Comments on the paper “The nature of “Svecofennian” zircon in the Belomorian Mobile Belt and some geological implications” by A.A. Shchipanskii and A.I. Slabunov

Abstract

Eclogites were relatively recently found in the Belomorian Mobile Belt (BMB) (Volodichev et al., 2004; Shchipanskii et al., 2005; Konilov et al., 2004). The very first isotopic dates (Volodichev et al., 2004; Mints et al., 2010) were obtained for these rocks in the northwestern (in the Salma and Kuru-Vaara areas) and central (Gridino area) portions of BMB and corresponded to the Archean: approximately 2.72–2.87 Ga. Because no crustal eclogites older that 2.0 Ga (Moller et al., 1995) had been known before these dates were obtained, these eclogites were regarded as unique. It is commonly believed that no crustal eclogites could be formed in the Archean because the crust was then relatively thin (Kroner, 2010), and hence, the find of crustal eclogites of Archean age in BMB called for a fundamental revision of geodynamic reconstructions of the crustal evolution and was one of the main arguments invoked to support the hypothesis that currently operating geodynamic mechanisms of plate tectonic can be extrapolated to the Early Precambrian (Rozen et al., 2008). However, these finds were practically immediately followed by serious doubts that the primary estimates of the timing of the eclogite metamorphism in the Belomorian Belt may be incorrect (Mitrofanov et al., 2009; and others).