Chapter 1

Precambrian basins of India: stratigraphic and tectonic context

RAJAT MAZUMDER1* & PATRICK G. ERIKSSON2

1School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia2Department of Geology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa

*Corresponding author (e-mail: rajatunsw@gmail.com)

The Indian shield represents a vast repository of the Precambriangeological record. The Precambrian sedimentary basins weredeveloped on four major Archaean nuclei (Dharwar, Bastar,Singhbhum and Aravalli–Bundelkhand; Fig. 1.1) and are compar-able to those of Australia, South Africa, Canada and Brazil in scaleand importance for global studies of Precambrian crustal evolution.Some of the Indian basinal successions, as elsewhere, contain valu-able economic resources. Notwithstanding their global relevance,many aspects of the Indian Precambrian basins and even entirebasins are not well known to international readers. Althoughspecialist papers, a book (Naqvi & Rogers 1987) and special publi-cations (e.g. Mazumder & Saha 2012) have been written by severalauthors on specific aspects of the Precambrian geology of India, acomprehensive account of the time–space distribution of the Pre-cambrian supracrustal successions is lacking; in particular, theinterrelation between tectonics and sedimentation, and the simi-larities and dissimilarities of their evolutionary histories withother comparable successions in other parts of the world are yetto be addressed in any detail. The purpose of the present memoiris to fill in this knowledge gap. In addition, the memoir will assessthe potential mineral resources of Indian Proterozoic basins andintegrate piecemeal information to provide a comprehensivepicture of Indian cratonic evolution during the Precambrian.

The content of the memoir has been divided into six sections; thefirst gives an overview of basin classification and of the evolutionof Peninsular India during the Precambrian, to provide a frame-work for the following four sections. The latter are devoted tobasins preserved in the four Archaean nuclei or cratons thatmake up the subcontinent. The sixth section addresses Precam-brian mineralization of the cratons and is completed by a synthesisof basin evolution of Peninsular India as compared with the inter-nationally accepted basin classification framework. The firstsection begins with an overview (Allen et al. 2015) on the classi-fication of sedimentary basins with examples from Proterozoicbasins of major cratonic blocks of the world. While presentingan authoritative discussion of the basis, strengths and weaknessesof the many classification schemes, these authors also emphasizethat no one scheme provides a panacea framework for Precambrian(or younger) basins. Real basin examples are discussed by Allenet al. (2015) for several cratons around the world as a foil toIndian depositories detailed in the balance of the volume. Themost important finding of this chapter is that many Precambrianbasins might require elements of several defined ideal basintypes in their evaluation, many have complex polyhistories andsome depositories will merely defy classification altogether. In acomplementary chapter, Meert & Pandit (2015) examine theevolution of the Precambrian sedimentary basins of India withina unifying chronological and tectonic framework, and evaluatepossible correlation between different Indian Purana-type basins.Their seminal work provides an essential basis for understandingthe more detailed individual basin studies making up the body ofthis book, within a unitary context.

The second section (Aravalli–Bundelkand Craton) con-tains three chapters on the sedimentology and stratigraphy of

northwestern Proterozoic basins of India. Roy & Purohit (2015)present lithostratigraphic, geochronological and depositional set-tings of the Precambrian succession of the Aravalli Mountainsand adjoining areas, Rajasthan. Precambrian basins preserved onthe Aravalli basement exhibit an unusual association of threemajor basin-fills, each succeeded by an orogeny over the period2.2–0.85 Ga, in which rift-type depositories exhibit stableplatform-style sedimentation in each case. Despite cratonizationbeing completed by only 0.85 Ga, essentially stable basin-fillscharacterized the Aravalli Craton both long before this event andafter it. Chakraborty et al. (2015a) discuss various controls onsedimentation in the poorly studied Gwalior and Bijawar basinsthat overlie the Bundelkand granite-gneiss basement. These twobasins continue the inferred theme of rift-related depositories (inthis case both continental margin rift basins) characterized bylargely chemical stable shelf deposits, one characterized by phos-phorites and the other by iron formation. The different chemicalevolution reflects responses to rising sea-levels dictated by subsi-dence regime, bathymetry, biological activity and the oxidationstate of waters within each specific basin. This underlines thecritical evaluation of both basin-specific characteristics and glo-bal-scale secular change in Precambrian palaeoenvironmentalparameters in understanding Precambrian basin-fills. The con-figuration and evolution of the Vindhyan Basin are discussedby Bose et al. (2015). The importance of rifting in controllingdeposition within this famous basin of the Aravalli–BundelkandCraton continues the prime tectonic control inferred for deposi-tories on this craton. However, a much more complex model is per-tinent to the Vindhyan, with two major east–west ridges defininglong-lived sub-basins in the Vindhyan, while keeping separate thisbasin from a coeval depository underlying the Gangetic plain to thenorth. Horst-rift-style tectonic control in the Vindhyan thus per-sisted throughout basin-filling, in contrast to other basins, whererifting was followed by essentially stable platform depositionand relative tectonic quiescence.

The third section (Singhbhum Craton) encompasses Palaeoarch-aean to Mesoproterozoic sedimentation and tectonics of easternIndian basins; Hofmann & Mazumder (2015) summarize thePalaeoarchaean history of the Singhbhum Craton with insightsfrom the Older Metamorphic Group (OMG) and the OlderMetamorphic Tonalite Gneiss (OMTG). They interpret a classiccratonic evolutionary model of high-grade granitoid gneisses(OMTG) and interleaved greenstone belts; importantly they seethese OMG greenstones as having low-grade equivalents inthe Iron Ore Group of this craton rather than the latter sedi-mentary rocks being seen as a separate succession. Ghosh et al.(2015) present a detailed tectono-sedimentary inventory onthe Palaeoarchaean–Mesoproterozoic successions of the west-northwestern margin of the Singhbhum Craton. They define twonew formations, an older distal (deeper-water) equivalent of theIOG followed unconformably by a younger deposit reflectingfault-controlled basin opening (conglomeratic) and subsequentstable shelf sedimentation. Van Loon & De (2015) criticallyanalyse the conglomerates of Jharkhand and discuss their

From: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) 2015. Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context.

Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 1–4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.1

# 2015 The Geological Society of London. For permissions: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/permissions. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics

by guest on May 16, 2020http://mem.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

Archaean sedimentation patterns on the Singhbhum Craton. BothIOG and subsequent immature conglomeratic facies thus appearto have been relatively widespread on the Singhbhum Craton,thus supporting possibly broadly correlatable greenstone succes-sions, as for example also found in the Pilbara Craton ofWestern Australia, and in contrast to accretionary greenstones ofthe Superior or Kaapvaal cratons, which young across preservedcratonic nuclei. Issues related to the Archaean–Proterozoic tran-sition in the Singhbhum Craton and the relation of SinghbhumCraton-specific geological events to possible global equivalents

are discussed by Mazumder et al. (2015). Post-Singhbhum Gran-itoid cooling and later possibly plume-related crustal domingduring the Chaibasa–Dhalbhum transition appear to have beenprime controls on subsequent sedimentation.

The Palaeoproterozoic basinal successions of the Bastar Craton(Section 4) are discussed in four chapters. Mohanty (2015) pre-sents a brief overview of the Palaeoproterozoic supracrustalsof the Bastar (Dongargarh Supergroup and Sausar Group). Thec. 2.5–2.1 Ga Dongargarh Basin-fill suggests post-orogenic col-lapse and concomitant rift basin formation followed by stable

Fig. 1.1. Sketch map showing four Archaean nuclei in India. Note Proterozoic sedimentary basins (dark grey patches) and the large Deccan basaltic province.

SGT, Southern Granulite Terrain; NFB, Nallamalai fold belt; CITZ, Central Indian Tectonic Zone; PG, Pranhita Godavari Valley; Ab, Abujhmar Basin; Am, Ampani

Basin; Bh, Bhima Basin; Ch, Chattisgarh Basin; Idv, Indravati Basin; Kal, Kaladgi Basin; Suk, Sukma Basin; Ban, Bangalore; Cd, Cuddapah; Hyd, Hyderabad;

K, Kurnool; Kh, Khariar; Nel, Nellore; Ong, Ongole; Vij, Vijaywada (after Saha & Mazumder 2012).

R. MAZUMDER & P. G. ERIKSSON2

by guest on May 16, 2020http://mem.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

shelf development, while a rift basin is also inferred for thec. 2.4–2.2 Ga Sausar Group; the latter includes glacigenic depos-its, correlatable with Earth’s first global glaciation during thistime interval. Genetic modelling of this glacial interval thus com-pares favourably with the Huronian glacigenic strata discussed byAllen et al. (2015) in Chapter 2, where supercontinent formation,rifting and subsequent passive margin evolution accommodatedthese famous glacial deposits. Chaudhuri et al. (2015) discussconflicting stratigraphic issues of the Purana succession of thePranhita–Godavari valley basin. They interpret this depositoryas a polyhistory rift basin located along the Dharwar–BastarCraton boundary where syndepositional geodynamics control-led sedimentation within two sub-basins. Chakraborty et al.(2015b) provide a critical overview of the geology of the Mesopro-terozoic Chhattishgarh Basin, another Purana succession, pos-sibly reflecting a rift-sag basin evolution. These authors havehighlighted controversial issues of Chattishgarh succession thatdeserve closer scrutiny. Das et al. (2015) have constrained thec. 1450 Ma felsic volcanism at the fringe of the East IndianCraton by geochronology and geochemistry of tuff beds fromsmaller Bastar basins.

The fifth section (Dharwar Craton) begins with an overview ofthe late Archaean supracrustal successions of the DharwarCraton (Sunder Raju & Eriksson 2015). Evolution of thiscraton is thought to reflect accretion of either arcs or an assembledarc-granitic whole batholith terrane (now preserved as the EasternDharwar Craton, EDC) on to the Western Dharwar Craton, whichhas a regionally correlatable greenstone succession, the c. 2.9–2.6 Ga Dharwar Supergroup. This craton thus displays both awidespread correlatable greenstone succession and accretionarygreenstone belts which young eastwards (compare with VanLoon & De (2015) on the Singhbhum Craton greenstones), thusproviding a possibly unique Archaean cratonic evolution on theglobal scale. Basin evolution related to tectonic shortening isalso envisaged for the Proterozoic Cuddapah Basin, Cuddapahfold-thrust belt (CFTB) and the Kurnool Group succession(Matin 2015), thought to have been related to assembly of bothColumbia (Cuddapah) and subsequent Rodinia (CFTB, Kurnool)supercontinents. Chakrabarti et al. (2015) espouse a plumemodel for earliest Cuddapah Basin evolution; this may have pre-ceded the convergent setting postulated by Matin (2015). Thisonce again emphasizes the inherent complexities in Precambrianbasin interpretation and that most depositories had polyhistoriesrather than simple, single-component evolutions; simple allocationof any basin-fill succession to a specific standard model in any ofthe globally accepted basin classification schemes thus has itshazards and is seldom recommended by serious researchers (asalso stated clearly by Allen et al. (2015) in Chapter 2). Therelationship of the Nellore schist belt, east of the CuddapahBasin and the adjacent Nallamalai fold belt (together these makeup the CFTB discussed in Matin’s chapter) to the Cuddapahdepository are discussed by Saha et al. (2015). They relate thisonce again to Precambrian supercontinent cycles, specifically toColumbia break-up and Rodinia assembly. Dey (2015) examinesthe Purana successions making up the basin-fills of the Kaladgi–Badami and Bhima intracratonic depositories on the northernmargin of the Dharwar Craton. The merits of a far-field tectoni-cally controlled model for the former and a pull-apart basinmodel for the latter are discussed. Sengupta et al. (2015)provide new high-resolution geochronological data for suspectedPurana deposits across the Palghat–Cauvery shear zone, SouthernGranulite terrane, which confirm this supposition and furthermoresuggest that the Purana basins formed across an amalgamatedIndian shield–Madagascan basement.

In Section 6, Deb & Pal (2015) provide an overview of themineral potential of the Proterozoic intra-cratonic basins inIndia, accompanied by Mishra’s (2015) brief account of Archaeanmineralization of the four Indian cratons. The memoir ends with asynthesis (Miall et al. 2015) of the Indian Precambrian basins

wherein the basin classification and inferred prime controls onthe genesis of the basin-fills discussed by Allen et al. (2015) inChapter 2 are applied to the Indian Precambrian sedimentaryrecord. Classification of the Indian Precambrian basins reflects adominance of divergent plate motion in their evolution, with con-vergent motion invoked for the Kurnool Basin and the EasternDharwar Craton supracrustal succession; transcurrent motionappears to have been uncommon, being apparent only for theBhima and Kaladgi–Badami basins. A polyhistory with possiblelinks to a Wilson cycle model may apply to the Cuddapah Basin.Mantle thermal influences and concomitant dynamic topographymay have controlled sedimentation within Dhalbhum and Dalma–Chandil basins of the Singhbhum Craton. Time trends extractedfrom application of standard basin classification schemes to theIndian Precambrian supracrustal record indicate a more limitedrange of basin types prior to c. 2.0 Ga and a more varied recordof depository types thereafter.

Key issues identified in this study of the Precambrian basins ofPeninsular India are as follows:

1. Indian Precambrian basins, like almost all around the globe,are essentially intracratonic depositories with cratonic sub-strates to basin-fills; they thus tell us much about cratonicevolution and the plate motions, palaeo-atmospheric, palaeo-biological and physico-chemical controls on Earth’s continen-tal terranes. However, little direct evidence is preserved of thePrecambrian oceanic plates; the nature of their tectonism andmodels for Precambrian global-scale plate tectonics thusretain a significant element of postulation.

2. The Indian basins underline the critical importance ofhigh-resolution geochronology in understanding better theevolution of ancient supracrustal stratified successions.While this issue has been significantly addressed in cratonicterranes in developed regions, such as North America andAustralia, and increasingly rapidly also in China, the undeve-loped segment of the world’s cratons has lagged behind.Studies of Indian cratons in this respect are in transition,and some of the fruits of such advances in the IndianPrecambrian supracrustal successions are detailed in thisvolume.

3. The Indian basins studied here provide much food for thoughton global issues of Precambrian crustal evolution, includingformation of greenstone belts, Precambrian tectonic regimesper se and secular changes in global sedimentation regimesallied to evolving atmospheric compositions, amongst whichmajor global glaciation events are possibly paramount, inaddition to providing a major contribution to the field of Pre-cambrian basin analysis of relevance to the internationalgeological community.

We are sure that this state-of-the-art exposition of the Precambrianbasins of India will help to address gaps in the existing globalknowledge base and guide interested researchers, students and pro-fessionals to gain a better understanding of Precambrian Earthsurface processes and crust–mantle interactions.

We are grateful to S. Banerjee, M. Bera, N. Beukes, T. Biswal, A. Bumby, O Catu-

neanu, P.P. Chakraborty, N. Chalapathi Rao, M. Deb, S. Dey, G. Ghosh,

A. Hofmann, N. Lenhardt, Q. Meng, B. Mishra, E. A Mondal, D. Mukhopadhyay,

J. Mukhopadhyay, Y. Ogawa, M. K. Pandit, J. Ray, A. Roy, D. Saha, P. Samanta,

A. Sarkar, S. Sarkar, P. Sengupta, E. Simpson, B. Sreenivas, R. Srinivasan,

R. Stephenson, A. J. Van Loon, G. M. Young and U. Zimmermann, for critical

review of the manuscripts. We are also grateful to Professor T. Bhattacharyya,

University of Calcutta and several colleagues for many helpful discussions over

the years and to our family members for supporting us in various ways. The

final draft of this memoir was completed with infrastructural support from the

School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, the University of

New South Wales, Australia and the University of Pretoria and the National

Research Foundation, South Africa.

PRECAMBRIAN BASINS OF INDIA 3

by guest on May 16, 2020http://mem.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

References

Allen, P. A., Eriksson, P. G. et al. 2015. Classification of basins, withspecial reference to Proterozoic examples. In: Mazumder, R. &Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphicand Tectonic Context. Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43,5–28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.2

Bose, P. K., Sarkar, S., Das, N. G., Banerjee, S., Mandal, A. & Chak-

raborty, N. 2015. Proterozoic Vindhyan Basin: configuration andevolution. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) PrecambrianBasins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. GeologicalSociety, London, Memoirs, 43, 85–102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.6

Chakrabarti, G., Eriksson, P. G. & Shome, D. 2015. Sedimentation inthe Papaghni Group of rocks in the Papaghni sub-basin of the Proter-ozoic Cuddapah basin, India. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G.(eds) Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and TectonicContext. Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 255–267,http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.17

Chakraborty, P. P., Pant, N. C. & Paul, P. P. 2015a. Controls on sedi-mentation in Indian Palaeoproterozoic basins – clues from theGwalior and Bijawar basins, central India. In: Mazumder, R. &Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphicand Tectonic Context. Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43,67–83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.5

Chakraborty, P. P., Saha, S. & Das, P. 2015b. Geology of Mesoproter-ozoic Chhattisgarh basin, central India: current status and futuregoals. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) PrecambrianBasins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. GeologicalSociety, London, Memoirs, 43, 185–205, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.13

Chaudhuri, A. K., Deb, G. K. & Patranabis-Deb, S. 2015. Conflicts instratigraphic classification of the Puranas of the Pranhita–GodavariValley: review, recommendations, and status of the ‘Penganga’sequence. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) PrecambrianBasins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. GeologicalSociety, London, Memoirs, 43, 165–183, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.12

Das, K., Chakraborty, P. P., Hayasaka, Y., Kayama, M., Saha, S. &Kimura, K. 2015. �1450 Ma regional felsic volcanism at thefringe of the East Indian craton: constraints from geochronol-ogy and geochemistry of tuff beds from detached sedimentarybasins. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) PrecambrianBasins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. GeologicalSociety, London, Memoirs, 43, 207–221, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.14

Deb, M. & Pal, T. 2015. Mineral potential of Proterozoic intra-cratonicbasins in India. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Precam-brian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. Geologi-cal Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 309–325, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.21

Dey, S. 2015. Geological history of the Kaladgi–Badami and Bhimabasins, south India: sedimentation in Proterozoic intracratonic set-up.In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Precambrian Basins ofIndia: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. Geological Society,London, Memoirs, 43, 283–296, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.19

Ghosh, G., Ghosh, B. & Mukhopadhyay, J. 2015. Palaeoarchaean–Mesoproterozoic sedimentation and tectonics along the west-northwestern margin of the Singhbhum Granitoid body, easternIndia: a synthesis. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Pre-cambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. Geo-logical Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 121–138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.9

Hofmann, A. & Mazumder, R. 2015. A review of the current status of theOlder Metamorphic Group and Older Metamorphic Tonalite Gneiss:insight into the Palaeoarchaean history of the Singhbhum craton,India. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) PrecambrianBasins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. GeologicalSociety, London, Memoirs, 43, 103–107, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.7

Matin, A. 2015. Tectonics of the Cuddapah Basin and a model of its evol-ution: a review. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Precam-brian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context.Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 231–254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.16

Mazumder, R. & Saha, D. 2012. Palaeoproterozoic of India. GeologicalSociety, London, Special Publications, 365.

Mazumder, R., De, S. et al. 2015. Palaeo-Mesoproterozoic sedimen-tation and tectonics of the Singhbhum craton, eastern India and impli-cations for global and craton-specific geological events. In:Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Precambrian Basins ofIndia: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. Geological Society,London, Memoirs, 43, 139–149, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.10

Meert, J. G. & Pandit, M. K. 2015. The Archaean and Proterozoichistory of peninsular India: tectonic framework for Precambrian sedi-mentary basins in India. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds)Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context.Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 29–54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.3

Miall, A. D., Catuneanu, O., Eriksson, P. G. & Mazumder, R. 2015.A brief synthesis of Indian Precambrian basins: classification andgenesis of basin-fills. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Pre-cambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. Geo-logical Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 339–347, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.23

Mishra, B. 2015. Precambrian metallic mineralization in India. In:Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Precambrian Basins ofIndia: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. Geological Society,London, Memoirs, 43, 327–337, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.22

Mohanty, S. P. 2015. Palaeoproterozoic supracrustals of the BastarCraton: Dongargarh Supergroup and Sausar Group. In: Mazumder,R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Precambrian Basins of India: Strati-graphic and Tectonic Context. Geological Society, London,Memoirs, 43, 151–163, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.11

Naqvi, S. M. & Rogers, J. J. W. 1987. Precambrian Geology of India.Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Roy, A. B. & Purohit, R. 2015. Lithostratigraphic, geochronological anddepositional framework of the Precambrian basins of the AravalliMountains and adjoining areas, Rajasthan, India. In: Mazumder,R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Precambrian Basins of India: Strati-graphic and Tectonic Context. Geological Society, London,Memoirs, 43, 55–65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.4

Saha, D. & Mazumder, R. 2012. An overview of the Palaeoproterozoicgeology of Peninsular India, and key stratigraphic and tectonic issues.In: Mazumder, R. & Saha, D. (eds) Palaeoproterozoic of India.Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 365, 5–29,http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP365.2

Saha, D., Sain, A., Nandi, P., Mazumder, R. & Kar, R. 2015. Tectonos-tratigraphic evolution of the Nellore schist belt, southern India, sincethe Neoarchaean. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds) Pre-cambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context. Geo-logical Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 269–282, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.18

Sengupta, P., Raith, M. M. et al. 2015. Provenance, timing of sedimen-tation and metamorphism of metasedimentary rock suites from theSouthern Granulite Terrane, India. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson,P. G. (eds) Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and TectonicContext. Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 297–308, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.20

Sunder Raju, P. V. & Eriksson, P. G. 2015. Evolution of �3.5–2.5 Gabasins of the Dharwar Craton. In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G.(eds) Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and TectonicContext. Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 223–230,http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.15

Van Loon, A. J. & De, S. 2015. Archaean sedimentation on theSinghbhum craton: depositional environments of conglomerates inJharkhand (east India). In: Mazumder, R. & Eriksson, P. G. (eds)Precambrian Basins of India: Stratigraphic and Tectonic Context.Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 43, 109–119, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M43.8

R. MAZUMDER & P. G. ERIKSSON4

by guest on May 16, 2020http://mem.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from