Craton; Archean; Paleoproterozoic; Collision; Rifting

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 28578203;fax: +852 25176912.

E-mail address:[email protected] (G. Zhao).

1. Introduction

The North China Craton is a general term usedrefer to the Chinese part of the Sino–Korea Cratoncovers∼1.5 million square kilometers in most of nort

0301-9268/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2004.10.002

178 G. Zhao et al. / Precambrian Research 136 (2005) 177–202

Fig. 1. Tectonic map of China showing the major cratons and younger orogens (Zhao et al., 2001b).

ern China, the southern part of northeastern China, In-ner Mongolia, the Bohai Bay and the northern part ofthe Yellow Sea. The craton is bounded by the earlyPaleozoic Qilianshan Orogen and late Paleozoic Cen-tral Asian Orogenic Belt to the west and north, re-spectively, and the Mesozoic Qinling–Dabie and Su-Luultrahigh-pressure metamorphic belts to the south andeast, respectively (Fig. 1). The basement of the NorthChina Craton consists of variably exposed Archean toPaleoproterozoic rocks, including TTG gneiss, gran-ite, charnockite, migmatite, amphibolite, greenschist,pelitic schist, Al-rich gneiss (khondalite), banded ironformation (BIF), calc-silicate rock and marble (Huanget al., 1986; Jahn et al., 1987; Ma et al., 1987; Qiaoet al., 1987; Kroner et al., 1988; He et al., 1992; Liuet al., 1992; Shen et al., 1992; Sun et al., 1992; Shen

and Qian, 1995; Song et al., 1996; Bai and Dai, 1998;Wu et al., 1991, 1998; Kusky and Li, 2003). Uncon-formably overlying the basement are Mesoproterozoicunmetamorphosed volcanic-sedimentary successions,called the Changcheng-Jixian-Qingbaikou system, andPhanerozoic cover.

Conventionally, the North China Craton has beenconsidered to be composed of Archean to Paleoprotero-zoic basement formed during four distinct tectonic cy-cles, named the Qianxi (>3.0 Ga), Fuping (3.0–2.5 Ga),Wutai (2.5–2.4 Ga) and Luliang (2.4–1.8 Ga) cycles(Huang, 1977; Ma and Wu, 1981; Wu et al., 1991;Zhao, 1993; Shen and Qian, 1995). Correspondingly,four tectonic events, named the Qianxi, Fuping, Wutaiand Luliang movements, were postulated at∼3.0 Ga,∼2.5 Ga,∼2.4 Ga and∼1.8 Ga, respectively (Huang,

G. Zhao et al. / Precambrian Research 136 (2005) 177–202 179

1977; Ma et al., 1987; Cheng, 1994; Bai and Dai, 1998).These tectonic cycles/movements were built upon ev-idence of a few “unconformities”, K–Ar, Rb–Sr andconventional multigrain U–Pb zircon geochronology,and misconceptions that much of the basement of thecraton was dominated by supracrustal rocks, and thathigh-grade metamorphic rocks were older than low-grade ones. However, geological mapping carried outin the late 1980s and early 1990s reveals that the ma-jority of felsic gneisses cropping out in the craton aremetamorphosed TTG and granitic plutons (Jahn andZhang, 1984; Zhai et al., 1985, 1990; Jahn et al., 1987,1988; Jahn and Ernst, 1990; He et al., 1992), andsome so-called “unconformities” between these tec-tonic cycles are regional-scale ductile shear zones (Liand Qian, 1991). Moreover, new geochronological dataindicate that not all the low-grade metamorphic rocksare younger than the high-grade rocks. For example, thelow-grade Wutai Complex has protolith ages similar tothose of the high-grade Fuping and Hengshan Com-plexes (Wilde et al., 1997, 1998, 2004; Kroner et al.,2004; Guan et al., 2002; Zhao et al., 2002a). Becauseof these, the polycyclic model and its main assumptionthat the North China Craton has a single basement havebeen abandoned in recent studies (Li et al., 1990; Wuet al., 1991, 1998; Wang et al., 1996; Wu and Zhong,1998).

Major advancements in understanding the geolog-ical history of the North China Craton have beenachieved in the past decade following discovery off -p andc cen-t ,1 ta 99a,2 edt orthC nest tof g,1 001;Lr d bes arel pro-t tec-t the

blocks (e.g.Wu et al., 1998; Wu and Zhong, 1998;Zhao et al., 1998, 2001b; Li et al., 2000; Zhai et al.,2000; Zhai and Liu, 2003; Zhai et al., 2003; Wu et al.,2000; Kusky and Li, 2003). To resolve these controver-sial issues, geologists from China, Australia, Germany,USA and Canada have carried out extensive structural,metamorphic, geochemical and geochronological in-vestigations in some key areas of the craton over thelast few years, and obtained numerous new geologicaldata and provided new interpretations for these key is-sues (e.g.Wang et al., 1996, 1997, 2001; Li and Liu,1997; Li et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2004; Wilde et al., 1997,1998, 2002, 2003, 2004; Cawood et al., 1998; Kroner etal., 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004; Wu and Zhong, 1998; Wuet al., 2000; Zhao et al., 1998, 1999c, 2000a, 2001b,2002a, 2003a, 2003b; Guo et al., 1999, 2001, 2002,2004; Halls et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2000, 2002a, 2002b,2004a, 2004b; Zhai et al., 2000, 2003, 2004; Kuskyet al., 2001; Guo and Zhai, 2001; Zhai and Liu, 2003;Passchier and Walte, 2002; Ge et al., 2003; Wang et al.,2003; Kusky and Li, 2003; O’Brien et al., 2004; Wu etal., 2004). In this contribution, we examine a numberof important issues related to the late Archean to Pa-leoproterozoic evolution of the North China Craton.These include the nature and origin of its componentparts, development of its eastern margin, the presenceor otherwise of Archean ophiolites, the distribution andtectonic nature of granulite facies rocks, and the tim-ing of its final amalgamation. On the basis of these newgeological data, we present a synthesis of our currentu n oft

2C

2

thel orthC ento t for-w nge kyav 15b ere

ragments of ancient oceanic crust, melanges, highressure granulites and retrograded eclogites,rustal-scale ductile shear zones and thrusts in theral part of the craton (Li et al., 1990; Li and Qian991; Bai et al., 1992; Zhai et al., 1992, 1995; Zhang el., 1994; Wang et al., 1996, 1997; Zhao et al., 19001a; Guo et al., 2002). These discoveries have l

o a broad consensus that the basement of the Nhina Craton is composed of different blocks/terra

hat developed independently and finally collidedorm a coherent craton (Wu et al., 1998; Wu and Zhon998; Zhang et al., 1998; Zhai et al., 2000; Zhao, 2i et al., 2000; Kusky and Li, 2003). However, it stillemains controversial as to how the craton shoulubdivided and where the collisional boundariesocated, the nature of the late Archean to Paleoerozoic tectonothermal events, and the timing andonic processes involved in the amalgamation of

nderstanding of the evolution and amalgamatiohe North China Craton.

. Tectonic subdivision of the North Chinaraton

.1. Tectonic subdivision

One of the most controversial issues concerningate Archean to Paleoproterozoic geology of the Nhina Craton is the tectonic division of the basemf the craton, and several proposals have been puard (Wu and Zhong, 1998; Wu et al., 1998; Zhat al., 1998; Zhai et al., 2000; Li et al., 2000; Kusnd Li, 2003). For example,Zhang et al. (1998)di-ided the basement of the North China Craton intolocks/terranes, but they did not expound what w


Fig. 2. Various tectonic subdivision of the North China Craton proposed (a) byWu et al. (1998)and (b) byZhai et al. (2000).

the main differences between these blocks/terranes andwhen they were united to form a coherent craton.Wuet al. (1998)proposed a five-fold subdivision of thecraton into the Mongshan, Qianhuai, Jinji, Yuwan andJiaoliao Blocks (Fig. 2a), of which the Jiaoliao andQianhuai Blocks were considered to have been amal-gamated to form a larger block at∼2.5 Ga, which thencollided with other blocks to form the North ChinaCraton during the Luliang Orogeny at∼1.8 Ga. How-ever,Wu et al. (1998)did not clearly define collisional

boundaries between these micro-continental blocks.Zhai et al. (2000)proposed a similar subdivision inwhich the North China Craton has been divided intosix blocks, named the Jiaoliao, Qinhuai, Xuchang, Fup-ing, Jining and Alashan Blocks (Fig. 2b), but they sug-gested that these micro-continental blocks were joinedtogether to form the North China Craton at the end ofthe Archean (∼2.5 Ga). Similarly,Zhai et al. (2000)didnot define collisional boundaries between the micro-continental blocks they identified.


Fig. 3. Three-fold tectonic subdivision of the North China Craton proposed byZhao et al. (1998, 2001b).

Zhao et al. (1998, 1999b, 2000a, 2001b)emphasizelithological, structural, metamorphic and geochrono-logical differences between the central part and east-ern/western parts of the craton. For example, fragmentsof ancient oceanic crust, melanges, high-pressure gran-ulites and retrograded eclogites have been found only inthe central part of the craton, whereas the late Archeanbasement of the eastern and western parts is dominatedby Late Archean TTG gneiss domes surrounded by mi-nor supracrustal rocks. In addition, petrographic andthermobarometric data have revealed that mafic gran-ulites in the central part of the craton differ in metamor-phicP–Tevolution from those in the eastern and west-ern parts (Zhao et al., 1998, 1999b, 2000a). The formerunderwent metamorphism characterized by clockwiseP–T paths, involving isothermal decompression andprobably reflect continental collisional environments(Zhao et al., 2000a), whereas the latter experiencedmetamorphism with anticlockwiseP–T paths involv-ing isobaric cooling and probably reflecting underplat-

ing and intrusion of mantle-derived magmas (Zhao etal., 1998, 1999b). These differences ledZhao et al.(1998, 2001b)to propose a three-fold tectonic sub-division of the North China Craton (Fig. 3). Accord-ing to this subdivision, the basement of the craton canbe divided into two distinct Archean to Paleoprotero-zoic blocks, named the Eastern and Western Blocks,separated by a central zone, named the Trans-NorthChina Orogen (Fig. 3; Zhao et al., 1998, 2001a). Basedon available lithological, structural, metamorphic andgeochronological data,Zhao (2001)suggested that theTrans-North China Orogen represents a Paleoprotero-zoic collisional orogen along which the Eastern andWestern Blocks were amalgamated to form the NorthChina Craton at∼1.85 Ga.Wu and Zhong (1998), Liet al. (2000)andKusky and Li (2003)also proposed asimilar subdivision for the North China Craton, butLiet al. (2000)andKusky and Li (2003)argued that theEastern and Western Blocks were amalgamated duringa∼2.5 Ga collisional event whereas, in their view, the


∼1.85 Ga Luliang event represents an intracontinen-tal rift within the craton. We will further pursue thiscontroversial issue later (see Section5).

2.2. New evidence from Nd, Re–Os, U–Pb and Hfisotopic data

Detailed lithological, geochemical, structural, meta-morphic and geochronological differences between thebasement rocks of the Eastern and Western Blocks andthe Trans-North China Orogen and their possible tec-tonic evolution have been summarized byZhao et al.(2001b)and are not repeated here.Wu et al. (2004)show that there are important differences in Nd modelages between the Trans-North China Orogen and East-ern and Western Blocks. The Eastern Block shows twomain Nd model age peaks, with one at 3.0–2.6 Ga andthe other at 3.6–3.2 Ga, whereas the Trans-North ChinaOrogen has only one Nd model age peak at 2.8–2.4 Ga.Moreover, the Nd isotopic data suggest that the Trans-North China Orogen underwent no significant crustalgrowth during the∼1.85 Ga collisional event (Wu etal., 2004). The limited Nd isotopic data from the West-ern Block show a wide range of model ages between3.2 and 2.4 Ga, with a peak at 2.8–2.6 Ga. These dif-ferences indicate the unique nature of the blocks andfurther support the three-fold division for the NorthChina Craton proposed byZhao et al. (1998, 1999b,2000a, 2001b).

New Re–Os data for Tertiary alkali basalts suggestt orthC ap-p nale hantT e oft aceda eentc hereb tonwt ra-t

dH litee obaa orth

China Orogen. Most zircon grains in the mafic gran-ulite enclaves contain an oscilatorily-zoned core (mag-matic zircon) and a structureless rim (metamorphiczircon). The magmatic zircon cores yield207Pb/206Pbages of 2447–2489 Ma, interpreted as the crystalliza-tion age of the precursor of the granulite, whereasthe metamorphic zircon rims give207Pb/206Pb ages of1823–1877 Ma, interpreted as the age of the granulite-facies metamorphism (Zheng et al., 2004a). The resultsof Hf isotopic analyses show that the metamorphic zir-cons possess lowerεHf values, varying between−2.5and +1.7, with Hf model ages of 1.96–2.46 Ga, whereasmagmatic zircons show higherεHf values (5.7–18.34)and Hf model ages around 2.5–2.6 Ga (Zheng et al.,2004a). Based on these new Hf isotopic data,Zhenget al. (2004a)conclude that (1) the precursors of thesemafic granulites formed from a late Archean depletedmantle, and (2) some mantle material was added to thelithosphere of the Trans-North China Orogen duringthe collision between the Eastern and Western Blockat∼1.85 Ga. These conclusions are consistent with ourcurrent model for the late Archean to Paleoproterozoicevolution of the North China Craton. In addition, newzircon U–Pb dating on felsic granulite xenoliths in theMesozoic volcanics in Xinyang, an area adjacent to theTrans-North China Orogen (Fig. 4), reveals the pres-ence of the∼3.6 Ga old crust at the western margin ofthe Eastern Block (Zheng et al., 2004b). This indicatesthat the early Archean crust is not only restricted to theeastern part of the Eastern Block (cf.Liu et al., 1992;S t oft

2W

omeP t dis-c )A tero-z ly int alongl -o inlye rome iaon-i re-f ero-

hat the lithospheric mantle beneath the Trans-Nhina Orogen formed at about 1900 Ma, whichroximately matches the age of the major collisiovent in the orogen, but is significantly younger the overlying late Archean crust (Gao et al., 2002).his suggests that the original Archean lithospher

he Trans-North China Orogen may have been replt about 1900 Ma in response to the collision betw

he Eastern and Western Blocks (Gao et al., 2002). Inontrast, Re–Os data show that the Archean lithospeneath the Eastern Block of the North China Craas not replaced until the Mesozoic (∼220 Ma) when

he Yangtze Block collided with the North China Con (Gao et al., 2002).

Most recently,Zheng et al. (2004a)made U–Pb anf isotopic analyses on the zircons of mafic granunclaves from the Tertiary basalts in the Hannurea, located in the northern segment of the Trans-N

ong et al., 1996), but also exists in the western parhe block (Zheng et al., 2004b).

.3. Tectonic model for the evolution of theestern Block

The Eastern and Western Blocks also contain saleoproterozoic basement rocks, which were noussed in the earlier model ofZhao et al. (1998, 2001b.vailable geological data show that these Paleoprooic basement rocks are not distributed randomhe Eastern and Western Blocks, but are exposedinear structural belts. As shown inFig. 4, the Paleproterozoic rocks in the Eastern Block are maxposed along a NE-trending belt that extends fastern Shandong Province, through eastern L

ng Province, to southern Jilin Province, hereinerred to as the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt. The Paleoprot


Fig. 4. Tectonic subdivision of the North China Craton as modified in this study. Abbreviations of metamorphic complexes: CD: Chengde; DF:Dengfeng; EH: Eastern Hebei; ES: Eastern Shandong; GY: Guyang; HA: Huai’an; HL: Helanshan; JN: Jining; LL: Luliang; MY: Miyun; NH:Northern Hebei; NL: Northern Liaoning; QL: Qianlishan; SJ: Southern Jilin; SL: Southern Liaoning; TH: Taihua; WD: Wulashan-Daqingshan;WL: Western Liaoning; WS: Western Shandong; WT: Wutai; XH: Xuanhua; ZH: Zanhuang; ZT: Zhongtiao.

zoic rocks in the Western Block crop out along anearly EW-trending belt that extends from Jining in theeast, through Daqingshan and Wulashan, to Qianlishanand Helanshan in the west (Fig. 4), herein referred toas the Khondalite Belt, since graphite-bearing garnet-sillimanite gneisses (khondalites) are the major com-ponent in this belt (Lu et al., 1992, 1996). The tectonicnature of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt is controversial and willbe discussed later. Here, we focus on the KhondaliteBelt and its tectonic implications for the formation ofthe basement of the Western Block.

The basement rocks of the Western Block are mainlyexposed in the northern part of the block, especially inthe Jining, Daqingshan-Wulashan, Guyang-Wuchuan,Sheerteng, Helanshan-Qianlishan, and Alashan areas,whereas the southern part of the block is covered by

the Mesozoic to Cenozoic strata of the Ordos Basin.Data from several boreholes reveal the existence ofgranulite-facies basement beneath the Ordos Basin(Wu et al., 1986), and aeromagnetic data also implythe existence of granulite-facies basement beneath thebasin (Wu et al., 1998). The exposed basement can befurther subdivided into two distinct lithotectonic units:the late Archean TTG + supracrustal rocks and the Pale-oproterozoic Khondalite Belt (Fig. 5). The former cropsout as granite-greenstone or high-grade terrains in theGuyang, Wuchuan, Sheerteng and Alashan areas in thenorthern part of the block, whereas the latter is exposedas a linear structural belt along the Jining-Daqingshan-Wulashan-Qianlishan-Helanshan zone, separating thenorthern late Archean basement from the Ordos Basin(Fig. 5).


Fig. 5. Tectonic division of the Western Block into the Ordos and Yinshan Blocks separated by the EW-trending Paleoproterozoic KhondaliteBelt (Zhao et al., 2002b).

The late Archean basement of the Western Blockhas a lithological assemblage, structural style and meta-morphic history similar to those of the Eastern Block.It consists of low-grade granite-greenstone and high-grade TTG gneiss and granulite terrains, which under-went a greenschist to granulite facies metamorphismat ∼2.5 Ga, characterized by anticlockwiseP–T pathsinvolving near-isobaric cooling (Jin et al., 1991; Liu etal., 1993).

The Paleoproterozoic Khondalite Belt in the West-ern Block is dominated by graphite-bearing sillimanite-garnet gneiss, garnet quartzite, felsic paragneiss, calc-silicate rock and marble, which have previously beenreferred to as “khondalite series” in the Chinese lit-erature and are considered to represent stable conti-nental margin deposits (Lu et al., 1992, 1996; Lu andJin, 1993). Associated with the khondalites are minorTTG gneisses, mafic granulites, syntectonic charnock-ites and S-type granites. It has long been considered thatthe khondalites were deposited and metamorphosedin the Archean (Lu et al., 1992, 1996; Qian and Li,1999; Li et al., 1999; Yang et al., 2000). However,

the available isotopic data suggest that the khondaliteswere deposited and metamorphosed in the Paleopro-terozoic, with depositional ages ranging from 2.3 to1.9 Ga and a metamorphic age of 2.0–1.9 Ga (Hu,1994; Wang et al., 1995; Wu and Li, 1998; Wan et al.,2000).

The khondalites preserve four distinct mineral as-semblages (M1–M4). M1 is represented by inclusionsof plagioclase + biotite + quartz± kyanite± rutilewithin M2 garnet porphyroblasts; M2 represents thegrowth of garnet porphyroblasts and matrix plagio-clase + biotite + quartz + sillimanite± ilmenite; M3 isrepresented by cordierite coronas and cordie-rite + orthopyroxene or cordierite + spinel symplec-tites, surrounding garnet porphyroblasts; and M4represents retrograde minerals biotite + chloritereplacing garnet, K-feldspar + sericite + chloritereplacing cordierite, and andalusite + muscovitedissecting the main foliation (Lu, 1991; Lu and Jin,1993; Zhao et al., 1999b). These mineral assemblagesand their thermobarometric estimates define clockwiseP–T paths involving near-isothermal decompres-


Fig. 6. MetamorphicP–T paths of the khondalites in the Paleopro-terozoic Khondalite Belt, Western Block. (1) Helanshan-QianlishanComplex (Zhao et al., 1999b); (2) Daqingshan-Wulashan Complex(Jin et al., 1991; Liu et al., 1993); (3) first metamorphic event in theJining Complex (Lu et al., 1992); (4) second metamorphic event inthe Jining Complex (Lu et al., 1992).

sion (Fig. 6), reflecting a continental collisionalsetting.

Zhao et al. (1999b)previously interpreted the clock-wiseP–T paths of the Khondalite Belt as having re-sulted from the Paleoproterozoic collision between theEastern and Western Blocks. However, this model can-not adequately explain the metamorphic grade of thekhondalites occurring far away from the Trans-NorthChina Orogen, such as those in the Daqingshan, Wu-lashan, Qianlishan and Helanshan areas. Recently, weproposed that the Khondalite Belt may represent a Pa-leoproterozoic collision belt, along which the YinshanBlock represented by the late Archean basement in thenorth, and the Ordos Block covered by the Ordos Basinin the south collided to form the Western Block in thePaleoproterozoic (Zhao et al., 2002b; Fig. 5). This sce-nario can best explain the spatial distribution of theKhondalite Belt within the Western Block. As mostkhondalite rocks crop out along the margin of the Or-dos Basin, it is reasonable to suggest that they repre-sent stable continental margin deposits surrounding theOrdos Block. The TTG gneisses and mafic granulitesthat coexist with the khondalite series cannot be as-signed to the formation of stable continental margin

deposits; they may represent an island arc or a conti-nental magmatic arc bordering the southern margin ofthe Yinshan Block (Liu et al., 1993), which was tecton-ically juxtaposed with the northern continental marginof the Ordos Block to form the Khondalite Belt duringa Paleoproterozoic collisional event.

The collision between the Yinshan and OrdosBlocks must have occurred at some time before the col-lision between the Eastern and Western Blocks, whichresulted in the formation of the Trans-North China Oro-gen. The available data indicate that the khondalites inthe Jining Complex near the junction of the KhondaliteBelt and the Trans-North China Orogen underwent twohigh-grade metamorphic events (Lu et al., 1992). Theavailable age data show that the granulite-facies meta-morphism of the Khondalite Belt occurred at 2.0–1.9Ga (Hu, 1994), whereas the regional metamorphism ofthe Trans-North China Orogen took place at∼1.85 Ga(Mao et al., 1999; Guo et al., 2001, 2002, 2004; Zhaoet al., 2002a; Kroner et al., 2004). Moreover, therewas a period of cooling between the two high-grademetamorphic events, since some biotite crystals thatformed from the retrograde breakdown of garnet por-phyroblasts during the first metamorphic event were re-placed by fibrous sillimanite developed during the sec-ond metamorphic event (Lu et al., 1992). This impliesthat these two high-grade metamorphic events may rep-resent two independent tectonothermal events. Meta-morphic reaction textures and thermobarometric esti-mates show that a clockwiseP–Tpath involving nearlyi mor-p ug-g hon-d ayh rast,t ans-N han,Qe vent,w m oft theT ont mal-g stillo imi-n thec rthC

sothermal decompression characterizes the metahic evolution of both the high-grade events. This sests that the khondalites near the junction of the Kalite Belt and the Trans-North China Orogen mave encountered two collisional events. In cont

he khondalites in the areas far away from the Trorth China Orogen (e.g. the Daqingshan, Wulasianlishan and Helanshan areas inFigs. 4 and 5) onlyxperienced a single high-grade metamorphic ehich further suggests that the main metamorphis

he Khondalite Belt occurred earlier than that ofrans-North China Orogen. A number of studies

he timing and tectonic processes involved in the aamation of the Ordos and Yinshan Blocks aren-going, but the available data support our prelary conclusion that the amalgamation pre-datedollision with the Eastern Block along the Trans-nohina Orogen.


3. Dongwanzi complex: an Archean ophiolitecomplex or a Phanerozoic continentalmafic-ultramafic intrusion?

Interpreted as fragments of ancient oceanic litho-sphere, ophiolite complexes play an important role inextrapolating plate tectonic processes back into theEarth’s early history (Helmstaedt and Scott, 1992;Windley, 1995). The presence of ophiolites in orogenic

belts is interpreted as evidence for the operation of theWilson Cycle, suggesting that orogenic belts evolve asa consequence of plate motions by the opening andclosing of oceans (Helmstaedt and Scott, 1992). So far,nearly all recognized ophiolites are Proterozoic or post-Proterozoic in age; the apparent absence of Archeanophiolites leads some geologists to question whetherplate tectonics operated in the Archean (Hamilton,1998). Recently,Kusky et al. (2001)reported an ophio-

Fig. 7. Reconnaissance map of the Dongwanzi “
ophiolite” complex (based onKusky et al., 2001).


lite complex of late Archean age in the Dongwanzi areaof Eastern Hebei, North China, which has been consid-ered as a milestone in substantiating Archean plate tec-tonics (Karson, 2001). Geographically, the Dongwanzicomplex is located on the western margin of the EasternBlock, adjacent to the boundary with the Trans-NorthChina Orogen (see inset inFig. 7). Kusky et al. (2001)suggested that the Dongwanzi ophiolite complex marksa suture zone along which the Eastern and WesternBlocks were finally amalgamated to form the NorthChina Craton at∼2.5 Ga. However,Zhai et al. (2002)questioned the existence of the Archean Dongwanziophiolite complex and claim that the ultramafic-maficrocks at Dongwanzi are not Archean but Phanerozoicin age.

In the Kusky et al. (2001)report, the Dongwanziophiolite complex was described as being composedof three NE-SW-trending belts (Fig. 7), of whichthe northwestern and southeastern belts are consid-

ered to be dominated by metamorphosed gabbros,sheeted dikes and pillow lava, whereas the centralbelt is interpreted as ultramafic-mafic cumulates. Inthe Chinese literature (e.g.Zhang, 1990; Bai andDai, 1998), however, the northwestern and southeast-ern belts are interpreted as late Archean complexes,whereas the central belt of the complex is regardedas a Phanerozoic ultramafic-mafic intrusion that in-trudes the Mesoproterozoic unmetamorphosed cover,named the Changcheng-Jixian System (Fig. 7). Kuskyet al. (2001)obtained zircon ages of 2504 Ma and2505± 2.2 Ma from metagabbroic rocks in the north-western and southeastern belts, which were previouslyconsidered to be Archean in age, but the age of the rocksin the disputed central belt has not been determined. Intheir response to the comments ofZhai et al. (2002);Kusky and Li (2002)made two important modifica-tions to their original report. Firstly, they excluded thenorthwestern belt from the Dongwanzi ophiolite; sec-

F ophiolit ons andc belts: ( Ailaob an-Qin nan belt;(

ig. 8. Geological sketch map illustrating the distribution ofhromite deposits in China (fromZhou and Bai, 1992). Ophioliteelt; (4) Kunlun belt; (5) Tianshan belt; (6) Junggar belt; (7) Qili11) Eastern Taiwan belt.

e belts, ophiolitic ultramafic massifs, mafic/ultramafic intrusi1) Yarlungzangbo belt; (2) Bongong-Nujiang belt; (3) Jinsha-ling belt; (8) Inner Monglia belt; (9) Nadanhada belt; (10) Jiang


ondly, they acknowledged that the central belt containsPhanerozoic ultramafic-mafic intrusive components.

More recently,Li et al. (2002)reported 2.5 billion-year old oceanic mantle podiform chromitites fromthe so-called Zunhua ophiolitic melange, about 60 kmsouthwest of the Dongwanzi ophiolite complex. Thisnew discovery was considered to be further supportfor the existence of the Dongwanzi ophiolite complex(Li et al., 2002). However, it is controversial whether ornot these chromitites are Alpine-type podiform chromi-tites.Zhou and Bai (1992)carried out detailed inves-tigations on chromitites in China and mapped out thespatial distribution of Alpine-type podiform chromi-tites and those from continental mafic/ultramafic in-trusions in China. As shown inFig. 8, the Alpine-type podiform chromitites associated with ophiolitesin China are restricted to Neoproterozoic and Phanero-zoic orogenic belts, whereas those from continentalmafic/ultramafic intrusions are mainly exposed in theNorth China Craton, including the Gaosi and Mao-jia chromitite deposits adjacent to Zunhua in Eastern

Hebei (Zhou and Bai, 1992). Zhou and Bai (1992)also showed that the Gaosi and Maojia chromitites inEastern Hebei, and all other chromitites in the NorthChina Craton, are geochemically different from thoseAlpine-type podiform chromitites in Phanerozoic oro-genic belts, with the former having distinctly higher Fethan the latter, and all chromitites in the North ChinaCraton plot outside of the Alpine-type chromitite fieldin the 100 Mg/(Mg + Fe2+) versus 100Cr/(Cr + Al) di-agram (Fig. 9).

Most recently,Zhang et al. (2003)did chemical anal-yses on chromites collected from those outcrops exam-ined during the Dongwanzi-Zunhua ophiolite complexfield trip in 2002. The results show that the chromitesin the Zunhua Complex are high in Fe and Ti butlow in Cr, Al and Mg, distinctly different from thosechromites from typical ophiolites (Fig. 10; Zhang et al.,2003). Based on these results and other geological data,Zhang et al. (2003, 2004)claimed that the Dongwanziand Zunhua mafic-ultramafic complexes are not ophi-olitic complexes, and that the chromitites in the Zunhua

F ing chrI rn Heb de of theA

ig. 9. Plot of 100Cr/(Cr + Al) vs. 100 Mg/(Mg + Fe2+) for ore-formrvine (1967). Note the Gaosi and Maojia chromitites in Eastelpine-type podiform chromitite field.

omites in China (Zhou and Bai, 1992). The Alpine-type field is fromei and other chromitites in the North China Craton plot outsi


Fig. 10. Diagram of Cr#–Mg# for chromite-spinel in Eastern Hebei(Zhang et al., 2003).

Complex are not Alpine-type podiform chromitites, butformed in continental mafic/ultramafic intrusions. Forthese reasons, we think that the Archean Dongwanziand Zunhua Complexes need to be further examinedbefore they can be considered as examples of Archeanophiolitic complexes.

4. Tectonic nature of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt

The Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt lies at theeastern margin of the Eastern Block of the North ChinaCraton, with its northern segment intervening betweenthe Northern Liaoning-Southern Jilin Complex and theSouthern Liaoning-Nangrim Complex and its south-ern segment extending across the Bohai Sea into theEastern Shandong Complex (Fig. 11). The belt consistsof greenschist to lower amphibolite facies sedimentaryand volcanic successions and associated granitic andmafic intrusions. The sedimentary and volcanic succes-sions, including the Fengzishan and Jingshan Groups ineastern Shandong, the South and North Liaohe Groupsin eastern Liaoning, the Ji’an and Laoling Groups insouthern Jilin and possibly the Macheonayeong Groupin North Korea (Fig. 11), are transitional from a basal

clastic-rich sequence and a lower bimodal-volcanic se-quence, through a middle carbonate-rich sequence, toan upper pelite-rich sequence (Li et al., 1995). Strati-graphically, the Fenzishan Group in eastern Shandongis well correlated with the North Liaohe Group inLiaoning and the Laoling Group in southern Jilin (Liand Liu, 1997). Similarly, the Jingshan Group in east-ern Shandong can also be stratigraphically correlatedwith the South Liaohe Group in Liaoning and the Ji’anGroup in southern Jilin (Li and Liu, 1997). Therefore,the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt itself can be further subdividedinto a northern belt, which comprises the Fenzishan,North Liaohe and Laoling Groups, and a southern beltthat consists of the Jingshan, South Liaohe and Ji’anGroup (Fig. 11). Separating the two belts are ductileshear zones and faults (Li et al., 1996; Wang et al.,2002).

Associated with the sedimentary and volcanic rocksin the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt are voluminous Paleoprotero-zoic granitoid and mafic intrusions. The granitoid plu-tons, named the Liaoji Granites in eastern Liaon-ing and southern Jilin (Zhang and Yang, 1988), arecomposed of deformed A-type granites and unde-formed alkaline syenites and rapakivi granites (Caiet al., 2002; Lu et al., 2004). Mafic intrusions con-sist of gabbros and dolerites, most of which havebeen metamorphosed to greenschist and amphibolitefacies, although igneous textures (ophitic textures) arepreserved.

Available geochronological data show that most oft pre-t eltf eta-ma1 s am thati roupyw t af-f be-f )a of1 ca f theS on-c o-JiB

he sedimentary and volcanic successions andectonic (gneissic) granites in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Bormed in the period 2200–2000 Ma and were morphosed and deformed at∼1900 Ma (Table 1). Yinnd Nie (1996)obtained a biotite40Ar/39Ar age of896± 7 Ma from the Liaohe Group, interpreted aetamorphic age. A post-tectonic rapakivi granite

ntrudes the upper sequence of the South Liaohe Gields a SHRIMP U–Pb zircon age of 1875± 10 Ma,hich suggests that the metamorphic event tha

ected the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt must have occurredore 1875± 10 Ma (Li et al., 2004). Cai et al. (2002nd Lu et al. (2004)obtained U–Pb zircon ages857± 20 Ma and 1843± 23 Ma from post-tectonilkaline syenites that cut the upper sequence oouth Liaohe Group, which further support the clusion that the metamorphic event of the Jiao-Liaelt took place about 1900 Ma ago.


Fig. 11. Map of the Paleoproterozoic Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt in the Eastern Block of the North China Craton showing the distribution of the Fenzishanand Jingshan Groups in Eastern Shandong, South and North Liaohe Groups in Liaoning, Laoling and Ji’an Groups in Southern Jilin, andMacheonayeong Group in North Korea.

Controversy has surrounded the tectonic na-ture of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, with some peopleproposing that the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt represents acontinent–arc–continent collisional belt (Bai, 1993;Bai and Dai, 1998; He and Ye, 1998), whereas othersbelieve that the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt invokes the openingand closing of an intra-continental rift along the easterncontinental margin of the North China Craton (Zhangand Yang, 1988; Yang et al., 1995; Peng and Palmer,1995a; Li et al., 2001a, 2001b).

Bai (1993)suggested that the Northern Liaoning-Southern Jilin and Southern Liaoning-Nangrim Com-plexes represent two exotic Archean continentalblocks, named the Longgang and Langlin Blocks, re-spectively, and the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt itself represents anintervening island arc and back-arc basin.

Bai and Dai (1998)proposed that in the Paleopro-terozoic, the Longgang Block had an active-type conti-nental margin on its present southern side in which con-tinental magmatic arcs and intra-arc basins developedand were subsequently incorporated into the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, whereas the Langlin Block had a passive-typecontinental margin on its present northern side alongwhich stable continental margin sediments were de-posited. Intervening between the two blocks was anocean, which was undergoing subduction beneath thepresent southern margin of the Longgang Block, andthe final closing of this ocean in the late Paleoprotero-zoic led to the continent-arc-continent collision to formthe eastern part of the North China Craton (Bai andDai, 1998). However, the absence of calc-alkaline ig-neous associations in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt cannot be


Table 1Representative geochronological data for the basement rocks in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, Eastern Block

Rocks Formations Ages (Ma) Methodsa Interpretations References

North and South Liaohe Groups and associated granitoid rocks (Liaoning)Amphibolite Li’eryu formation 2193.3± 29.5 Sm–Nd Protolith age Bai, 1993Amphibolite Li’eryu formation 2110± 60 Sm–Nd Protolith age Sun et al., 1993Amphibolite Li’eryu formation 2063.2± 37.9 Sm–Nd Protolith age Bai, 1993Meta-volcanic rock Li’eryu formation 2093± 22 SGDZ Crystallization age Jiang, 1987Meta-volcanic rock L’eryu formation 2053+ 69/−67 SGDZ Crystallization age Jiang, 1987Gneissic granite Pre-tectonic 2162± 12 LA-ICP-MS Crystallization age Lu et al., 2004Granite Pre-tectonic 2140± 50 SGDZ Crystallization age Sun et al., 1993Gneissicmonzogranite

Pre-tectonic 2093.7± 5.7 SHRIMP Crystallization age S.Z. Li, unpubl.data

Rapakivi granite Post-tectonic 1875± 10 SHRIMP Crystallization age(<metamorphic age)

S.Z. Li, unpubl.data

Biotitemonzogranite

Intruding the Gaixianformation

1848± 10 LA-ICP-MS Crystallization age(<metamorphic age)

Lu et al., 2004

Alkaline syenite Post-tectonic 1857± 20 SGDZ Crystallization age(<metamorphic age)

Cai et al., 2002

Hornblende-pyroxenesyenite

Intruding the Gaixianformation

1843± 23 LA-ICP-MS Crystallization age(<metamorphic age)

Lu et al., 2004

Calc-silicate rock Dashiqiao formation 1892± 50 Rb–Sr Metamorphic age Wang, 1984Biotite 1896± 7 Ar–Ar Metamorphic age Yin and Nie, 1996Calc-silicate rock Dashiqiao formation 1829.3± 59.6 Sm–Nd Wang, 1984

Laoling and Ji’an Groups (South Jilin)Meta-volcanic rock Ximahe formation

(Lower Ji’an Group)2308 SGDZ Protolith age Zhang and

Zhang, 1998Fine-grainedparagneiss

Huangchagouformation (MiddleJi’an Group)

2030 SGDZ Protolith age Zhang andZhang, 1998

Fine-grainedparagneiss

Dadongcha formation(Upper Ji’an Group)

1916± 83 Rb–Sr Protolith ormetamorphic age

Wang and Han,1989

Fine-grainedparagneiss

Ji’an Group 1906+ 151/−59 CMGZC Metamorphic age Wang and Han,1989

Amphibolite Ji’an Group 1915+ 48/37 CMGZC Metamorphic age Wang and Han,1989

Metasedimentaryrock

Laoling Group 1860± 124 Rb–Sr Metamorphic age Jiang, 1987

Fenzishan and Jingshan Groups (Eastern Shandong)Garnet mica schist Lugezhuang

formation (JingshanGroup)

2804± 2.4 SGEZ Detrital zircon age Ji, 1993

2533.6± 53.4 Detrital zircon age2384± 16 Detrital zircon age2182± 6.2 Maximum

Meta-sedimentaryrock

Zhujiakuangformation (FenzishanGroup)

3344.5± 68 SGEZ Detrital zircon age Ji, 1993

∼2224± 18 Maximum

depositional ageTremolite quartzite Zhujiakuang

formation (FenzishanGroup)

2496.7± 3.9 SGEZ Detrital zircon age Ji, 1993


Table 1 (Continued)

Rocks Formations Ages (Ma) Methodsa Interpretations References

∼2478± 18 Detrital zircon age

Meta-felsicparagneiss

Gangyu Formatio(Fenzishan Group)

2019 SGEZ Detrital zircon age Ji, 1993

Sillimanite gneiss Xiaosong Formation(Fenzishan Group)

2429± 2 SGDZ Detrital zircon age Yu, 1996

Paragneiss Xiaosong Formation(Fenzishan Group)

2271.3± 2.9 SGEZ Detrital zircon age Yu, 1996

a Ar–Ar, 40Ar/39Ar age; CMGZC, conventional multigrain zircon U–Pb concordia (or mean207Pb/206Pb) age; LA-ICP-MS, laser ICP-MSsingle-grain zircon U–Pb age; Rb–Sr, Rb–Sr whole rock isochron age; SGDZ, single grain dissolution zircon U–Pb age; SGEZ, single grainevaporation zircon U–Pb age; SHRIMP, sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe zircon U–Pb age; Sm–Nd, Sm–Nd whole rock/mineral isochronage.

explained by this continent-arc-continent collisionalmodel.

The rift closure model suggests that the ArcheanNorthern Liaoning-Southern Jilin Complex in the northand the Archean Southern Liaoning-Nangrim Com-plex in the south developed as a single continen-tal block that underwent early Paleoproterozoic rift-ing, associated with the formation of the sedimentary-volcanic rocks and granitoid and mafic intrusions inthe Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, and closed upon itself in thelate Paleoproterozoic (Yang et al., 1988; Zhang andYang, 1988; Li et al., 2001b, 2004). The major ev-idence for the rift model includes: (1) the presenceof bimodal volcanic assemblages in the Jiao-Liao-JiBelt, represented by a large amount of meta-maficvolcanics (greenschists and amphibolites) and meta-rhyolites (Zhang and Yang, 1988; Sun et al., 1993; Pengand Palmer, 1995b); (2) geochemically and geochrono-logically similar late Archean TTG basement gneissesand mafic dyke swarms on the opposite sides of theJiao-Liao-Ji Belt (Zhang and Yang, 1988; Lu et al.,2004); and (3) low-pressure-type, anticlockwise,P–Tpaths of the Ji’an, South Liaohe and Jingshan Groups(Lu et al., 1996; He and Ye, 1998), which are not con-sistent with a continent-continent collision model (e.g.Bohlen, 1991). In addition, an integrated major ele-ment, trace and rare earth element, and stable isotope(B, Si, O and S) study has shown that the volcanic-sedimentary successions that host borate deposits in theJiao-Liao-Ji Belt are of a non-marine origin, but havem ces-s , the

Upper Proterozoic Damaran Orogen of South Africa(Jiang et al., 1997; Peng et al., 1998).

Li et al. (2004)carried out a detailed structural studyon the North and South Liaohe Groups and recognizedthree phases of deformation (D1, D2 and D3). The earlydeformation (D1) is interpreted to have been relatedto an extensional event, since the F1 fold axes occurwith almost any direction and plunge, which cannotbe incorporated into a structural event with a single-direction compressive sense of motion. The existenceof such an extensional event in the Jiao-Liao-Ji Beltis consistent with a rift model (Li et al., 2004), andis not accommodated by continent-continent collisiontectonics, which is generally dominated by compres-sive deformation.

Based on the above lithological, metamorphic,structural, geochemical and geochronological consid-erations, we favor the rift closure model in explain-ing the development of the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt, and adetailed scenario for depositional, magmatic, struc-tural and metamorphic evolution of the Paleoprotero-zoic Jiao-Liao-Ji rift system has been given byLi et al.(2004).

5. Collision between the Eastern and WesternBlocks: at∼2.5 Ga or∼1.85 Ga?

Our recent tectonic model (Zhao et al., 1998, 1999b,2001b; Wilde et al., 2002) proposing that the NorthC ast-e belt

any similarities with those borate-bearing sucions in other Proterozoic rifting environments, e.g.

hina Craton formed by amalgamation of the Ern and Western Blocks along a central orogenic


Fig. 12. Simplified tectonic map showing the distribution of metamorphic complexes in the Trans-North China Orogen (AfterZhao et al., 2000a).

has been accepted and advanced by many researchers(Wu and Zhong, 1998; Wu et al., 2000; Guo and Zhai,2001; Guo et al., 2001, 2002; Guan et al., 2002; Kroner,2002; Kroner et al., 2002, 2004; Liu et al., 2002a,2004a, 2004b; Wang et al., 2003). However, there isno consensus concerning the timing of this collision,with one school of thought proposing that the collisionoccurred at∼2.5 Ga (Li et al., 2000, Kusky et al., 2001;Kusky and Li, 2003), whereas others believe that thefinal amalgamation of the two blocks was completed at∼1.85 Ga (Wu and Zhong, 1998; Wu et al., 2000; Zhaoet al., 2001b, Zhao, 2001; Wilde et al., 2002; Guo andZhai, 2001; Guo et al., 2001, 2002; Kroner et al., 2004).We advocate the 1.85 Ga collision model for the finalamalgamation of the North China Craton because it isstrongly supported by numerous and reliable metamor-

phic and deformational age data obtained for nearly allcomplexes in the Trans-North China Orogen, which aresummarized as follows.

(1) Zhao et al. (2002a)and Guan et al. (2002)car-ried out detailed SHRIMP U–Pb zircon studieson the Fuping Complex (Fig. 12), which is lo-cated in the middle segment of the Trans-NorthChina Orogen and consists of four distinct litholo-gies, named the Fuping TTG gneisses, Longquan-guan augen granitic gneisses, Wanzi supracrustalrocks and Nanying granitic gneisses (Zhao et al.,2000b). SHRIMP U–Pb analyses on magmatic zir-cons reveal that the granitoid plutons of the FupingTTG and Longquanguan augen gneisses were em-placed in the late Archean, with an age range from


Table 2SHRIMP U–Pb zircon data for the main lithologies of the Fuping Complex

Rock assemblage Lithology Sample no. Magmatic crystallizationage (a) or detrital age (b)(Ma)

Metamorphic age(Ma)

Sources

Old gneiss Hornblende gneiss FP50 2708± 8 (a) Guan et al. (2002)

Longquanguanaugen granite

Augen granite gneiss WL12 2543± 7 (a) Wilde et al. (1997)

Augen tonalitic gneiss WN11 2541± 14 (a) Wilde et al. (1997)Augen granite gneiss WL 9 2540± 18 (a) Wilde et al. (1997)

Fuping TTG gneiss Tonalitic gneiss FG1 2523± 14 (a) 1802± 43 Zhao et al. (2002a)Trondhjemitic gneiss FP54 2513± 12 (a) Guan et al. (2002)

FP217 2499± 9.5 (a) 1875± 43 Zhao et al. (2002a)Granodioritic gneiss FP216 2486± 8 (a) 1825± 12 Zhao et al. (2002a)

FP08 2475± 8 (a) 1817± 26 Guan et al. (2002a)Monzongranitic gneiss FP236 2510± 22 (a) Zhao et al. (2002a)Deformed pegmatite FP224 2507± 11 (a) Zhao et al. (2002a)

Wanzi Supracrustalrock

Sillimanite leptynite FP260 2507± 14 (b) Zhao et al. (2002a)

FP249 2502± 5 (b) Zhao et al. (2002a)2109± 5 (b)

Nanying gneiss Monzongranitic gneiss FP188-2 2077± 13 (a) 1826± 12 Zhao et al. (2002a)FP30 2045± 64 (a) Guan et al. (2002)

Granodioritic gneiss FP204 2024± 21 (a) 1850± 9.6 Zhao et al. (2002a)

Pegmatite Granitic pegmatite dyke FG2 1790± 8 (a) (1790± 8) Wilde et al. (1998)

2540 Ma to 2486 Ma, whereas the Nanying graniticgneisses were emplaced in the Paleoproterozoic,with an age range from 2077 to 2024 Ma (Table 2;Zhao et al., 2002a, Guan et al., 2002). How-ever, SHRIMP U–Pb zircon studies combined withcathodoluminescence images and U–Th chemistryconfirm the existence of only one phase of meta-morphic zircons in both the late Archean FupingTTG gneisses and the Paleoproterozoic Nanyinggranitic gneisses. These metamorphic zircons oc-cur as either overgrowth rims surrounding oldermagmatic zircon cores (Fig. 13a–d) or single grains(Fig. 13e–f), which are structureless, highly lu-minescent and with very low Th and U con-tents. These features make them distinctly dif-ferent from the magmatic zircons that are gener-ally characterized by oscillatory zoning, low lumi-nescence and comparatively high Th and U con-tents. Moreover, the metamorphic zircons fromboth the late Archean Fuping TTG gneisses and thePaleoproterozoic Nanying granitic gneisses yieldsimilar concordant207Pb/206Pb ages in the range

1870–1800 Ma (Table 2), which are 700–150 Mayounger than the magmatic zircon cores. A conclu-sion from these data is that the main regional meta-morphism of the Fuping Complex in the Trans-North China Orogen occurred at∼1.85 Ga.

(2) Wang et al. (2003)recognize four phases of de-formation in the Zanhuang Complex, about 50 kmsouth of the Fuping Complex (Fig. 12), and ap-plying mineral40Ar/39Ar dating techniques, theydefined the timing of D1, D2 and D3 events as1870 Ma, 1870–1826 Ma and 1826–1793 Ma, re-spectively. Therefore,Wang et al. (2003)con-cluded that the major tectonothermal event ofthe Zanhuang Complex occurred in the period1870–1793 Ma, similar to that of the adjacent Fup-ing Complex.

(3) North of the Fuping Complex, the Wutai Complex(Fig. 12) consists of 2566–2517 Ma granitoids,2533–2516 Ma greenstone sequences, 2.1–2.0 Magranites and Paleoproterozoic Hutuo Group (Wildeet al., 2004a,b).Wang et al. (1997)obtained a horn-blende40Ar/39Ar age of 1781± 20 Ma from the


Fig. 13. Representative selection of CL zircon images from the Fuping Complex. Note metamorphic zircons occur either as overgrowth rimssurrounding older magmatic zircon cores (a–d) or as single grains (e–f), and are structureless and highly luminescent, whereas magmatic zirconsare characterized by oscillatory zoning and low luminescence. Open circles show locations of SHRIMP analyses, and each spot is labeled withits individual207Pb/206Pb ages (Ma) (fromZhao et al., 2003a).

Jingangku amphibolites of the Wutai greenstonesequence. From the same amphibolites,Wang et al.(2001) also obtained a mineral Sm-Nd isochronage of 1851± 9 Ma, which we interpret is the ap-proximate age of the peak metamorphism of theWutai Complex.

(4) To the north of the Wutai Complex, the Heng-shan Complex (Fig. 12) is composed predomi-nantly of amphibolite- to granulite-facies gran-itoid gneisses, high-pressure granulites and ret-rograde eclogites and minor supracrustal rocks(Zhao et al., 2001a). SHRIMP and evaporation zir-

con dating shows that the major granitoid bod-ies in the Hengshan Complex were emplacedbetween 2.52 Ga and 2.48 Ga, whereas the em-placement of minor granitoid rocks continuedthrough the early Paleoproterozoic, particularly at∼2360–2330 Ma, 2250 Ma and 2115 Ma (Kroneret al., 2004). It is particularly important to notethat the granitoids emplaced at 2360–2330 Main the Hengshan complex contain the same de-formational features as the older gneisses andthus unambiguously demonstrate that the maindeformational event is not Archean but Protero-


zoic in age (Kroner et al., 2004). This conclu-sion is supported by the metamorphic zircon agesof 1850± 3 Ma, 1867± 23 Ma, 1859.7± 0.5 Ma,1881± 0.4 Ma, 1848± 5 Ma and 1881± 8 Ma ob-tained for the Hengshan dioritic gneiss, tonaliticgneiss and high-pressure mafic granulite (Kroneret al., 2004, Kroner et al., unpublished data).

(5) Further north of the Hengshan Complex, theHuai’an Complex (seeFig. 12) has lithologiessimilar to those of the Hengshan Complex, andthis is where the first high-pressure mafic gran-ulites in the Trans-North China Orogen werediscovered (Zhai et al., 1992). From the high-pressure mafic granulites,Guo et al. (1993)obtained a garnet-clinopyroxene-orthopyroxeneSm–Nd isochron age of 1824± 18 Ma and a U–Pbzircon age of 1833± 23 Ma, interpreted as the ageof the high-pressure metamorphic event. More re-cently, applying the SHRIMP U–Pb zircon datingtechnique,Guo et al. (2004)obtained an age of1817± 12 Ma for metamorphic zircons from thehigh-pressure granulites in the complex.

(6) High-pressure mafic granulites and amphiboliteshave also been reported from the Xuanhua Com-plex in the northern segment of the Trans-NorthChina Orogen (Fig. 12; Guo et al., 2002). Guoand Zhai (2001)obtained a garnet Sm–Nd age of1842± 38 Ma from the high-pressure granulites,and a garnet Sm–Nd age of 1856± 26 Ma from thehigh-pressure amphibolites, interpreted as the age

.s of-ites

( ns-lex

dcon

h-

forv enc t re-l ternB at

∼1.85 Ga. In contrast, the advocates of the∼2.5 Gacollision model for the North China Craton have notprovided any convincing isotopic data indicating thatthe rocks in the central orogenic belt (Trans-NorthChina Orogen) underwent a metamorphic and defor-mational event at∼2.5 Ga. One of major argumentsagainst the 1.85 Ga collision model is that few conver-gent continental-margin arcs in the world where sim-ilar rocks have formed, sat undisturbed for∼700 Mabefore being deformed and metamorphosed duringaccretionary and collisional events (Kusky and Li,2003). However, similar long-lived continental-marginarcs are considered to have occurred in southeast-ern Laurentia, southern Baltica, central Australia andwestern Amazonia during the Paleo-Mesoproterozoic(Karlstrom et al., 2001; Bingen et al., 2002; Breweret al., 2002; Rogers and Santosh, 2002). In southeast-ern Laurentia and southern Baltica, a 1.8–1.2 Ga mag-matic arc zone extends from Arizona through Colorado,Michigan, southern Greenland, Scotland, Sweden andFinland to western Russia, bordering the present south-ern margin of North America, Greenland and Baltica(Gower et al., 1990; Karlstrom et al., 2001; Rogersand Santosh, 2002). It consists of the 1.8–1.7 Ga Yava-pai and Central Plains Belts, 1.7–1.6 Ga MazatzalBelt, 1.5–1.3 Ga St. Francois and Spavinaw Granite-Rhyolite Belts and 1.3–1.2 Ga Elzevirian Belt in south-western North America; the 1.8–1.7 Ga MakkovikianBelt and 1.7–1.6 Ga Labradorian Belt in northeast-ern North America; the 1.8–1.7 Ga Malin Belt in theB n-l Belt,1 GaS arlyS ;K i-c onei cesa -dayiD -i thec per-c sh,2 -p rcsi sub-d for

of the high-pressure metamorphic event.Guo et al(2004)also obtained SHRIMP U–Pb zircon age1872± 16 Ma and 1819± 16 Ma from metamorphic zircons of the high-pressure mafic granulin the complex.

7) Exposed in the northernmost part of the TraNorth China Orogen is the Chengde Comp(Fig. 12), whereLi et al. (1998)have reportehigh-pressure mafic granulites that yielded a zirU–Pb lower intercept age of 1817± 17 Ma (Maoet al., 1999), interpreted as the time of the higpressure metamorphic event.

In summary, all available metamorphic age dataarious lithologies in the Trans-North China Oroglearly show that the major tectonothermal evenated to collision between the Eastern and Weslocks to form the North China Craton occurred

ritish Isles; the 1.8–1.7 Ga Ketilidian Belt in Greeand; and the 1.8–1.7 Transscandinavian Igneous.7–1.6 Ga Kongsberggian-Gothian Belt, 1.6–1.5outhwest Sweden Granitoid Belt and 1.3–1.2 Ga eveconorwegian Belt in Baltica (Gower et al., 1990arlstrom et al., 2001). Petrological and geochemal studies indicate that this large magmatic arc zncludes dominantly juvenile volcanogenic sequennd granitoid suites resembling those of present

sland arcs and active continental margins (Nelson andePaolo, 1985; Bennet and DePaolo, 1987), represent

ng subduction-related episodic outgrowth alongontinental margin of a Paleo-Mesoproterozoic suontinent (Karlstrom et al., 2001; Rogers and Santo002; Zhao et al., 2002c, 2004). A present-day examle of long-lived convergent continental-margin a

s the Andes, where the Pacific plate has beenucting under the west coast of South America


∼500 million years since the Cambrian (Howell, 1995;Dalziel, 1997; Rivers and Corrigan, 2000). These ex-amples demonstrate that such a long-lived continental-margin arc is not unique to the Trans-North ChinaOrogen.

6. Conclusions

New data obtained over the past few years have fur-ther refined our previous tectonic model for the evolu-tion of the North China Craton that envisages discreteEastern and Western Blocks, which developed inde-pendently during the Archean and collided along theTrans-North China Orogen during a Paleoproterozoicorogenic event. Major conclusions from these new dataare summarized as follows:

(1) The Western Block can be further subdivided intothe Ordos Block in the south and the YinshanBlock in the north, with the east-west-trendingKhondalite Belt between the two blocks. Thewidespread presence of Paleoproterozoic khon-dalites on the periphery of the Ordos Block sug-gests these formed at a passive continental marginin the Paleoproterozoic. In contrast, the YinshanBlock had an active-type continental margin alongwhich TTG plutons and mafic to felsic volcanicsformed during the late Archean to Paleoprotero-zoic. At about 2.0–1.9 Ga, the southern margin of

rth-ta-

( zoicthetionsterns inth-oupmo-

lexan

fic-eo-s inod-

iform chromitites, but rather chromitites from con-tinental mafic-ultramafic intrusions (Zhang et al.,2003, 2004).

(3) In the late Archean to early Paleoproterozoic, thewestern margin of the Eastern Block faced a ma-jor ocean. Initiation of east-dipping subduction be-neath the western margin of the Eastern Block ledto the formation of island and magmatic arcs thatwere subsequently incorporated into the Trans-North China Orogen. Continued subduction re-sulted in a major continental-continental collision,leading to extensive thrusting, high-pressure meta-morphism and the generation of crustal melts. Allavailable metamorphic and deformational age datafor various lithologies in the Trans-North ChinaOrogen indicate that this collision occurred at∼1.85 Ga ago, resulting in the formation of theTrans-North China Orogen and final amalgama-tion of the North China Craton.

Acknowledgements

This research was financially supported by HongKong RGC grants (7055/03P, 9048/03P and 7058/04P),a Stephen S.F. Hui Trust Fund and a NSFC Grant(40002015). We would like to acknowledge A. Kroner,M.G. Zhai, C.H. Wu, S.W. Liu and J.H. Guo for theirmany discussions that influenced the content of thisc nda por-t

R

B ationcal

B a,ina..

B entsion.

B ry oftopic

B tica-ent

the Yinshan Block was amalgamated to the noern margin of the Ordos Block, leading to the memorphism of the Khondalite Belt.

2) The Eastern Block underwent Paleoproterorifting along its eastern continental margin inperiod 2.2–1.9 Ga, associated with the formaof the Fenzishan and Jingshan Groups in eaShandong, the South and North Liaohe GroupLiaoning, the Laoling and Ji’an Groups in souern Jilin, and possibly the Macheonayeong Grin North Korea. The final closure of this rift systeat ∼1.9 Ga led to the formation of the Jiao-LiaJi Belt. The Dongwanzi mafic-ultramafic compwithin the Eastern Block may not be an Archeophiolitic complex but a Phanerozoic ultramamafic continental intrusion. Geological and gchemical data also suggest that the chromititethe Zunhua Complex may not be Alpine-type p

ontribution. Comments by B.M. Jahn, T. Kusky an anonymous reviewer helped clarify several im

ant points.

eferences

ai, J., 1993. The Precambrian Geology and Pb-Zn Mineralizin the Northern Margin of North China Platform. GeologiPublishing House, Beijing.

ai, J., Dai, F.Y., 1998. Archean crust of China. In: MX.Y., Bai, J. (Eds.), Precambrian Crust Evolution of ChSpringer–Geological Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 15–86

ai, J., Wang, R.Z., Guo, J.J., 1992. The Major Geologic Evof Early Precambrian and Their Dating in Wutaishan RegGeological Publishing House, Beijing.

ennet, V.C., DePaolo, D.J., 1987. Proterozoic crustal histothe western United States as determined by neodymium isomapping. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 99, 674–685.

ingen, B., Mansfeld, J., Sigmond, E.M.O., Stein, H., 2002. BalLaurentia link during the Mesoproterozoic: 1.27 Ga developm


of continental basins in the Sveconorwegian Orogen, southernNorway. Can. J. Earth Sci. 39, 1425–1440.

Brewer, T.S., Ahall, K.I., Darbyshire, D.P.F., Menuge, J.F., 2002.Geochemistry of late Mesoproterozoic volcanism in southwest-ern Scandinavia: implications for Sveconorwegian – Grenvillianplate tectonic models. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 159, 129–144.

Bohlen, S.R., 1991. On the formation of granulites. J. Metamorph.Geol. 9, 223–229.

Cai, J.H., Yan, G.H., Mu, B.L., Xu, B.L., Shao, H.X., Xu, R.H.,2002. U-Pb and Sm-Nd isotopic ages of an alkaline syenite com-plex body in Liangtun-Kuangdongguo, Gai County, LiaoningProvince, China and their geological significance. Acta Petrol.Sin. 18, 349–354.

Cawood, P., Wilde, S.A., Wang, K.Y., Nemchin, A., 1998. Integratedgeochronology and field constraints on subdivision of the Pre-cambrian in China: Data from the Wutaishan. Abstract of the 9thInternational Conference on Geochronology, Cosmochronologyand Isotope Geology, Beijing. Chin. Sci. Bull. 43, 17.

Cheng, Y.Q., 1994. Outline of Regional Geology of China. Geolog-ical Publishing House, Beijing.

Dalziel, I.W.D., 1997. Neoproterozoic-Paleozoic geography and tec-tonics: review, hypothesis, environmental speculation. Geol. Soc.Am. Bull. 108, 16–42.

Gao, S., Rudnick, R.L., Carlson, R.W., McDonough, W.F., Liu, Y.S.,2002. Re-Os evidence for replacement of ancient mantle litho-sphere beneath the North China Craton. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.198, 307–322.

Ge, W.C., Zhao, G.C., Sun, D.Y., Wu, F.Y., Lin, Q., 2003. Meta-morphic P-T path of the Southern Jilin complex: implicationsfor tectonic evolution of the Eastern block of the North Chinacraton. Int. Geol. Rev. 45, 1029–1043.

Gower, C.F., Ryan, A.B., Rivers, T., 1990. Mid-ProterozoicLaurentia-Baltic: an overview of its geological evolution andsummary of the contributions by this volume. In: Gower, C.F.,Rivers, T., Ryan, B. (Eds.), Mid-Proterozoic Laurentia-Baltica.

G 02.lex:cra-

G surehina

G an-thernical

. Sin.

G .,f zir-Northther-

G r-39mor-ton.

Guo, J.H., O’Brien, P.J., Zhai, M.G., 2002. High-pressure granulitesin the Sangan area, North China Craton: metamorphic evolution,P–T paths and geotectonic significance. J. Metamorph. Geol. 20,741–756.

Guo, J.H., Sun, M., Zhai, M.G., 2004. Sm-Nd and SHRIM U-Pbzircon geochronology of high-pressure granulites in the Sangganarea, North China Craton: timing of Paleoproterozoic continentalcollision. J. Asian Earth Sci. (in press).

Halls, H.C., Li, J.H., Davis, D., Hou, G., Zhang, B.X., Qian, X.L.,2000. A precisely dated Proterozoic palaeomagnetic pole fromthe North China craton, and its relevance to palaeocontinentalreconstruction. Geophys. J. Int. 143, 185–203.

Hamilton, W.B., 1998. Archean magmatism and deformation werenot products of plate tectonics. Precambrian Res. 91, 143–179.

He, G.P., Ye, H.W., 1998. Two type of Early Proterozoic metamor-phism in the eastern Liaoning to southern Jilin and their tectonicimplication. Acta Petrol. Sin. 14, 152–162.

He, G.P., Lu, L.Z., Ye, H.W., Jin, S.Q., Ye, T.S., 1992. Metamorphicevolution of Early Precambrian rocks in the eastern Hebei andInner Mongolia regions. Jilin University Press, Changchun.

Helmstaedt, H.H., Scott, D.J., 1992. The Proterozoic ophiolite prob-lem. In: Condie, K.C. (Ed.), Proterozoic Crustal Evolution. El-sevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 55–95.

Howell, D.G., 1995. Principles of Terranes Analysis, second edition.Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

Hu, N.G., 1994. Evolution of Helanshan Complex. Xi’an Atlas Press,Xi’an.

Huang, J.Q., 1977. The basic outline of China tectonics. Acta Geol.Sin. 52, 117–135.

Huang, X., Bai, Z., DePaolo, D.J., 1986. Sm-Nd isotope study ofearly Archean rocks, Qianan, Hebei Province, China. Geochim.Cosmochim. Acta 50, 625–631.

Irvine, T.N., 1967. Chromian spinels as a petrogenetic indicator, partII: petrological applications. Can. J. Earth Sci. 4, 71–103.

J east-tonic

J Liu,ince,

and

J ng,heanencentle.

J hronthes. 46,

J phicGeol.

J oninguse,

Geol. Assoc. Can. Spec. Paper 38, 1–20.uan, H., Sun, M., Wilde, S.A., Zhou, X.H., Zhai, M.G., 20

SHRIMP U-Pb zircon geochronology of the Fuping Compimplications for formation and assembly of the North Chinaton. Precambrian Res. 113, 1–18.

uo, J.H., Zhai, M.G., 2001. Sm-Nd age dating of high-presgranulites and amphibolites from Sanggan area, North CCraton. Chin. Sci. Bull. 46, 106–111.

uo, J.H., Zhai, M.G., Zhang, Y.G., 1993. Early Precambrian Mjinggou high-pressure granulites melange belt on the souedge of the Huaian Complex, North China Craton: geologfeatures, petrology and isotopic geochronology. Acta Petrol9, 329–341.

uo, J.H., Shi, X., Bian, A.G., Xu, R.H., Zhai, M.G., Li, Y.G1999. Pb isotopic compositions of feldspar and U–Pb age ocons from early Proterozoic granites in the Sanggan area,China Craton: metamorphism, crustal melting and tectonomal events. Acta Petrol. Sin. 15, 199–207.

uo, J.H., Wang, S.S., Sang, H.Q., Zhai, M.G., 2001. Ar-40-Aage spectra of garnet porphyroblast: implications for metaphic age of high-pressure granulite in the North China CraActa Petrol. Sin. 17, 436–442.

ahn, B.M., Zhang, Z.Q., 1984. Archean granulite gneisses fromern Hebei Province, China: rare earth geochemistry and tecimplications. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 85, 224–243.

ahn, B.M., Auvray, B., Cornichet, J., Bai, Y.D., Shen, Q.H.,D.Y., 1987. 3.5 Ga old amphibolites from eastern Hebei ProvChina: field occurrence, petrography, Sm–Nd isochron ageREE geochemistry. Precambrian Res. 34, 311–346.

ahn, B.M., Auvray, B., Shen, Q.H., Liu, D.Y., Zhang, Z.Q., DoY.J., Ye, X.J., Zhang, Q.Z., Cornichet, J., Mace, J., 1988. Arccrustal evolution in China: the Taishan Complex and evidfor Juvenile crustal addition from long-term depleted maPrecambrian Res. 38, 381–403.

ahn, B.M., Ernst, W.G., 1990. Late Archean Sm-Nd IsocAge for Mafic-Ultramafic Supracrustal Amphibolites fromNortheastern Sino-Korean Craton, China. Precambrian Re295–306.

i, Z.Y., 1993. Geochronology of Paleoproterozoic metamorrocks in the Jiaobei area, Eastern Shandong. Shandong9, 1–13.

iang, C.C., 1987. Precambrian Geology of Eastern Part of Liaand Jilin. Liaoning Science and Technology Publishing HoShenyang.


Jiang, S.Y., Palmer, M.R., Peng, Q.M., Yang, J.H., 1997. Chemi-cal and stable isotopic compositions of Proterozoic metamor-phosed evaporites and associated tourmalines from the Houxi-anyu borate deposit, eastern Liaoning, China. Chem. Geol. 135,189–211.

Jin, W., Li, S.X., Liu, X.S., 1991. The Metamorphic dynamicsof Early Precambrian high-grade metamorphic rocks series inDaqing-Ulashan area, Inner Mongolia. Acta Petrol. Sin. 7, 27–35.

Karlstrom, K.E., Harlan, S.S.,Ahall, K.I., Williams, M.L., McLel-land, J., Geissman, J.W., 2001. Long-lived (1.8-1.0 Ga) conver-gent orogen in southern Laurentia, its extensions to Australia andBaltica, and implications for refining Rodinia. Precambrian Res.111, 5–30.

Karson, J.A., 2001. Oceanic crust when Earth was young. Science292, 1076–1078.

Kroner, A., Compston, W., Zhang, G.W., Guo, A.L., Todt, W., 1988.Ages and tectonic setting of Late Archean greenstone–gneissterrain in Henan Province, China, as revealed by single-grainzircon dating. Geology 16, 211–215.

Kroner, A., Cui, W.Y., Wang, W.Y., Wang, C.Q., Nemchin, A.A.,1998. Single zircon ages from high-grade rocks of the JianpingComplex, Liaoning Province, NE China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 16,519–532.

Kroner, A., Wilde, S., O’Brien, P.J., Li, J.H., 2001. The Hengshanand Wutai complexes of northern China: lower and upper crustaldomains of a late Archaean to Paleoproterozoic magmatic arcand significance for the evolution of the North China Craton.In: Cassidy, K.F. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Ar-chaean Symposium 2001. Extended Abstracts. AGSO – Geo-science Australia, Record 37, 327.

Kroner, A., 2002. Zircon ages of the Hengshan Complex. In: Kroner,A., Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Zhai, M.G., Passchier, C.W., Sun,M., Guo, J.H., O’Brien, P.J., Walte, N. (Eds.), A Late Archaeanto Palaeoproterozoic Lower to Upper Crustal Section in theHengshan-Wutaishan Area of North China. Guidebook for Pen-

demy

K lu-ustalhern

K ean, Q.).

K n of

K nziold

L zonel. 6,

L liter the

L tearea,

Northern Hebei Province: tectonic implications. Acta Petrolog-ica Sinica 14, 34–41.

Li, J.H., Kusky, T.M., Huang, X.N., 2002. Archean podiform chromi-tites and mantle tectonites in ophiolitic melange, North ChinaCraton: a record of early oceanic mantle processes. GSA Today12, 4–11.

Li, J.H., Kroner, A., Qian, X.L., O’Brien, P., 2000. Tectonic Evolu-tion of an Early Precambrian High-Pressure Granulite Belt in theNorth China Craton. Acta Geol. Sin. 74, 246–258.

Li, J.L., Wang, K.Y., Wang, C.Q., Liu, X.H., Zhao, Z.Y., 1990. AnEarly Proterozoic collision belt in the Wutaishan area. China.Sci. Geol. Sin. 25, 1–11, in Chinese.

Li, S.Z., Liu, Y.J., 1997. Paleoproterozoic sedimentary assemblagesof the Jiao-Liao-Ji Belt: geochronology and sequences. North-western Geol. 18, 13–20, in Chinese.

Li, S.Z., Yang, Z.S., Liu, Y.J., 1995. Paleoproterozoic tectonic frame-work of the eastern North China Craton. J. Changchun Univ. Sci.Tech. 25, 14–21, in Chinese.

Li, S.Z., Yang, Z.S., Liu, Y.J., 1996. Preliminary analysis on theuplift-delamination structure of the Paleoproterozoic orogenicbelt in Liaodong Peninsular, China. J. Changchun Univ. Sci.Tech. 26, 305–309, in Chinese.

Li, S.Z., Han, Z.Z., Liu, Y.J., Yang, Z.S., 2001a. Geologicaland geochemical constraints on Paleoproterozoic pre-Orogenicdeep processes in the Jiao-Liao Block. Sci. Geol. Sin. 36,184–194.

Li, S.Z., Han, Z.Z., Liu, Y.J., Yang, Z.S., Ma, R., 2001b. Regionalmetamorphism of the Liaohe Group: implications for continentaldynamics. Geol. Rev. 47, 9–18.

Li, S.Z., Zhao, G.C., Sun M., Wu, F.Y., Hao, D.F., Han, Z.Z, Luo, Y.,Xia, X.P., 2004. Deformational history of the PaleoproterozoicLiaohe Group in the Eastern Block of the North China Craton. J.Asian Earth Sci. (in press).

Liu, D.Y., Nutman, A.P., Compston, W., Wu, J.S., Shen, Q.H., 1992.Remnants of 3800 crust in the Chinese Part of the Sino-Korean

L 00.com-86–

L logi-f the117,

L ean: con-. Sci.

L eancon-rani-. 130,

L eo-ses:orth

rose Conference Field Trip, September 2002. Chinese Acaof Sciences, Beijing, pp. 28–32.

roner, A., Wilde, S.A., Li, J.H., Wang, K.Y., 2004. Age and evotion of a late Archaean to early Palaeozoic upper to lower crsection in the Wutaishan/Hengshan/Fuping terrain of nortChina. J. Asian Earth Sci. (in press).

usky, T.M., Li, J.H., 2002. Is the Dongwanzi Complex an Archophiolite? (Response to Zhai, M.G., Zhao, G.C. and ZhangScience 295, 923a.

usky, T.M., Li, J.H., 2003. Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolutiothe North China Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 22, 383–397.

usky, T.M., Li, J.H., Tucker, R.D., 2001. The Archean Dongwaophiolite complex, North China Craton: 2. 505-billion-year-oceanic crust and mantle. Science 292, 1142–1145.

i, J.H., Qian, Q.L., 1991. A study on the Longquanguan shearin the northern part of the Taihang Mountains. Shanxi Geo17–29, in Chinese.

i, J.H., Qian, X.L., Liu, S.W., 1999. Geochemistry of the khondaseries in the central North China Craton and implications focrustal cratonization. Sci. China (Ser. D) 29, 193–203.

i, J.H., Zhai, M.G., Li, Y.G., Zhan, Y.G., 1998. Discovery of LaArchean high-pressure granulites in Luanping-Chengde

craton. Geology 20, 339–342.iu, S.W., Liang, H.H., Zhao, G.C., Hua, Y.G., Jian, A.H., 20

Isotopic chronology and geological events of Precambrianplex in the Taihangshan region. Sci. China (Ser. D) 43, 3393.

iu, S.W., Pan, P.M., Li, J.H., Li, Q.G., Zhang, J., 2002a. Geocal and isotopic geochemical constraints on the evolution oFuping Complex, North China Craton. Precambrian Res.41–56.

iu, S.W., Li, J.H., Pan, Y.M., Zhang, J., Li, Q.G., 2002b. An Archcontinental block in the Taihangshan and Hengshan regionsstraints from geochronology and geochemistry. Progr. Nat12, 568–576.

iu, S.W., Pan, Y.M., Xie, Q.L., Zhang, J., Li, Q.G., 2004a. Archgeodynamics in the Central Zone, North China Craton:straints from geochemistry of two contrasting series of gtoids in the Fuping and Wutai Complexes. Precambrian Res229–249.

iu, S.W., Pan, Y.M., Xie, Q.L., Zhang, J., Li, Q.G., 2004b. Gchemistry of the Paleoproterozoic Nanying Granitoid Gneisconstraints on the tectonic setting of the Central Zone, NChina Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. (in press).


Liu, X.S., Jin, W., Li, S.X., Xu, X.C., 1993. Two types of Pre-cambrian high-grade metamorphism, Inner Mongolia. China. J.Metamorph. Geol. 11, 499–510.

Lu, L.Z., 1991. Metamorphic P-T-t path of the Archean granulite-facies terrains in Jining area, Inner Mongolia and its tectonicimplications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 8, 1–12.

Lu, L.Z., Jin, S.Q., 1993. P-T-t paths and tectonic history of anearly Precambrian granulite facies terrane, Jining district, south-eastern Inner Mongolia, China. J. Metamorph. Geol. 11, 483–498.

Lu, L.Z., Jin, S.Q., Xu, X.T., Liu, F.L., 1992. Petrogenesis and Min-eralization of Khondalite Series in Southeastern Inner Mongolia.Jilin Science & Technology Press, Changchun.

Lu, L.Z., Xu, X.C., Liu, F.L., 1996. Early Precambrian Khon-dalite Series in North China. Changchun Publishing House,Changchun.

Lu, X.P., Wu, F.Y., Lin, J.Q., Sun, D.Y., Zhang, Y.B., Guo, L.C., 2004.Geochronological framework of early Precambrian granitic mag-matism in the eastern Liaoning Peninsular: constraints on theearly Precambrian evolution of the Eastern Block of the NorthChina Craton. Sci. Geol. Sin. 39, 123–138.

Ma, X.Y., Wu, Z.W., 1981. Early tectonic evolution of China. Pre-cambrian Res. 14, 185–202.

Ma, X.Y., Bai, J., Shuo, S.T., Lao, Q.Y., Zhang, J.S., 1987. The EarlyPrecambrian tectonic framework of China and research methods.Geological Publishing Press, Beijing.

Mao, D.B., Zhong, C.T., Chen, Z.H., Lin, Y.X., Li, H.M., Hu, X.D.,1999. Isotopic ages and geological implications of high-pressuremafic granulites in the northern Chengde area, Hebei Province,China. Acta Petrol. Sin. 15, 524–534.

Nelson, B.K., DePaolo, D.J., 1985. Rapid production of continen-tal crust 1.7-1.9 b.y. ago: Nd and Sr isotopic evidence from thebasement of the North American mid-continent. Geol. Soc. Am.Bull. 96, 746–754.

O’Brien, P.J., Walte, N., Li, J.H., 2004. The petrology of two dis-tonic

P Com-ss-s.),stal

uide-Chi-

P n de-orite.

P andeast

P hem-ilin,logia

Q for-rth

Qiao, G.S., Wang, K.Y., Guo, Q.F., Zhang, G.C., 1987. Sm–Nd iso-topic dating of the Paleoarchean rocks in Eastern Hebei. China.Sci. Geol. Sin. 22, 158–165.

Rivers, T., Corrigan, D., 2000. Convergent margin on southeast-ern Laurentia during the Mesoproterozoic: tectonic implications.Can. J. Earth Sci. 37, 359–383.

Rogers, J., Santosh, M., 2002. Configuration of Columbia, a meso-proterozoic supercontinent. Gondwana Res. 5, 5–22.

Shen, Q.H., Qian, X.L., 1995. Archean rock assemblages, episodesand tectonic evolution of China. Acta Geol. Sin. 2, 113–120.

Shen, Q.H., Xu, H.F., Zhang, Z.Q., Gao, J.F., Wu, J.S., Ji, C.L., 1992.Early Precambrian granulites in China. Geological PublishingHouse, Beijing.

Song, B., Nutman, A.P., Liu, D.Y., Wu, J.S., 1996. 3800 to 2500 Macrustal evolution in Anshan area of Liaoning Province, North-eastern China. Precambrian Res. 78, 79–94.

Sun, M., Armstrong, R.L., Lambert, R.St.J., 1992. Petrochemistryand Sr, Pb and Nd isotopic geochemistry of Early Precambrianrocks, Wutaishan and Taihangshan areas, China. PrecambrianRes. 56, 1–31.

Sun, M., Armstrong, R.L., Lambert, R.S., Jiang, C.C., Wu, J.H.,1993. Petrochemistry and Sr, Pb and Nd isotopic geochemistryof Palaeoproterozoic Kuandian Complex, the eastern LiaoningProvince, China. Precambrian Res. 62, 171–190.

Wan, Y.S., Geng, Y.S., Shen, Q.H., Zhang, R.X., 2000. Khondaliteseries-geochronology and geochemistry of the Jiehekou Groupin the Luliang area, Shanxi Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 16, 49–58.

Wang, J.Y., 1984. Timing and discussion of the PrecambrianDashiqian Formation in the eastern Liaoning Province. Liaon-ing Geol. 2, 147–158, in Chinese with English Abstract.

Wang, X.W., Han, X., 1989. A study on borate ore deposits in theJi’an area, Jilin Province. Jilin Geol. 8, 1–12.

Wang, J., Lu, S.N., Li, H.M., Wang, R.Z., Sun, Y.F., Li, H.K., Li,S.Q., 1995. Geochronological framework of metamorphic rocksin the middle part of Inner Mongolia. Bull. Tianjin Inst. Geol.

W ais-Res.

W eane: a

W .A.,shanandK.F.siumecord

W .G.,thernns.

W evo-o-zoic82.

tinct granulite types in the Hengshan Mts, China, and tecimplications. J. Asian Earth Sci. (in press).

asschier, C.W., Walte, N., 2002. Deformation of the Hengshanplex. In: Kroner, A., Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Zhai, M.G., Pachier, C.W., Sun, M., Guo, J.H., O’Brien, P.J., Walte, N. (EdA Late Archaean to Palaeoproterozoic Lower to Upper CruSection in the Hengshan-Wutaishan Area of North China. Gbook for Penrose Conference Field Trip, September 2002.nese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, pp. 11–13.

eng, Q.M., Palmer, M.R., 1995a. The Paleoproterozoic boroposits in eastern Liaoning, China—a metamorphosed evapPrecambrian Res. 72, 185–197.

eng, Q.M., Palmer, M.R., 1995b. The Paleoproterozoic MgMg-Fe borate deposits of Liaoning and Jilin Provinces, northChina. Econ. Geol. Bull. Soc. Econ. Geol. 97, 93–108.

eng, Q.M., Palmer, M.R., Lu, J.W., 1998. Geology and geocistry of the Paleoproterozoic borate deposits in Liaoning-Jnortheastern China: evidence of meta-evaporites. Hydrobio381, 51–57.

ian, X.L., Li, J.H., 1999. The discovery of Neoarchean unconmity and its implication for continental cratonization of the noChina Craton. Sci. China (Ser. D) 42, 401–407.

Min. Res. 29, 1–76.ang, K.Y., Li, J.L., Hao, J., Li, J.H., Zhou, S.P., 1996. The Wut

han mountain belt within the Shanxi Province. Precambrian78, 95–103.

ang, K.Y., Li, J.L., Hao, J., Li, J.H., Zhou, S.P., 1997. Late Archmafic-ultramafic rocks from the Wuatishan, Shanxi Provincpossible ophiolite melange. Acta Petrol. Sin. 13, 139–151.

ang, K.Y., Wang, Z., Yu, L., Fan, H., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P2001. Evolution of Archaean greenstone belt in the Wutairegion, North China: constraints from SHRIMP zircon U-Pbother geochronological and isotope information. In: Cassidy,(Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Archaean Sympo2001. Extended Abstracts. AGSO - Geoscience Australia, R37, 104–105.

ang, P.C., Zhang, G.R., Xu, H.Y., Song, Z.Y., Liu, J.W., Zhou, R2002. Discovery of a ductile thrust-shear zone along the soumargin of the North China Craton and its tectonic implicatioProgr. Precambrian Res. 25, 23–27.

ang, Y.J., Fan, W.M., Zhang, Y., Guo, F., 2003. Structurallution and40Ar/39Ar dating of the Zanhuang metamorphic dmain in the North China Craton: constraints on Paleoproterotectonothermal overprinting. Precambrian Res. 122, 159–1


Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P., Wang, K.Y., 1997. The relationship andtiming of granitoid evolution with respect to felsic volcan-ism in the Wutai Complex, North China Craton. Proceedingsof the 30th IGC. Precambrian Geol. Metamorph. Petrol. 17,75–88.

Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Wang, K.Y., 1998. SHRIMP U–Pb dataof granites and gneisses in the Taihangshan–Wutaishan area: im-plications for the timing of crustal growth in the North ChinaCraton. Chin. Sci. Bull. 43, 144.

Wilde, S.A., Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., 2002. Development of the NorthChina Craton during the Late Archaean and its final amalgama-tion at 1.8 Ga; some speculations on its position within a globalPalaeoproterozoic Supercontinent. Gondwana Res. 5, 85–94.

Wilde, S.A., Zhao, G.C., Wang, K.Y., Sun, M., 2004a. First pre-cise SHRIM U-Pb zircon ages for the Hutuo Group, Wutaishan:further evidence for the Palaeoproterozoic amalgamation of theNorth China Craton. Chin. Sci. Bull. 49, 83–90.

Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Wang, K.Y., Nemchin, A.A., 2004b.Granitoid evolution in the late Archean Wutai Complex, NorthChina Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. (in press).

Windley, B., 1995. The Evolving Continents, Third edition. JohnWiley & Sons, Chichester, 526.

Wu, C.H., Li, H.M., 1998. The ages of zircons and rutiles from khon-dalite in the Huangtuyao area, Inner Mongolia. Geol. Rev. 44,618–626, in Chinese.

Wu, C.H., Zhong, C.T., 1998. The Paleoproterozoic SW–NE colli-sion model for the central North China Craton. Progr. Precam-brian Res. 21, 28–50, in Chinese.

Wu, C.H., Li, S.X., Gao, J.F., 1986. Archean and Paleoproterozoicmetamorphic regions in the North China Craton. In: Dong, S.B.(Ed.), Metamorphism and Crustal Evolution of China. GeologicalPublishing House, Beijing, pp. 53–89.

Wu, C.H., Li, H.M., Zhong, C.T., Zhuo, Y.C., 2000. TIMS U–Pb sin-gle zircon ages for the orthogneisses and paragneisses of FupingComplex. Progr. Precambrian Res. 23, 130–139.

W picton.

W M.,n the

W , B.,utionuse,

Y ean

Y g-el ofh Sci.

Y uralo-JiRes.

Y n of.M.

(Eds.), The Tectonic Evolution of Asia. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York, pp. 442–485.

Yu, Z.C., 1996. Advances in the study of the Fenzishan Group in thePingdu and Laizhou areas of Jiaobei, Eastern Shandong. Shan-dong Geol. 12, 24–34, in Chinese.

Zhai, M.G., Liu, W.J., 2003. Paleoproterozoic tectonic historyof the north China Craton: a review. Precambrian Res. 122,183–199.

Zhai, M.G., Bian, A.G., Zhao, T.P., 2000. The amalgamation of thesupercontinent of North China Craton at the end of Neo-Archaeanand its breakup during late Palaeoproterozoic and Mesoprotero-zoic. Sci. China (Ser. D) 43, 219–232.

Zhai, M.G., Windley, B.F., Sills, J.D., 1990. Archean gneisses, am-phibolites and banded iron-formations from the Anshan Area ofLiaoning Province, Ne China – their geochemistry, metamor-phism and petrogenesis. Precambrian Res. 46, 195–216.

Zhai, M.G., Zhao, G.C., Zhang, Q., 2002. Is the Dongwanzi complexan Archean ophiolite. Science 295, 923a.

Zhai, M.G., Guo, J.H., Liu, W.J., 2004. Neoarchaean continental evo-lution and tectonic history of the North China Craton: a review.J. Asian Earth Sci. (in press).

Zhai, M.G., Guo, J.H., Li, Y.G., Liu, W.J., Peng, P., Shi, X., 2003. Twolinear granite belts in the central-western North China Cratonand their implication for Late Neoarchaean-Palaeoproterozoiccontinental evolution. Precambrian Res. 127, 267–283.

Zhai, M.G., Guo, J.H., Yan, Y.H., 1992. Discovery and preliminarystudy of the Archean high-pressure granulites in the North China.Sci. China 12B, 1325–1330.

Zhai, M.G., Yang, R.Y., Lu, W.J., Zhou, J.E., 1985. Geochemistry andevolution of the Qingyuan Archean Granite Greenstone Terrain,Ne China. Precambrian Res. 27, 37–62.

Zhai, M.G., Guo, J.H., Li, H.H., Yan, Y.H., Li, Y.G., 1995. Discoveryof retrograded eclogites in the Archaean North China Craton.Chin. Sci. Bull. 40, 1590–1594.

Zhang, J.Z., Zhang, Y.H., 1998. Early precambrian geology of Jilin

Z k ofActa

Z gical

Z l col-theRes.

Z ean

Z 004.set-rthNo.

Z its ofBei-

Z hina

u, F.Y., Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Sun, D.Y., 2004. Nd isotoconstraints on the crustal formation of the North China CraJ. Asian Earth Sci. (in press).

u, J.S., Geng, Y.S., Shen, Q.H., Liu, D.Y., Li, Z.L., Zhao, D.1991. The Early Precambrian significant geological events iNorth China Craton. Geological Publishing House, Beijing.

u, J.S., Geng, Y.S., Shen, Q.H., Wan, Y.S., Liu, D.Y., Song1998. Archean geological characteristics and tectonic evolof China-Korea Paleo-continent. Geological Publishing HoBeijing.

ang, Z.S., Xu, Z.Y., Liu, Z.H., 2000. Khondalites and Archcrustal evolution. Progr. Precambrian Res. 23, 206–211.

ang, Z.S., Li, S.Z., Liu, Y.J., Liu, J.L., 1995. Uplifting beddindelamination structures in continental Orogen- a new modpre-orogenic extensional tectonics. J. Changchun Univ. Eart25, 361–367.

ang, Z.S., Li, S.G., Yu, B.X., Gao, D.H., Gao, C.Y., 1988. Structdeformation and mineralization in the Early Proterozoic Liarock suite, eastern Liaoning Province, China. Precambrian39, 31–38.

in, A., Nie, S., 1996. Phanerozoic palinspastic reconstructioChina and its neighboring regions. In: Yin, A., Harrison, T

Province. Jilin Geol. 17, 22–31.hang, F.Q., Liu, J.Z., Ouyang, Z.Y., 1998. Tectonic framewor

greenstones in the basement of the North China Craton.Geophys. Sin. 41, 99–107.

hang, C.H., 1990. Regional geology of Hebei Province. GeoloPublishing House, Beijing.

hang, J.S., Dirks, H.G.M., Passchier, C.W., 1994. Extensionalapse and uplift in a polymetamorphic granulite terrain inArchean and Paleoproterozoic of north China. Precambrian67, 37–57.

hang, Q., Ni, Z.Y., Zhai, M.G., 2003. Comments on the Archophiolites in Eastern Hebei. Earth Sci. Front. 10, 429–437.

hang, Q., Wang, Y., Zhou, G.Q., Qian Q., Robinson, P.T., 2Ophiolites in China: their distribution, ages and tectonictings. In: Dilek, Y., Robinson, P.T. (Eds.), Ophiolites in EaHistory. Geological Society, London, Special Publications,218, 541–566.

hang, Q.S., Yang, Z.S., 1988. Early Crust and Mineral DeposLiaodong Peninsula, China. Geological Publishing House,jing.

hao, G.C., 2001. Palaeoproterozoic assembly of the North CCraton. Geol. Mag. 138, 87–91.


Zhao, G.C., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.Z., 1999a. Petrology and P–Thistory of the Wutai amphibolites: implications for tectonicevolution of the Wutai Complex, China. Precambrian Res. 93,181–199.

Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.Z., 1998. Thermalevolution of the Archaean basement rocks from the eastern partof the North China Craton and its bearing on tectonic setting. Int.Geol. Rev. 40, 706–721.

Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.Z., 1999b. Tectonother-mal history of the basement rocks in the western zone of the NorthChina Craton and its tectonic implications. Tectonophysics 310,37–53.

Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.Z., 1999c. Thermalevolution of two types of mafic granulites from the North Chinacraton: implications for both mantle plume and collisional tec-tonics. Geol. Mag. 136, 223–240.

Zhao, G.C., Cawood, P.A., Wilde, S.A., Lu, L.Z., 2000a. Meta-morphism of basement rocks in the Central Zone of the NorthChina Craton: implications for Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolu-tion. Precambrian Res. 103, 55–88.

Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Lu, L.Z., 2000b. Petrologyand P–T path of the Fuping mafic granulites: implications fortectonic evolution of the central zone of the North China Craton.J. Metamorph. Geol. 18, 375–391.

Zhao, G.C., Cawood, P.A., Wilde, S.A., Lu, L.Z., 2001a. High-pressure granulites (retrograded eclogites) from the HengshanComplex. J. Petrol. 42, 1141–1170.

Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Sun, M., 2001b. Archeanblocks and their boundaries in the North China Craton: lithologi-cal, geochemical, structural and P-T path constraints and tectonicevolution. Precambrian Res. 107, 45–73.

Zhao, G.C., Wilde, S.A., Cawood, P.A., Sun, M., 2002a. SHRIMPU-Pb zircon ages of the Fuping Complex: implications for accre-

tion and assembly of the North China Craton. Am. J. Sci. 302,191–226.

Zhao, G.C., Min, Sun., Wilde, S.A., 2002b. Major tectonic units ofthe North China Craton and their Paleoproterozoic assembly. Sci.China (Ser. D) 32, 538–549, in Chinese.

Zhao, G.C., Cawood, P.A., Wilde, S.A., Sun, M., 2002c. Review ofglobal 2.1-1.8 Ga orogens: implications for a pre-Rodinia super-continent. Earth Sci. Rev. 59, 125–162.

Zhao, G.C., Min, Sun., Wilde, S.A., 2003a. Correlations between theEastern Block of the North China Craton and the South IndianBlock of the Indian Shield: an Archean to Paleoproterozoic link.Precambrian Res. 122, 201–233.

Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Wilde, S.A., Li, S.Z., 2003b. Assembly, accre-tion and breakup of the Paleo-Mesoproterozoic Columbia Super-continent: records in the North China Craton. Gondwana Res. 6,417–434.

Zhao, G.C., Sun, M., Wilde, S.A., Li, S.Z., 2004. A Paleo-Mesoproterozoic supercontinent: assembly, growth and breakup.Earth Sci. Rev. 67, 91–123.

Zhao, Z.P., 1993. Evolution of Precambrian crust of Sino-KoreanPlatform. Scientific Press, Beijing.

Zheng, J.P., Lu, F.X., Yu, T.M., Tan, H.Y., 2004a. A study on Hfisotope, U-Pb dating and trace elements of granulite enclavesin the Hannuoba basalts: record of early evolution of the lowercrust of the North China Craton. Chin. Sci. Bull. 49, 375–383.

Zheng, J.P., Griffin, W.L., O’Reilly, S.Y., Lu, F.X., Wang, C.Y.,Zhang, M., Wang, F.Z., Li, H.M., 2004b. 3.6 Ga lower crust incentral China: new evidence on the assembly of the North ChinaCraton. Geology 32, 229–232.

Zhou, M.F., Bai, W.J., 1992. Chromite deposit in China and theirorigin. Miner. Deposit. 27, 192–199.

Late Archean to Paleoproterozoic evolution of the North China Craton: key issues revisited

Documents