Journal of Earth Science, Vol. 23, No. 3, p.

277284, June 2012

Printed in China
DOI: 10.1007/s12583-012-0253-6

ISSN 1674-487X

The Neoarchean Ophiolite in the North China

Craton: Early Precambrian Plate Tectonics and
Scientific Debate
Timothy M Kusky*
Three Gorges Research Center for Geo-hazards, Ministry of Education, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan
430074, China; State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of
Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
Mingguo Zhai ()
State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
ABSTRACT: Archean greenstone belts and their possible inclusion of fragments of ophiolites is an important research subject, since it is correlated with the nature of early oceanic crust, and can yield information on the nature of early planetary lithospheres, the origin of TTG (tonalite-trondhjemitegranodiorite) continental crust, the formation of early cratons and continents, and is related to when
plate tectonics started in the Earths evolutionary history. This article briefly reviews the North China
cratons Archean ophiolite argument and proposes further studies aimed at understanding the generation of greenstone belts and Archean ophiolites, and suggests some key scientific questions that remain
to be answered.
KEY WORDS: Archean, ophiolite, greenstone belt, North China craton.

INTRODUCTION
Understanding the early history of the Earth is
one of the major challenges to the Earth Science
community. Early crust formation is represented by
massive tonalite-trondhjemite-granodiorite (TTG), and
its peak formation time is about 2.7 Ga. The formation
of this stage of TTG is generally considered to be related to mantle plumes (e.g., Condie, 1997), although
This study was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 91014002, 40821061), and Ministry
of Education of China (No. B07039).

*Corresponding author: tkusky@gmail.com

China University of Geosciences and Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg 2012
Manuscript received January 12, 2012.
Manuscript accepted March 5, 2012.

other models suggest that the TTG terranes may have

formed from partial melting of shallowly subducted
buoyant oceanic slabs (e.g., Tappe et al., 2011; Rapp
and Watson, 1995; Rapp et al., 1991). However, some
cratons preserve a tectonic framework of high-grade
granulite-gneiss and greenstone belts formed in the
Early Archean. Greenstone belts consist of low-grade
metamorphic volcanic-sedimentary rocks which are
typically exposed as linear fold belts around
high-grade rocks (e.g., Kusky and Vearncombe, 1997).
For the tectonic setting of greenstone belt rocks, there
are different opinions including intracontinental rifts,
island arcs, back-arc basinsmall ocean basin combinations, although these models are not mutually exclusive. These different ideas led to a debate of
whether plate tectonics existed in the Archean and
when did plate tectonics begin to operate (e.g., Stern,

278

2007).
Archean ophiolite discrimination is one of the
main bases to explore the issues of whether or not
plate tectonics existed in the Archean and when did
plate tectonics begin to operate, thus many scientists
have been dedicated to this study for many years.
There are a number of papers related to this aspect
published in international journals. Precambrian
Ophiolites and Related Rocks edited by Kusky (2004)
focused on Archean and Proterozoic ophiolites, and
also discussed the oceanic crust evolution model
which changes with time. The assumed oldest ophiolite is from the Isua supracrustal rocks in West
Greenland (Furnes et al., 2009, 2007a, b), with an
isotopic age of ~3.8 Ga. The ophiolites that are assumed to be around 3.02.7 Ga age include the 3.0 Ga
ophiolite of Olondo in the Aldan Shield, East Siberia,
2.8 Ga SSZ-type ophiolite of the North Karelian belt
in the NE Baltic Shield, Russia, and 2.7 Ga ophiolites
in the Slave craton, Canada, and Zimbabwe (Cocoran
et al., 2004; Hofmann and Kusky, 2004; Puctel, 2004;
Shchipansky et al., 2004; Kusky, 1998, 1991, 1990,
1989; Kusky and Kidd, 1992), and 2.5 Ga ophiolites
in the North China craton (NCC). All above ophiolites
are still controversial, mainly because of their differences compared to the rock association, occurrence
and geochemistry of modern spreading ridges. Since
documentation of Archean ophiolites is a key scientific issue, the debate and further research will continue and its progress will promote the understanding
of early continental evolution and the beginning of
plate tectonics.
GENERAL
CHARACTERISTICS
OF
GREENSTONE BELTS AND OPHIOLITES
Greenstone Belt
Generally, the term greenstone belt refers to a
supracrustal rock belt distributed in linear to arcuate
zones in Precambrian shields. Greenstone belts typically contain products of several generations of mafic
volcanic-sedimentary rocks. The main rocks consist of
basalts, komatiites, intermediate-acidic calc-alkaline
volcanic rocks and sedimentary rocks, gabbros and
diabases, and minor serpentinized ultramafic rocks
(e.g., de Wit and Ashwal, 1997). Metamorphic grades
range from sub-greenschist to granulite, with

Timothy M Kusky and Mingguo Zhai

greenschist-amphibolite facies being most characteristic. The chlorite, epidote, actinolite and other metamorphic minerals give the rocks their characteristic
dark green color. A complete set of strata of greenstone belt rocks is typically comprised of early volcanic rocks and later clastic sedimentary rocks or volcanic clastic sedimentary rocks, which are mainly turbidites. Underlying volcanic/plutonic rocks are mainly
ultramafic-mafic rocks also in some cases including
komatiites. Overlying volcanic rocks are typically
calc-alkaline volcanic rocks. There are generally ultramafic lenses underlying the greenstone belt, which
are explained to represent fragments of ancient mantle.
Greenstone belts are structurally complex with a complex series of deformation events, yet many exhibit a
broad synclinal shape surrounding high-grade
gneiss-granulite zones, formed in the late stages of
deformation of these belts (e.g., Kusky and Vearncombe, 1997).
Ophiolite
An ophiolite is a rock suite that consists of serpentinized ultramafic rocks, a mafic intrusive complex,
mafic lavas and marine sediments. The classical
Penrose (Anonymous, 1972) representative ophiolitic sequence includes, from base upward, peridotites,
gabbros, sheeted dikes, mafic lavas and marine sediments, in which peridotites and gabbros can be repeated several times. During deformation and metamorphism, peridotites are generally serpentinized with
a density reduction, and then can be easily uplifted
and undergo plastic deformation and significant
structural displacement. Overlying the igneous rocks
are pelitic and sandy rocks, which may be intercalated
with chert and limestone. Many ophiolitic rocks from
around the world have similar sequences, which can
be compared with sequences of current ocean floors,
so ophiolites are generally thought to be fragments of
oceanic crust attached to the continental margin or island arc. However, the integrity of ophiolitic sequences is always damaged because of the subduction
of oceanic crust, tectonic emplacement that forms
overthrust nappes, and in most cases just some sections of the sequence or mixed rocks from hybrid accumulation can be observed. The origin of ophiolite is
generally interpreted to be generated by the emplace-

The Neoarchean ophiolite in the North China Craton: Early Precambrian Plate Tectonics and Scientific Debate

ment of oceanic lithosphere which is formed because

of ocean floor spreading along a mid oceanic ridge, or
spreading in a fore-arc environment (e.g., Dilek and
Furnes, 2011; Robinson et al., 2008). There are close
relations between ophiolites and the evolution of oce-

279

anic lithosphere, therefore, research on ophiolite

composition, components and origin is the main way
to understand the structure, change, and dynamics of
oceanic lithosphere. Recent work (e.g., Dilek and
Furnes, 2011; Kusky et al., 2011) shows that there is a

Table 1 Criteria for Recognition of a Rock Sequence as an Ophiolite

Indicator

Importance

Status in

Status in Dongwanzi

Conclusion

Suggested, needs

Not

Documentation

conclusive

Phanerozoic
ophiolites
Full Penrose sequence

Diagnostic

Rare, about 10%

In order

And verification.
Podiform chromites w/

Diagnostic

About 15%

Present

Diagnostic

Convincing

About 30%50%

Dismembered units

Convincing

nodular textures
Full sequence
dismembered

Present

3 or 4 of 7 main units

Typical for accepting

present

Phanerozoic. Ophiolite

About 80%

6 of 7 units known

Convincing

Dikes still not convincing

Uncertain (age)

Sheeted dikes

Distinctive, nearly diagnostic About 10%

Suggested, age needs

Not

Verification

conclusive

Mantle tectonites

Distinctive

About 20%30%

Present

Distinctive

Cumulates

Present, not distinctive

About 70%

Present

Supportive

Layered gabbro

Typical

About 70%

Present

Supportive

Pillow lavas

Typical not distinctive

About 85%

Present

Supportive

Chert, deep water seds

Typical

About 85%

Present

Supportive

Co-magmatic dikes and

Necessary, rare to observe

About 15%

Present

Distinctive

About 10%

Present

Distinctive

About 60%

Present

Supportive

Distinctive, almost diagnostic About 15%

Not determined

Inconclusive

Sea floor metamor

Distinctive

All

Present

Supportive

Hydrothermal vents

Distinctive

Rare

Present

Strongly

gabbro
High-T silicate defm. ins Rare, but distinctive
inclus. in melt pods
Basal thrust fault

Necessary (except in rare

cases), not diag.

Dynamothermal
sole

black smoker type

supports

Ophiolites are defined on the basis of field relationships and the overall rock sequence. Many workers have added
chemical criteria to the ways to recognize and distinguish between different types of ophiolites. Some of the more
common traits are
MORB chem.

Common

About 40%

Present

Distinctive

Arc tholeiite chem.

Common

About 60%

Present

Distinctive

Flat REE

Distinctive

About 65%

Present

Distinctive

Calc-alkaline chem.

Common

About 25%

Present in some units

Inconclusive

Boninite chem.

Distinctive

About 40%

Uncertain

Inconclusive

280

much greater variation in young ophiolites and oceanic lithosphere than proposed by the Penrose definition (Anonymous, 1972), and workers in ancient Precambrian shields need to appreciate the variation in
Phanerozoic ophiolites and modern oceanic lithosphere, when interpreting the tectonic setting of mafic/
ultramafic/sedimentary sequences in greenstone belts.
Because ophiolites are mostly dismembered and
disordered fragments, there are different criteria and
descriptions in formal research for how to determine
whether or not a rock sequence may be an ophiolite.
Kusky (2004) presented a list of criteria for determining whether or not a rock sequence is an ophiolite or
not. This list is modified and reproduced above (also
after Kusky et al., 2011) where geologists can compare the different indicators of ophiolitic characteristics of a rock sequence against well-known Phanerozoic ophiolites, to determine how well their sequence
of rocks compares to established ophiolite sequences.
The main problem is that even if a rock sequence had
a sea-floor spreading ridge origin, it is typically dismembered and only partly preserved because of the
structural and metamorphic consequences of the emplacement process. It has to be asked, how many of
the characteristics of a full Penrose-style ophiolite are
needed to recognize a rock sequence as having a
sea-floor spreading origin? In Table 1, the presence or
absence of different units in the Archean DongwanziZunhua ophiolite belt of the North China craton are
compared to typical Phanerozoic ophiolites, but these
columns can be replaced with the rocks present in any
other given rock sequence to see how well it compares
to other recognized ophiolites.
PREVIOUS AND FURTHER STUDY OF
ARCHEAN OPHIOLITES IN THE NCC
As originally reported in Science (Kusky et al.,
2001), a group of circa 2.5 Ga mafic/ultramafic rocks
in eastern Hebei, China, was interpreted to represent
one of the worlds oldest, most complete yet dismembered and metamorphosed ophiolite sequences. This
sequence was named the Dongwanzi ophiolite and has
been the focus of much scientific debate since the
original proposal (Kusky and Li, 2010, 2008, 2002;
Kusky et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2007; Zhang et al.,
2003; Zhai et al., 2002). The main focus point of the

Timothy M Kusky and Mingguo Zhai

debate is documenting if rocks in this belt have genetic relationships with each other. The ophiolite belt
was later (Li et al., 2002) extended to the south to the
Zunhua area (Fig. 1) to include a group of ophiolitelike fragments in high grade mlange, including podiform chromites, and the belt has since been referred to
as the Dongwanzi-Zunhua ophiolite belt (e.g., Kusky
and Li, 2010). The Dongwanzi ophiolite, in the original reconnaissance maps and definition of Kusky et al.
(2001) included three belts of rocks, namely the
northern, central, and southern zones. In these belts,
the sequence of rocks was suggested to grade upwards
from tectonized harzburgites, through lower crustal
ultramafic and mafic cumulates, into a thick gabbro
unit, then into a unit of metamorphosed mafic amphibolites that locally include remnants of pillow lavas
and dike complexes.
One of the most contentious issues has been the
age of the relatively small central belt of the Dongwanzi ophiolite. Kusky et al. (2001) interpreted this
belt to be part of the main ophiolite preserved in the
southeastern belt, but stated that the central belt is intruded by several generations of younger intrusions,
and in 2004 (Kusky et al., 2004) dated these younger
intrusions as circa 300 Ma. Later, Zhao et al. (2007)
confirmed that gabbro, leucogabbro and mafic dikes
of only the central belt of the Dongwanzi complex are
later intrusions, and considered that Kusky et al. regarded this rockmass as a part of the Archean Dongwanzi complex by mistake. Based on the new data,
there are at least two current possible interpretations to
explain this discrepancy. One possibility is that Zhao
et al. (2007) only dated the younger intrusions in the
central belt, and missed the older rocks. The other interpretation is that the zircons that Kusky et al. (2001)
dated may have been old xenocrystic cores caught in
younger intrusions. Therefore, until further work can
resolve this ambiguity, Kusky et al. abandon the correlation of the central belt with the main southeastern
belt of the Dongwanzi-Zunhua mafic-ultramafic belt.
Yet they emphasize that most of the data and interpretation of the Dongwanzi-Zuhua belt as ophiolitic
comes from the southeastern belt, and its extensions to
Palaeoarchean terrains along strike which contain extensively serpentinized ultramafic rocks from
Qinglong, Zunhua, Zhangjiakou of Hebei, Miyun of

The Neoarchean ophiolite in the North China Craton: Early Precambrian Plate Tectonics and Scientific Debate

Beijing to some areas of Shanxi-Henan (Fig. 1, Polat

and Kusky, 2007). They consider that there once existed a relatively large scale ophiolite belt of ~2.5 Ga,
90 o

281

hence to explain the Neoarchean tectonic evolution of

the North China craton.

110 o

120 o

130 oE
Changchun

North Hebei orogenic belt

40 oN

Duolun

Bayan Obo

rog

Xian

en

1.8 Ga granulites
Proterozoic granite
(1.9 Ga)
Khondalites and
S-type granite
(2.2 - 1.9 Ga)
2.5 Ga ophiolitic
fragments

elt

*
** ** **
COB

35 o

ch

eo

nb

u fa
Ta n
l

Qingdao

block

Su

Songpan

Eastern

Paleoproterozoic
orogenic belt
Archean orogenic
belt

Qi

nli

ng

-D

Xinyang
ab

Wuhan

ie b

Shanghai
elt

Thrust boundary

30 o

ao

Western
block

Imjingang
belt

Og

hin

Taiyuan
**
6
**
**

Jiaoliao
belt

lt

al C

be

ntr

Datong-Wuqi
fault

Beijing

lu

Ce

**
* * ** *
*** ** 5

ult

2
Jiayuguan

Yellow Sea

Fault
City

400 km

Figure 1. Tectonic sketch map of the North China craton (modified after Kusky et al., 2007) showing the
eastern and western blocks separated by the central orogenic belt (COB). Note the location of suggested
Archean ophiolitic fragments in the central orogenic belt. Proposed ophiolitic fragments include 1. Dongwanzi; 2. Zunhua; 3. West Liaoning; 4. North Taihang; 5. Wutaishan; 6. South Taihang.
Since the initial report in 2001 of the possible
Archean ophiolite in North China, it has led to widespread concern of scholars at home and abroad. In this
period, Li and Kusky (2003) have led two international field trips to the Dongwanzi-Zunhua belt. The
problems concerned are also about the interpretations
of mantle peridotite, gabbro, sheeted dike complex,
pillow lava, podiform chromite, and geochemistry of
igneous rocks besides the ages of mafic-ultramafic
rocks in the Dongwanzi area. Respective evidence has
been presented for different opinions (Zhang et al.,
2003; Kusky et al., 2010, 2004; Zhao et al., 2007;
Polat et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2004; Li et al., 2002).
However, because these Precambrian rocks experienced complicated metamorphism and deformation,
and were overprinted by later magmatism, the re-

search is very complicated when compared to the

Phanerozoic, so far, there still exist many differences
in interpretations.
To these different views, there are three main aspects which need to be emphasized. The first one is
detailed geological research, including making formal
detailed geological maps and geochronology research
on some terrains, and to map, date, and reject later intrusions as not being part of the Archean complex. At
the same time, we suggest that different researchers
can have the chance to do the field investigation together and discuss problems on the spot, to avoid the
variance in the object of study and sample collection.
The second one is understanding and discussion
to the concept of ophiolites. For example, the origin of
podiform chromites; so far podiform chromites are

Timothy M Kusky and Mingguo Zhai

282

only known from ophiolites, but deep mantle rocks

from other environments are rarely preserved so we
can not be sure if they can form in different tectonic
environments. The significance of pillow lava, and
geochemical indication, identification and formation
mechanism of sheeted dikes as well as the relationship
between the rate of extension and the rate of magma
supply, and the change of geochemical characteristics
of rocks in metamorphic processes all need to be
carefully assessed as to whether they are unique to
ophiolites, or if ophiolites may have different characteristics between older and younger ages.
The last one is the recognition to Archean oceanic crust, for example, if old oceanic crust was
thicker and hotter than that of the Mesoproterozoic
and younger times. If there are disparities in physics
and geochemical characteristics, what are the similarities and differences of the formation environment of
Archean greenstone belts with arcs or oceanic basins,
and what is the relationship between the formation of
TTG and possible old oceanic crust? Study of possible
Archean ophiolites will yield clues about if the amalgamation mechanism of micro-continental blocks in
the Palaeo-Mesoarchean NCC is the same or similar to
plate tectonics.

might be the oldest, most integral yet dismembered

and metamorphosed Archean oceanic crust and mantle
fragment in the world. Mingguo Zhai (e.g., Zhai et al.,
2005) emphasizes more about the differences of the
Archean oceanic crust and the oceanic crust after that,
considering the genetic relationship between the formation of the huge amount of TTG rocks and the ultramafic rocks. The North China craton is one of the
oldest cratons in the world, with a variety of rock
types, colorful geological phenomenon, and a complex
geological record of the events. The NCC is the ideal
place to study early Precambrian geology. This paper
calls for researchers to give more study on Precambrian North China, especially on Archean ophiolites,
Paleoproterozoic high pressure-high temperature and
ultra-high temperature granulites, Precambrian mineral deposits and other key scientific issues, so as to
make innovative contributions to earth science.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funds were provided by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Nos. 91014002,
40821061) and Ministry of Education of China (No.
B07039).
REFERENCES CITED

ENDING REMARKS
In short, the Early Precambrian ophiolite is a
very active scientific issue, its meaning is the character and recognition of the Early Precambrian oceanic
crust, when did plate tectonics begin to work in the
evolution of Earths history, and are there any differences of evolutionary mechanism between the continent and the ocean. The problem of the possible Archean ophiolite within the North China craton had
been discussed very early, and the article of Kusky et
al. (2001) on the Dongwanzi ophiolite has triggered a
great interest among domestic and foreign scholars.
Different views of the controversy impetus the Precambrian research of North China to a certain extent,
showing the importance of this research topic. There
are also different views from the two authors of this
paper. Timothy M Kusky emphasizes that this belt
contains most of the ingredients that a typical ophiolite should include, although it is controversial. The
existing data still supports this interpretation that it

Anonymous, 1972. Ophiolites. Geotimes, 17: 2415

Cocoran, P. L., Mueller, W. U., Kusky, T. M., 2004. Inferred
Ophiolites in the Archean Slave Craton. In: Kusky, T. M.,
ed., Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian Geology, 13: 363404
Condie, K. C., 1997. Plate Tectonics and Crustal Evolution (4th
Edition). Elsevier, Burlington
de Wit, M. J., Ashwal, L. D., 1997. Greenstone Belts. Oxford
Science Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 809
Dilek, Y., Furnes, H., 2011. Ophiolite Genesis and Global
Tectonics: Geochemical and Tectonic Fingerprinting of
Ancient Oceanic Lithosphere. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 123(34): 387411,

doi:10.1130/

B30446.1
Furnes, H., de Wit, M. J., Staudigel, H., et al., 2007a. A Vestige
of

Earths

Oldest

Ophiolite.

Science,

315(5819):

17041707, doi:10.1126/science.1139170
Furnes, H., de Wit, M. J., Staudigel, H., et al., 2007b. Response
to Comments on A Vestige of Earths Oldest Ophiolite.
Science, 318(5851), doi: 10.1126/science.1144231

The Neoarchean ophiolite in the North China Craton: Early Precambrian Plate Tectonics and Scientific Debate
Furnes, H., Rosing, M., Dilek, Y., et al., 2009. Isua Su-

283

Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 273: 227230

pracrustal Belt (Greenland)A Vestige of a 3.8 Ga Su-

Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., Glass, A., et al., 2004. Origin and Em-

prasubduction Zone Ophiolite, and the Implications for

placement of Archean Ophiolites of the Central Orogenic

Archean Geology. Lithos, 113(12): 115132

Belt, North China Craton (Chapter 7). In: Kusky, T. M.,

Hofmann, A., Kusky, T. M., 2004. The Belingwe Greenstone

Belt: Ensialic or Oceanic? In: Kusky, T. M., Precambrian
Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian Geology, 13: 487538

ed., Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian Geology, 13: 223274
Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., Tucker, R. D., 2001. The Archean
Dongwanzi Ophiolite Complex, North China Craton:

Huang, X. N., Li, J. H., Kusky, T. M., et al., 2004. Microstructures of the Zunhua 2.50 Ga Podiform Chromite, North

2.505 Billion Year Old Oceanic Crust and Mantle. Science,

292: 11421145, doi:10.1126/science.1059426

China Craton and Implications for the Deformation and

Kusky, T. M., Vearncombe, J., 1997. Structure of Archean

Rheology of the Archean Oceanic Lithospheric Mantle

Greenstone Belts (Chapter 3). In: de Wit, M. J., Ashwal, L.

(Chapter 10). In: Kusky, T. M., ed., Precambrian Ophio-

D., eds., Tectonic Evolution of Greenstone Belts. Oxford

lites and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian

Monograph on Geology and Geophysics, 95128

Kusky, T. M., Wang, L., Dilek, Y., et al., 2011. Application of

Geology, 13: 321337

Kusky, T. M., 1989. Accretion of the Archean Slave Province.

the Modern Ophiolite Concept with Special Reference to

Precambrian Ophiolites. Science China (Sers. D), 54(3):

Geology, 17: 6367

Kusky, T. M., 1990. Evidence for Archean Ocean Opening and
Closing in the Southern Slave Province. Tectonics, 9(6):
15331563, doi:10.1029/TC009i006p01533

315341, doi:10.1007/s11430-011-4175-4
Kusky, T. M., Windley, B. F., Zhai, M. G., 2007. Tectonic
Evolution of the North China Block: From Orogen to

Kusky, T. M., 1991. Structural Development of an Archean

Craton to Orogen. In: Zhai, M. G., Windley, B. F., Kusky,

Orogen, Western Point Lake, Northwest Territories. Tec-

T. M., et al., eds., Mesozoic Sub-Continental Lithospheric

tonics, 10(4): 820841, doi:10.1029/91TC00765

Thinning Under Eastern Asia. Geological Society of Lon-

Kusky, T. M., 1998. Tectonic Setting and Terrane Accretion of

the Archean Zimbabwe Craton. Geology, 26(2): 163166,
doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1998)026<0163:TSATAO>2.3.
CO; 2

don

Special

Publication,

280:

134,

doi:10.1144/SP280.10305-8719/07/$15
Li, J. H., Kusky, T. M., 2003. A Field Trip Guidebook to the
Dongwanzi Ophiolite and Zunhua Mantle Tectonites and

Kusky, T. M., 2004. Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks:

Podiform Chromites. Interridge Program of NSF

Introduction. In: Kusky, T. M., Precambrian Ophiolites

Li, J. H., Kusky, T. M., Huang, X., 2002. Neoarchean Podiform

and Related Rocks. Developments in Precambrian Geol-

Chromitites and Harzburgite Tectonite in Ophiolitic Me-

ogy, 13: 135, doi:10.1016/S0166-2635(04)13027-2

lange, North China Craton, Remnants of Archean Oceanic

Kusky, T. M., Kidd, W. S. F., 1992. Remnants of an Archean

Mantle. GSA Today, 12(7): 411

Oceanic Plateau, Belingwe Greenstone Belt, Zimbabwe,

Polat, A., Herzberg, C., Munker, C., et al., 2006. Geochemical

Geology, 20(1): 4346, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1992)

and Petrological Evidence for a Suprasubduction Zone

020<0043:ROAAOP>2.3.CO;2

Origin of Neoarchean (ca. 2.5 Ga) Peridotites, Central

Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., 2010. Origin and Emplacement of Ar-

Orogenic Belt, North China Craton. Bulletin of the Geo-

chean Ophiolites of the Central Orogenic Belt, North

logical

China Craton. Journal of Earth Science, 21(5): 744781,

doi:10.1130/B25845.1

Society

of

America,

118(78):

771784,

Polat, A., Kusky, T. M., 2007. Discussion of Geochemistry of

doi:10.1007/s12583-010-0119-8
Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., 2002. Is the Dongwanzi Complex an

the Late Archean (ca. 2.552.50 Ga) Volcanic and Ophio-

Archean Ophiolite? Response to Zhai, M. G., Zhao, G. C.,

litic Rocks in the Wutaishan Greenstone Belt, Central

Zhang,

Orogenic Belt, North China Craton: Implications for

Q.,

Science,

295(5557):

923,

doi:10.1126/science.295.5557.923a
Kusky, T. M., Li, J. H., 2008. Discussion of U-Pb Zircon Age
Constraints on the Dongwanzi Ultramafic-Mafic Body,
North China, Confirm It Is not an Archean Ophiolite.

Geodynamic Setting and Continental Growth. Reply to

Zhao, G., Kroner, A., Geological Society of America Bulletin, 119: 490492
Puchtel, I. S., 2004. 3.0 Ga Olondo Greenstone Belt in the

Timothy M Kusky and Mingguo Zhai

284
Aldan Shield, E. Siberia. In: Kusky, T. M., ed., Precambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in
Precambrian

Geology,

13:

405424,

doi:10.1016/S0166-2635(04)13013-2

doi:10.1007/s11434-007-0073-8
Tappe, S., Smart, K. A., Pearson, D. G., et al., 2011. Craton
Formation in Late Archean Subduction Zones Revealed by
First Greenland Eclogites. Geology, 39(12): 11031106,

Rapp, R. P., Watson, E. B., 1995. Dehydration Melting of Me-

doi:10.1130/G32348.1

tabasalt at 832 kbar: Implications for Continental Growth

Zhai, M. G., Guo, J. H., Liu, W. J., 2005. Neoarchean to Pa-

and Crust-Mantle Recycling. Journal of Petrology, 36(4):

leoproterozoic Continental Evolution and Tectonic History

891931, doi:10.1093/petrology/36.4.891

of the North China Craton: A Review. Journal of Asian

Rapp, R. P., Watson, E. B., Miller, C. F., 1991. Partial Melting

Earth Sciences, 24: 547561

of Amphibolite/Eclogite and the Origin of Archean

Zhai, M. G., Zhao, G. C., Zhang, Q., 2002. Is the Dongwanzi

Trondhjemites and Tonalites. Precambrian Research,

Complex an Archean Ophiolite? Science, 295(5557): 923,

51(14): 125

doi:10.1126/science.295.5557.923a

Robinson, P. T., Malpas, J., Dilek, Y., et al., 2008. The Sig-

Zhang, Q., Ni, Z. Y., Zhai, M. G., 2003. Comments on the Ar-

nificance of Sheeted Dike Complexes in Ophiolites. GSA

chean Ophiolites in Eastern Hebei. Earth Sci. Front., 10(4):

Today, 18(11): 410

429437 (in Chinese with English Abstract)

Shchipansky, A. A., Samsonov, A. V., Bibikova, E. V., 2004.

Zhao, G. C., Sun, M., Wilde, S. A., 2005. Late Archean to Pa-

2.8 Ga Boninite-Hosted Partial Suprasubduction Zone

leoproterozoic Evolution of the North China Craton: Key

Ophiolite Sequences from the North Karelian Greenstone

Issues Revisited. Precambrian Research, 136: 177202,

Belt, NE Baltic Shield, Russia. In: Kusky, T. M., ed., Pre-

doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2004.10.002

cambrian Ophiolites and Related Rocks. Developments in

Zhao, G. C., Wilde, S. A., Li, S. Z., et al., 2007. U-Pb Zircon

Precambrian Geology, 13: 425486, doi:10.1016/S0166-

Age Constraints on the Dongwanzi Ultramafic-Mafic

2635(04)13014-4

Body, North China, Confirm It Is not an Archean Ophio-

Stern, R. J., 2007. When and How Did Plate Tectonics Begin?
Theoretical and Empirical Considerations. Chinese Science

Bulletin,

52(5):

578591,

lite. Earth and Planetary Science Letters,

8593, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2006.12.007

255(12):