4.4 Article

Hafnium isotope record of the Ancient Gneiss Complex, Swaziland, southern Africa: evidence for Archaean crust-mantle formation and crust reworking between 3.66 and 2.73 Ga

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Volume 168, Issue 4, Pages 953-963

Publisher

GEOLOGICAL SOC PUBL HOUSE
DOI: 10.1144/0016-76492010-117

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [KL692/16]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Combined U-Pb and Lu-Hf isotope analyses of zircons from 16 tonalite-trondjemite-granodiorite (TTG) gneiss and granite samples from Swaziland reveal that the oldest rocks of the Ancient Gneiss Complex in southern Africa formed by reworking of Early Archaean or perhaps Late Hadean crust at 3.66 Ga, and that new crust was extracted from a depleted mantle source during Palaeoarchaean events between 3.54 and 3.32 Ga. This interpretation is supported by epsilon Hf-t of -1.6 +/- 2.0 obtained from 3.66 Ga TTG gneisses, corresponding to hafnium model ages between 3.77 +/- 0.18 Ga, for a presumed Hadean-Early Archaean chondritic mantle, and 4.08 +/- 0.18 Ga, for a presumed Hadean depleted mantle reservoir, with the first model age being the most likely in the light of recent data from worldwide sources. Furthermore, it is reflected by superchondritic epsilon Hf-t up to +2.2 +/- 2.0 for TTGs formed at 3.54, 3.45 and 3.32 Ga. The new datasets additionally show that the Palaeoarchaean crust formed between 3.54 and 3.32 Ga was intensely reworked afterwards, without significant addition of depleted mantle derived material, during orogenic and intracratonic melting processes at 3.23, 3.1 and 2.7 Ga. This is well reflected by an array of decreasing epsilon Hf-t from +2.2 to -7.2 between 3.3 and 2.7 Ga, which can be forced by Lu-176/Hf-177 of 0.0113, which is similar to that of present-day average continental crust, and might result from lower crust zircon fractionation during Archaean crust reworking.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available