Content uploaded by Christopher Robert Scotese
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christopher Robert Scotese on Jun 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Late Proterozoic plate tectonics and palaeogeograph y: a tale of two
supercontinents, Rodinia and Pannotia
CHRISTOPHER R. SCOTESE
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, TX 76019, USA
(e-mail: chris@scotese.com)
Abstract: The plate tectonic and palaeogeographic history of the late Proterozoic is a tale of two
supercontinents: Rodinia and Pannotia. Rodinia formed during the Grenville Event (c. 1100 Ma)
and remained intact until its collision with the Congo continent (800–750 Ma). This collision
closed the southern part of the Mozambique Seaway, and triggered the break-up of Rodinia.
The Panthalassic Ocean opened as the supercontinent of Rodinia split into a northern half (East
Gondwana, Cathyasia and Cimmeria) and a southern half (Laurentia, Amazonia–NW Africa,
Baltica, and Siberia). Over the next 150 Ma, North Rodinia rotated counter-clockwise over the
North Pole, while South Rodinia rotated clockwise across the South Pole. In the latest Precambrian
(650–550 Ma), the three Neoproterozoic continents – North Rodinia, South Rodinia and the Congo
continents – collided during the Pan-Africa Event forming the second Neoproterozoic superconti-
nent, Pannotia (Greater Gondwanaland). Pan-African mountain building and the fall in sea level
associated with the assembly of Pannotia may have triggered the extreme Ice House conditions
that characterize the middle and late Neoproterozoic. Although the palaeogeographic maps pre-
sented here do not prohibit a Snowball Earth, the mapped extent of Neoproterozoic ice sheets
favour a bipolar Ice House World with a broad expanse of ocean at the equator. Soon after it was
assembled (c. 560 Ma), Pannotia broke apart into the four principal Palaeozoic continents: Lauren-
tia (North America), Baltica (northern Europe), Siberia and Gondwana. The amalgamation and sub-
sequent break-up of Pannotia may have triggered the ‘Cambrian Explosion’. The first economically
important accumulations of hydrocarbons are from Neoproterozoic sources. The two major source
rocks of this age (Nepa of Siberia and Huqf of Oman) occur in association with massive Neoprotero-
zoic evaporite deposits and in the warm equatorial– subtropical belt, within 308 of the equator.
In this report we tell the tale of two late Precambrian
supercontinents: Rodinia and Pannotia. We describe
the configuration of continents that comprised
Rodinia and Pannotia, outline a plausible history
of their formation and break-up, reconstruct long-
gone mountain ranges and seaways, and infer
the location of ancient plate boundaries. The
Rodinia–Pannotia model that we construct can be
used as a framework to understand better the deposi-
tional environments of late Precambrian oil source
rocks and the history of late Precambrian global
climate change.
Time interval of interest: late
Mesoproterozoic and Neoproterozoic
This study describes the plate tectonic events of the
late Mesoproterozoic (c. 1200 Ma) and the entire
Neoproterozoic (1000– 542 Ma). Four palaeo-
geographic maps have been constructed for the
mid-Cryogenian (750 Ma), late Cryogenian
(690 Ma), middle Ediacaran (600 Ma) and earliest
Cambrian (540 Ma) (see figures later in this
chapter). The absolute ages assigned to these maps
are based on the ICS International Time Scale
(Gradstein et al. 2004). These palaeogeographic
maps show the ancient configuration of mountains,
lowlands, shallow seas and deep ocean basins, as
well as the likely location of mid-ocean ridges,
subduction zones and regions of continent–
continent collision.
A very difficult task
Producing plate tectonic and palaeogeographic
maps for the late Proterozoic is a difficult task.
Some of the reasons are obvious: less than 3% of
the world’s mapped outcrop is Neoproterozoic in
age (Lowe 1992); much of the rock record is
deformed or highly metamorphosed; within this
broad time interval (spanning over 500 Ma), it is dif-
ficult to correlate widely separated geological units;
and absolute age dates are sparse in some areas,
have error margins in tens of millions of years and
often give conflicting results.
For these and other reasons, it would be imposs-
ible to make global plate tectonic and palaeogeo-
graphic maps for the Late Proterozoic based solely
on the available geological and geophysical data.
There are too many missing pieces. Fortunately,
other tools and techniques are available that make
an impossible task merely very difficult.
From:CRAIG, J., THUROW, J., THUSU, B., WHITHAM,A.&ABUTARRUMA, Y. (eds) Global Neoproterozoic Petroleum
Systems: The Emerging Potential in North Africa. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 326, 67–83.
DOI: 10.1144/SP326.4 0305-8719/09/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2009.
Plate tectonic reconstruction methodology
and assumptions
The Plate Tectonic Reconstruction Methodology, or
PALEOMAP Method, is the technique used by the
author to build a plate tectonic framework upon
which the available geological and geophysical
data can be assembled.
The PALEOMAP Method
(1) Define the lithospheric plates (also called tec-
tonic elements or plate polygons) that have
had an independent history of motion.
(2) Compile geological and tectonic evidence to
constrain the timing of important plate tectonic
events such as continental break-up, the
location and persistence of active subduction
or continent–continent collision.
(3) Use available palaeomagnetic, linear magnetic
anomaly and hot spot data to orient these plates
with respect to each other and with respect to
the spin axis or hot spot reference frame. (For
the Neoproterozoic, only palaeomagnetic
information is available.)
(4) Once the tectonic history is ‘roughed out’,
finite rotations are then used to build a hier-
archical plate model (plate circuit) that
describes the motion of the plates with
respect to the spin axis or hot spot reference
frame (Ross & Scotese 1988).
Underlying the PALEOMAP Method are seve-
ral hypotheses concerning behaviour of the plate
tectonic system and the tempo and mode of
plate motions. These plate tectonic hypotheses
provide a guiding framework that permits inter-
polation and extrapolation when solid evidence is
otherwise lacking. These hypotheses have played a
particularly important role in the production of the
late Precambrian reconstructions presented in
this paper.
Plate tectonic hypotheses
(1) The negative buoyancy of the subducting slab
(slab pull) is the dominant driving force of
plate tectonics (Forsyth & Uyeda 1975;
Conrad & Lithgow-Bertelloni 2002). Two cor-
ollaries of this hypothesis are: (a) that plates are
pulled towards the subduction zone in a direc-
tion approximately normal to the orientation of
the trench axis (Scotese & Rowley 1985); and
(b) that mid-ocean ridges tend to be aligned
parallel to major subduction zones.
(2) Large continental plates move slowly (c.2cm
year
21
) (e.g. Eurasia during the Mesozoic and
Cenozoic). At this rate, a supercontinent will
move only 408 (4400 km) in 200 Ma.
(3) There has been no significant True Polar
Wander.
(4) Plate tectonics is a catastrophic system. Long
periods of slow and steady plate motions are
interrupted by relatively brief periods of
global plate tectonic reorganization. The two
most likely causes of global plate tectonic reor-
ganizations are continent–continent collision
(i.e. the loss of a subduction zone) and the sub-
duction of a mid-ocean ridge (e.g. the subduc-
tion of the Tethyan mid-ocean ridge triggered
the break-up of Pangaea: Scotese 1991).
(5) Finally, we can take a uniformitarian approach
to plate tectonics. In other words, when model-
ling plate motions during the late Precambrian,
we can expect the same elegant and simple
pattern of plate motions that characterized the
Mesozoic and Cenozoic.
Reconstruction of Rodinia and Pannotia
In order to produce the plate tectonic and palaeogeo-
graphic reconstructions presented here, we have
made another important assumption, namely, that
during the mid and Late Neoproterozoic there
were two Pangaea-sized supercontinents: Rodinia
(Fig. 1) and Pannotia (Fig. 2).
The name Rodinia, which figuratively means
‘mother of all continents’, was proposed by
McMenamin & McMenamin (1990), and was
adopted by Dalziel (1991), Moores (1991) and
Hoffman (1991). Rodinia initially referred to the
presumed late Precambrian supercontinent that
broke apart at the start of the Palaeozoic. It now is
used to describe the first of two Neoproterozoic
Pangaeas. Rodinia formed during the Grenville
Event (c. 1100 Ma) and broke apart about 750 Ma
ago. It remained intact for approximately 300 Ma,
making it a long-lived supercontinent.
The second late Neoproterozoic supercontinent,
Pannotia (which means ‘all southern land’: Powell
1995) formed at the very end of the Precambrian.
Other names for Pannotia are ‘Greater Gondwana-
land’ (Stern 1994, 2002), the ‘Vendian superconti-
nent’ (Meert & Torsvik 2004) or the ‘Pan-African
supercontinent’. As the name ‘Greater Gondwana-
land’ implies, the Palaeozoic supercontinent of
Gondwana(land) formed the core of Pannotia. Pan-
notia was a short-lived supercontinent. It assembled
650–500 Ma ago during the Pan-African Event, and
had begun to break apart approximately 560 Ma ago
with the opening of the Iapetus Ocean (Cawood
et al. 2001, 2007).
Reconstruction of Rodinia
Figure 1 is the prototypical reconstruction of
Rodinia. Although there are various reconstructions
C. R. SCOTESE68
of Rodinia (Hoffman 1991; Powell et al. 1993;
Dalziel 1997; Weil et al. 1998; Karlstrom et al.
1999; Pisarevsky et al. 2003; Li et al. 2007), they
all share these five elements: (1) North America,
or more properly the Laurentian shield (Laurentia),
lies near the core of Rodinia; (2) the west coast of
North America is adjacent, in some fashion, to the
eastern margins of Antarctica and Australia (East
Gondwana); (3) the Amazon Craton lies to the east
of Laurentia; (4) Siberia (the Aldan and Anabar
shields) generally lies to the north of Arctic
Canada or Baltica; and (5) Baltica (northern
Europe), rotated by various degrees, is adjacent to
eastern Greenland. If any of these relationships
Fig. 1. Rodinia. A, Amazon Craton; An,
Colour
online=
colour
hardcopy
Antarctica; Ar, Arabia; Au, Australia; B, Baltica; CC, Congo continent;
Cd, Cadomian–Avalonian arc; Cm, Cimmeria; In, Indochina; H, Hijaz arc; Ind, India; K, Kalahari Craton; L, Laurentia;
M, Madagascar; NC, North China; RP, Rio Plata; S, Siberia; Sa, Saharan shield; SC, South China; Sf, Sao Francisco;
WA, West African Craton; the dotted line is the location of the Panthalassic Rift.
Fig. 2. Pannotia. Afr, Africa; An, Antarctica; Ar, Arabia; Au,
Colour
online=
colour
hardcopy
Australia; B, Baltica; Cd, Cadomian–Avalonian arc;
Cm, Cimmeria; In, Indochina; Ind, India; L, Laurentia; NC, North China; S, Siberia; Sam, South America; SC,
South China.
PLATE TECTONICS AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHY 69
can be shown to be incorrect, then the concept of a
unified Rodinia supercontinent would be invalidated
(Hoffman 1999).
Although all reconstructions of Rodinia share
these five elements, there is considerable variability
regarding the exact arrangement of these elements.
† SWEAT–AUSWUS fit: the exact placement of
Antarctica and Australia along the western
margin of North America varies. The classic
SWEAT fit of Dalziel (1991), Hoffman (1991)
and Moores (1991) is used in our reconstruction
of Rodinia (Fig. 1) (see also Young 1992). In the
AUSWUS version of the Rodinia reconstruction
(Karlstrom et al. 1999; Burrett & Berry 2000)
Antarctica and Australia are displaced south-
wards relative to North America so that eastern
Australia, not Antarctica, is adjacent to the SW
USA. Burrett & Berry (2002), using multivariate
statistics, determined that the AUSWUS fit did
a better job of matching the adjacent geolo-
gical provinces than the SWEAT fit. Recently,
other authors have proposed variations of the
SWEAT or AUSWUS fit (Wingate et al. 2002;
Meert 2003; Cawood et al. 2007; Li et al.
2007). Given the uncertainties in the palaeo-
magnetic data, however, all of the Laurentia/
Australia–Antarctica reconstructions described
above are permissible.
† Siberia: the location of Siberia in the recon-
struction of Rodinia is also variable. Sometimes
it is placed next to Baltica, as shown here.
However, most of the time it is adjacent to the
Arctic Islands (Dalziel 1997; Hoffman 1991;
Pelechaty 1996). In the most radical recon-
struction of Rodinia (Sears & Price 2000),
Siberia is placed along the western margin of
North America replacing Antarctica and
Australia. This alternate fit of Siberia is based
on strong stratigraphic ties and matching Neo-
proterozoic facies belts.
† Baltica: although located next to Greenland in
most Rodinia reconstructions, it is shown
rotated by different degrees. In the original
Rodinia reconstruction, the margin of Norway
was adjacent to SE Greenland (Hoffman 1991),
so that Grenville-age rocks in southern Scandi-
navia matched up with the Grenville Front in
eastern North America. Other reconstructions
of Rodinia place the Norwegian margin of
Baltica in the same orientation that it occupied
in the late Palaeozoic (Pangaea) (Dalziel 1997).
This fit is implausible because it would require
that the early Palaeozoic Iapetus Ocean opened
and closed in exactly the same location. In the
Greenland– Baltica fit shown here, Baltica is
rotated 908 clockwise, so that the Tornquist
margin lies adjacent to eastern Greenland. This
fit of Baltica and Laurentia agrees better with
Cambrian orientations based on a more complete
palaeomagnetic data set (Torsvik et al. 1991,
1992; Torsvik & Rehnstrom 2001; Cocks &
Torsvik 2002). The nearly coincident age of
rifting along the Tornquist Line and along the
eastern margin of Laurentia (620– 530 Ma:
Cawood et al. 2007) suggests that they may
have been conjugate rift margins. This configur-
ation of Baltica also satisfactorily aligns the trend
of the Grenville Front from Laurentia to Baltica.
The positions of the other continental blocks
around the periphery of Rodinia are less certain,
but some arguments concerning their configuration
can be made.
Amazon Craton. A key element to the Rodinia
reconstruction is the fit between eastern Laurentia
and western South America (Amazon Craton and
Rio Plata). Bond et al. (1984) were among the first
authors to suggest that there was a Precambrian
Pangaea that rifted apart during the latest Precam-
brian (625 – 555 Ma). They noted that North
America (Laurentia) was surrounded by passive
margins with thick post-rift sedimentary accumu-
lations that formed during the latest Precambrian
(c. 600 Ma). They suggested that the western
margin of South America was the conjugate rift
margin of eastern Laurentia.
West African Craton. The West African Craton of
NW Africa is simply an extension of the Amazon
Craton. The same Precambrian basement trends
and older zones of deformation can be traced
across the South Atlantic from NE Brazil to the
Ivory
Coast (e.g. Sergipe–Oubanguides fold belts,
the Trans-Brazilian shear zone Dahomeyides and
the ‘4 degree 50 minute’ shear zone of the Hoggar
region: Trompette 1994, 1997). The Amazon
Craton and the West African Craton were together
throughout the Late Proterozoic and Palaeozoic,
and separated when the South Atlantic opened
during the early Cretaceous.
East Gondwana. In this reconstruction of Rodinia,
East Gondwana is a single block composed of
Antarctica, Australia, India, Madagascar, Somalia,
Mozambique and South Africa (Kalahari Craton).
This is a simplification. It is likely that some of
the East Gondwana terranes were separated by
middle and late Proterozoic oceans (Bozhko 1986;
Boger et al. 2001; Meert 2003). However, the loc-
ation, extent and timing of closure of these oceans
are not well known and deserve further study.
North and South China. Similarly, the Cathaysian
terranes (North China, South China and Indochina)
are placed adjacent to the Indo-Australian
C. R. SCOTESE70
margin of East Gondwana. Palaeomagnetic and bio-
geographic arguments can be made (Burrett et al.
1990; Scotese & McKerrow 1990) that this is a
reasonable configuration for the early Palaeozoic
and, by inference, the late Neoproterozoic. In
addition, this location for South China places it
near the North Pole for most of the late Neoproter-
ozoic, a location consistent with the presence
of Sinian tillites and glacial deposits (Wang et al.
1981). In an alternate reconstruction of Rodinia
(Li & Powell 1996), South China lies along the
NW coast of Laurentia, adjacent to the Yukon and
Northwest Territories; North China is in the vicinity
of Siberia (Li et al. 2007).
Congo continent. The most problematic continental
block in any reassembly of Rodinia is the Congo
continent. The Congo continent is composed of
the Congo continent plus the Saharan shield minus
the West African Craton and the Hijaz island
arcs of Sudan, Egypt and Arabia (Johnson &
Woldehaimanot 2003). The Mozambique Belt
suture (East African Orogen: Stern 1994) separates
the Congo continent from East Gondwana and the
Damara/Lufilian–Zambezi suture (Watters 1976;
Daly 1986; John et al. 2003; Johnson et al. 2005)
separates the Congo continent from the Kalahari
Craton to the south. The Sao Francisco Craton of
eastern Brazil (Chemale et al. 1993), which lies to
the east of the Pan-African/Brazilide orogenic belt
of central Brazil (Trompette 1994, 1997), was orig-
inally part of the Congo continent. It became part of
Brazil when, in the early Cretaceous, the South
Atlantic Ocean opened to the west of this branch
of the Pan-African suture.
Although the original Rodinia reconstruction
places the Congo continent adjacent to the other
Rodinia continental blocks (Hoffman 1991; Dalziel
1997), we believe that during the late Mesoprotero-
zoic (1100 Ma) the Congo continent was separated
from Rodinia by a wide ocean (. 10 000 km). By
the early Neoproterozoic (900 Ma), the Mozambi-
que Seaway separated the Hijaz island arcs (Egypt
and Sudan: Stern 1994) and Congo continent from
the northern half of Rodinia (East Gondwana and
Cathaysia). The Pharusian Ocean separated the
Congo continent from the southern half of Rodinia
(Laurentia, Baltica, Siberia and the West African–
Amazon Craton). The collision of the Congo conti-
nent with Rodinia during the middle Neoproterozoic
(Cryogenian, c. 750 Ma) triggered the break-up of
Rodinia into two halves (see Fig. 3). This collision
and the subsequent break-up of northern and
southern Rodinia is the key to the tectonic model pre-
sented here, and will be discussed in more detail in
the following section.
Table 1 is a list of the finite poles of rotation used
to reassemble Rodinia at 750 Ma.
Reconstruction of Pannotia
Although the name ‘Rodinia’ is better known than
‘Pannotia’, we know much more about the super-
continent of Pannotia than we know about
Rodinia. In many respects ‘Greater Gondwanaland’
would be a better name for this latest Precambrian
Pangaea, because at the core of Pannotia is the
Palaeozoic supercontinent of Gondwanaland (also
simply called Gondwana). Gondwana, and hence
Pannotia, was assembled when the Congo continent
was caught between the northern and southern
halves of Rodinia. This series of collisions, which
is known as the Pan-African Event, began approxi-
mately 750 Ma ago (initial collision along the
Mozambique belt: Stern 1994) and may have
extended into the early Cambrian (530 Ma: Meert
2003). The peak in Pan-African orogenesis dates
from 610 to 640 Ma (Meert 2003). As can be seen
in the reconstructions for 750, 700 and 600 Ma
(Fig. 3), Pannotia was formed as a result of
Rodinia ‘turning itself inside-out’ (Hoffman 1991).
Reviewing the configuration of continents that
make up Pannotia (Fig. 2), we see that Africa is at
its centre. The other Gondwanan continents of
Arabia, Madagascar, India, Antarctica, and
Australia and South America surround Africa. The
fit of the continents that make up Gondwana is
well established (Lawver & Scotese 1987; Scotese
et al. 1999; Smith 1999); there is no debate as to
the relative positions of these continental blocks.
Pannotia also includes the early Palaeozoic con-
tinents of Laurentia (North America), Baltica
(northern Europe) and Siberia. These continental
blocks have the same relative positions in both the
Rodinia and the Pannotia reconstructions.
The Cathaysian terranes (North China, South
China and Indochina), together with the Cimmerian
terranes (Sibumasu, Qiang Tang, Lhasa,
Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey) were adjacent to the
Arabian–Indian– Australian margin of Pannotia
(Audley-Charles 1988; Sengor et al. 1988; Sengor
& Natal’in 1996; Metcalfe 1993, 1999). Along the
northern coasts of Africa and South America were
several smaller terranes (central Europe, Iberia,
Britain, New England and Maritime Canada,
Florida and Yucatan) that made up the Avalonian–
Cadomian active margin (Murphy & Nance 1989,
1991; Nance et al. 1991; Nance & Murphy 1994;
McNamara et al. 2001). After the consolidation of
Pannotia, the Avalonian–Cadomian active margin
may have extended northwards along the Uralian
margin of the Baltic Shield (Timanide Orogen:
Gee & Pease 2004; Scarrow et al. 2001).
A final note concerning the term ‘Pannotia’, in
some of the papers discussing Precambrian super-
continents the term ‘Rodinia’ rather than ‘Pannotia’
is used to describe the Pangaea-like configuration
PLATE TECTONICS AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHY 71
that existed at the end of the Precambrian (600–
540 Ma ago). This is incorrect. Rodinia did not
exist 600 Ma ago. The term Pannotia should be used
for Precambrian pangaeas younger than 700 Ma.
Table 2 is a list of the finite poles of rotation used
to reassemble Pannotia at 600 Ma.
Neoproterozoic plate tectonic and
palaeogeographic maps
This section outlines a plate tectonic model that
describes the assembly of Rodinia and its subsequent
break-up to form Pannotia. Figure 3 illustrates the
motions of Rodinia, the Congo continent and
Pannotia, and the plate boundaries (mid-ocean
ridges, subduction zones, island arcs, Andean
margins and collision zones) that were active
during the Neoproterozoic. Also presented are a set
of full-colour palaeogeographic reconstructions for
750, 690, 600 and 540 Ma ago (Figs 4 –9). These
maps illustrate: the collision of the Congo continent
with Rodinia at approximately 750 Ma (Fig. 4);
the formation of the Panthalassic Rift that
split Rodinia in two (North and South Rodinia)
Fig. 3. Transition from Rodinia to Pannotia (750– 600 Ma); after Scotese et al. (1999).
C. R. SCOTESE72
(Figs 4 & 8); the gradual closing of the Pharusian
Ocean– Mozambique Seaway and the Pan-African
(Adamastor) Ocean to form Pannotia (Figs 4–7);
the uplift of the U-shaped Pan-African collisional
mountain ranges (Figs 5–7); and the subsequent
break-up of Pannotia into the Palaeozoic conti-
nents: Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltica and Siberia
(Figs 6 & 9).
In addition to showing the active plate bound-
aries, these reconstructions attempt to portray the
approximate distribution of deep ocean, shallow
seas, lowlands and highlands. These palaeotopo-
graphic and palaeobathymetric interpretations are
based on the database of Neoproterozoic deposi-
tional environments, lithologies and palaeoclimate
indicators assembled by Metz (2001), supplemented
by the recent compilation of Stewart (2007). Our
estimate of the extent of the Neoproterozoic ice
sheets is shown in Figure 10. A more detailed
description of this Neoproterozoic geological
Table 1. Finite rotations used to assemble Rodinia
at 750 Ma
Plate polygon Latitude Longitude Angle (8)
Amazonia (A) 28 48 118
Arabia (Ar) 65 40 102
Australia (Au) 32 30 94
Baltica (B) 231 92 2171
Congo (CC) 44 67 115
East Antarctica (An) 27 43 119
Hijaz (H) 58 64 107
India (Ind) 74 220 69
Indochina (In) 247 227 156
Kalhari (K) 258 2120 2119
Laurentia (L) 240 12 138
Madagascar (Md) 56 37 109
Mozambique (M) 258 2120 2119
North China (NC) 42 42 44
Rio Plata (RP) 2 8 48 118
Sao
˜
Francisco (SF) 32 37 109
Siberia (S) 225 17 148
South China (SC) 52 147 2 164
West Africa (WA) 23 78 127
Note: All finite rotations follow the right-hand rule. Negative lati-
tude values denote the southern hemisphere. Negative longitude
values denote the western hemisphere.
Table 2. Finite rotations used to assemble Pannotia
at 600 Ma
Plate polygon Latitude Longitude Angle (8)
Amazonia (A) 38 66 138
Arabia (Ar) 49 109 119
Australia (Au) 43 74 74
Baltica (B) 24 113 129
Congo (CC) 46 106 122
East Antarctica (An) 24 75 95
Hijaz (H) 46 106 122
India (Ind) 69 162 91
Indochina (In) 228 239 121
Kalhari (K) 46 106 122
Laurentia (L) 0 41 144
Madagascar (Md) 52 93 107
Mozambique (M) 46 106 122
North China (NC) 48 143 52
Rio Plata (RP) 38 66 138
Sao Francisco (SF) 38 66 138
Siberia (S) 11 47 167
South China (SC) 32 136 2133
West Africa (WA) 46 106 122
Note: All finite rotations follow the right-hand rule. Negative lati-
tude values denote the southern hemisphere. Negative longitude
values denote the western hemisphere.
Fig. 4. Middle Neoproterozoic
Colour
online=
colour
hardcopy
reconstruction (Cryogenian; 750 Ma; oval projection). Blue, deep ocean; light blue,
shallow sea; green, lowlands; brown, uplands; white, high mountains; yellow line, mid ocean ridge; red line, subduction
zone; red X’s, collision zone.
PLATE TECTONICS AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHY 73
database, and a palaeoclimatic test of the Rodinia
and Pannotia reconstructions will be the subject of
a companion paper.
From a map-making point of view, it is not poss-
ible to produce global plate tectonic and palaeogeo-
graphic reconstructions for any time prior to the
middle Mesoproterozoic (c. 1300 Ma). There is
insufficient geological and palaeomagnetic infor-
mation to constrain continental positions. It is not
possible to make precise stratigraphic correlations
so we cannot know whether tectonic events in
widely separated areas were synchronous. Finally,
prior to the assembly of Rodinia, the continental
terranes were too numerous and too widely dis-
persed to reassemble in any meaningful fashion.
Despite these difficulties, Rodgers (1996) has
made an imaginative attempt to map plate motions
back to 3 Ga (Ga – giga-annum – is 10
9
years).
The building of Rodinia (1200–1050 Ma)
The core of the supercontinent of Rodinia was
assembled during the Grenville Event, 1200–
1050 Ma ago (Rivers 1997). A minimum of
two, large, unnamed continents collided along the
Grenville suture, which can be traced from the
Sveconorwegian belt in southern Norway (Gower
& Owen 1984; Cosca 1998), across the Atlantic
Ocean to East Greenland (Kalsbeek et al. 2000), to
Labrador, through Quebec and Ontario, beneath
the Palaeozoic strata of the North American mid-
continent, emerging briefly in the Llano uplift and
Marathon mountains of west Texas. Similar age
deformation is found in the Namaqua–Natal oro-
genic belt of the Kalahari Craton (Dalziel et al.
2000), along the Dronning Maud Land sector of
East Antarctic (Dirks & Wilson 1995; Bauer et al.
Fig. 5. Late Neoproterozoic reconstruction
Colour
online=
colour
hardcopy
(Ediacaran, 600 Ma, oval projection). For an explanation of colours see
Figure 4.
Fig. 6. Early Cambrian Reconstruction
Colour
online=
colour
hardcopy
(540 Ma, oval projection). For an explanation of colours see Figure 4.
C. R. SCOTESE74
2003; Jacobs et al. 2003) and extending into central
Australia (Albany–Frasierbelt and Musgrave block:
Boger et al. 2001). The opposite side of this col-
lision belt runs parallel to the Tornquist Line, con-
tinues along the western edge South America and
divides East Gondwana into unequal halves
(Fig. 1). Grenville-age deformation (1.2 Ga) in
western Brazil (Rondonia) supports the argument
that the Amazon Craton collided with Laurentia
during the Grenville Event (Tohver et al. 2002).
The break-up of Rodinia (800–700 Ma)
After its assembly approximately 1000 Ma ago,
Rodinia remained intact for another 300 Ma.
During the Cryogenian (c. 750 Ma), Rodinia split
into two large continents (North Rodinia and
South Rodinia) (Figs 3 & 8). North Rodinia was
made up of East Gondwana, Cathaysia and the
Cimmerian terranes. South Rodinia was composed
of Laurentia, Baltica, Siberia, the Amazon – West
African Craton and, possibly, the Rio de la Plata
Craton. As illustrated in Figures 3 and 8, a new
continental rift separated western Laurentia from
East Antarctica (Rowell et al. 1993; Goodge
2002) and eastern Australia. Eventually, the rift
developed into the central mid-oceanic ridge of
the Panthalassic Ocean (Fig. 5).
Why did Rodinia break apart? We believe that
redirected slab-pull forces triggered by the initial
Fig. 7. Pan-African Orogeny (750, 690, 600 and
Colour
online=
colour
hardcopy
540 Ma, orthographic projection). For an explanation of colours see
Figure 4.
PLATE TECTONICS AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHY 75
collision of the Congo continent (c. 750 Ma) played
an important role in the break-up of Rodinia. In the
following scenario we emphasize the important role
that slab pull may have played.
Prior to 750 Ma, the Mozambique Belt subduc-
tion zone and the Pharusian–Adamastor subduction
zone were connected and surrounded the Congo con-
tinent (Fig. 4). At that time, the vast region of oceanic
lithosphere attached to the western part of Rodinia
was subducted to the west beneath the Congo conti-
nent. As a consequence, Rodinia was drawn inexor-
ably closer to the Congo continent (Fig. 7).
At about 750 Ma the eastern edge of the Congo
continent collided with Rodinia in the vicinity of
Namaqua– Natal orogenic belt of the Kalahari
Craton. Westwards subduction at the point of
collision came to a halt. However, vigorous south-
directed subduction continued beneath the Hijaz
island arcs along the northern rim of the Congo con-
tinent, and north-directed subduction continued be-
neath the back-arc basins and Andean margin along
the southern edge of the Congo continent (Fig. 7).
The once continuous circum-Congo subduction
zone was now divided into two parts. Each subduc-
tion zone began to tug on Rodinia in a different
direction. North Rodinia began to rotate counter-
clockwise as it was drawn by slab pull into the
Mozambique– Hijaz subduction zone. Conversely,
South Rodinia began to rotate clockwise, also
drawn by slab pull, towards the Pharusian–Adamas-
tor subduction zone. We propose that these differen-
tial plate tectonic stresses tore Rodinia in half
Fig. 8. Opening of the Panthalassic Ocean (750,
Colour
online=
colour
hardcopy
690, 600 and 540 Ma, orthographic projection). For an explanation
of colours see Figure 4.
C. R. SCOTESE76
(Fig. 8). In the next 100 Ma Rodinia would be turned
inside out.
The timing of the initial collision of the Congo
continent with Rodinia and the subsequent rifting
of Rodinia has been debated. The best estimate is
about 750 Ma. The key features are: (1) the deep
crustal burial and metamorphism along the southern
portion of the Mozambique Belt (Stern 1994);
Fig. 9. Iapetus Ocean (Early
Colour
online=
colour
hardcopy
Cambrian, orthographic projection). For an explanation of colours see Figure 4.
Fig. 10. Neoproterozoic Ice House World (dashed white line,
Colour
online=
colour
hardcopy
maximum glacial advance; horizontal green lines,
oil source rocks). For an explanation of colours see Figure 4.
PLATE TECTONICS AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHY 77
(2) the formation of passive margin sequences in
western North America (Bond et al. 1984), East
Antarctica and Australia; and (3) the eruption of
rift-related basalts in Antarctica (Goodge 2002)
and North America that have been dated at about
750 Ma.
An additional estimate of the timing of rifting
of Rodinia can be made based on the rates of plate
motion. Looking forwards from the time of
this rifting event (c. 750 Ma), we know that even-
tually the two halves of Rodinia collided with the
Congo continent to form the core of Pannotia. This
collision (Pan-African Orogeny) took place about
600 Ma ago (Figs 5 & 7). From its initial rift posi-
tion (SWEAT fit) to its final docking configuration,
North Rodinia and South Rodinia each appro-
ximately travelled 5500 km. Large continental
plates move at rates of less than 2 cm year
21
.At
these rates it would have taken approximately
180 Ma to complete this journey. This requires that
the break-up of Rodinia began approximately
180 Ma earlier, or at about 780 Ma (+30 Ma).
Building Pan notia: the Pan-African Event
Continental collisions are notoriously messy affairs
lasting tens of millions of years. This is particularly
true when assembling supercontinents from mul-
tiple continental blocks. In this regard, it should
come as no surprise that Pannotia took more than
100 Ma to assemble (Pan-African Event) (Rogers
1995). The collisions that closed the ocean basins
separating the Congo continent from North
Rodinia and South Rodinia were diachronous. The
oldest collisions took place in the southernmost
arm of the Mozambique Seaway (800–750 Ma:
Stern 1994). The Mozambique–Hijaz Ocean
closed sequentially from south (Mozambique) to
north (Egypt and Sudan). The last phase of collision
between North Rodinia and the Congo continent
collapsed the Hijaz island arcs between Arabia
and Egypt–Sudan (c. 600 Ma: Stern 1994).
The Pharusian – Adamastor Ocean along the
southern margin of the Congo continent was wider
(.5500 km) and took a longer time to close. Final
collision and suturing of the Congo continent with
South Rodinia may have extended into the earliest
Cambrian (Trompette 1994).
The break-up of Pannotia
Unlike Rodinia, which was a long-lived superconti-
nent (c. 300 Ma), Pannotia appears to have rifted
apart soon after it was assembled. In the latest Pre-
cambrian (c. 560 Ma), the Palaeozoic continents of
Laurentia and Baltica rifted away from Pannotia
forming the Iapetus Ocean and Tornquist Sea
(Cocks & Torsvik 2002). Siberia is also shown
rifting away from Pannotia in the early Cambrian
(Fig. 9). By the early Cambrian, Pannotia had
broken up into four principal Palaeozoic continents:
Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltic and Siberia. The
Cadomian– Avalonian terrane would rift away
from northern Gondwana in the early Ordovician
(Scotese & McKerrow 1990; Cocks & Torsvik
2002). The Cathaysian terranes would separate
from equatorial Gondwana by the middle Palaeo-
zoic (Scotese & McKerrow 1990; Cocks &
Torsvik 2002), and the Cimmerian terranes would
follow the Cathyasian terranes northward into
Tethys by the late Palaeozoic (Audley-Charles
1988; Sengor et al. 1988; Sengor & Natal’in 1996;
Metcalfe 1999).
The closure of the ocean basins between North
Rodinia, South Rodinia and the Congo continent
also eliminated several major subduction zones. In
all, more than 40 000 linear kilometres of subduc-
tion zone were destroyed. This is comparable to
the entire length of Circum-Pacific Ring of Fire.
As sometimes happens after continental collision,
new subductions were initiated (Ross–Delamerian
subduction zone: Ireland et al. 1998; Veevers
2000; Boger & Miller 2004) or became more
active (Cadomian – Avalonian –Timanide active
margin: Murphy & Nance 1989, 1991; Nance
et al. 1991; Nance & Murphy 1994; Scarrow et al.
2001; Gee & Pease 2004).
Palaeomagnetic underpinnings
Kirschvink (1992b) deserves special recognition for
producing the first set of palaeomagnetically
derived plate tectonic reconstructions for the Neo-
proterozoic. Li et al. (2007) have published a set
of 12 plate tectonic reconstructions for the late
Mesoproterozoic, Neoproterozoic and early Cam-
brian (1100–530 Ma) based on a comprehensive
compilation of Neoproterozoic palaeomagnetic
and tectonic data. Other reviews of Neoproterozoic
palaeomagnetic data include: Weil et al. (1998),
Smith (2001), Pisarevsky et al. (2003) and
Meert & Torsvik (2004). Condie (2003) has pub-
lished an excellent summary of the Neoproterozoic
tectonic events related to the assembly and break-up
of Rodinia and Pannotia.
A minimal amount of palaeomagnetic data was
used to produce the reconstructions shown in
Figures 4–10. In the reconstructions presented
here, the Rodinia supercontinent was oriented with
respect to the spin axis at 750 Ma using the Lauren-
tian and Australian palaeomagnetic poles of Powell
et al. (1993). The orientation of Pannotia at 600 Ma
is based on results from the Catoctin volcanic pro-
vince and nine other North American sites (Meert
& Van der Voo 1994) that place Laurentia near
the South Pole, and the well-established cluster in
C. R. SCOTESE78
northwesternmost South America of more than a
dozen late Neoproterozoic poles for Gondwana
(Li & Powell 1993; Powell et al. 1993). The move-
ment of the continents between 750 and 600 Ma
was interpolated from these two palaeomagnetic
end points.
Summary and conclusions
Summary of plate tectonic events
The most important plate tectonic events during the
late Mesoproterozoic (1100 Ma) and the Neoproter-
ozoic (1000–540 Ma) were as follows.
† The assembly of the supercontinent of Rodinia
(Fig. 1) during the Grenville Event (c. 1100 Ma).
† The collision of the Congo continent with
Rodinia (c. 800 – 750 Ma) closed the southern
part of the Mozambique Seaway and triggered
the break-up of Rodinia.
† The Panthalassic Ocean opened as the super-
continent of Rodinia split into a northern half
(East Gondwana, Cathyasia and Cimmeria) and
a southern half (Laurentia, Amazonia-West
African Craton, Baltica and Siberia).
† Over the next 150 Ma North Rodinia rotated
counter-clockwise over the North Pole, while
South Rodinia rotated clockwise across the
South Pole.
† During the late Neoproterozoic (700 – 550 Ma),
the three Neoproterozoic continents – North
Rodinia, South Rodinia and the Congo
continent – collided (Pan-Africa Event) form-
ing the second Neoproterozoic supercontinent,
Pannotia (or Greater Gondwanaland).
† The collisions that built Pannotia were diachro-
nous. In East Africa, collision and suturing
began first along the southern arm of the Mozam-
bique Seaway (800–750 Ma), and then pro-
gressed northwards towards the Hijaz arcs of
Arabia, Egypt and Sudan (600 Ma). In West
Africa and Brazil, collision and suturing began
approximately 600 Ma and lasted until the end
of the Precambrian (c. 550 Ma).
† Pan-African mountain building and the fall in
sea level associated with the assembly of Panno-
tia, may have triggered the extreme Ice House
conditions that characterize the middle and late
Neoproterozoic.
† Soon after it was assembled (c. 560 Ma),
Pannotia broke apart into the four principal
Palaeozoic continents: Laurentia (North
America), Baltica (northern Europe), Siberia
and Gondwana.
† New subductions were initiated (Ross–
Delamerian Orogen and Alexander arc) or
became more active (Avalonian–Cadomian–
Timanide active margin).
† The amalgamation and subsequent break-up of
Pannotia in the early Cambrian was accom-
panied by a rise in sea level that flooded the con-
tinents and may have triggered the ‘Cambrian
Explosion’ (Brasier & Lindsay 2001).
Application of plate tectonic hypotheses to
Neoproterozoic reconstructions
The plate tectonic hypotheses outlined at the begin-
ning of this paper have been applied in the following
manner to produce the Neoproterozoic reconstruc-
tions presented in this paper.
† Subduction zones were mapped so that after the
break-up of Rodinia, the two halves, North and
South Rodinia, moved towards the subduction
zones. The Panthalassic Rift was oriented
approximately parallel to the Pharusian–
Adamastor and Hijaz–Mozambique subduction
zones.
† Because Rodinia and Pannotia were large conti-
nental plates, their plate velocities were kept to
2– 3 cm year
21
.
† ‘Outlier’ palaeomagnetic poles that could only
be explained by episodes of True Polar Wander
were excluded from this analysis. For arguments
in favour of Neoproterozoic–Cambrian True
Polar Wander see Kirschvink (1992b),
Kirschvink et al. (1997), Evans (1998),
Hoffman (1999) and Li et al. (2004).
† The break-up of Rodinia was triggered by a
global plate tectonic reorganization resulting
from the collision of Rodinia with the Congo
continent.
† The overall motions of the three major Neopro-
terozoic plates (Congo continent, North Rodinia
and South Rodinia) were co-ordinated, simple
and elegant. There were no spurious rotations
or unusual accelerations in plate motion.
Snowball or no Snowball?
The Snowball Earth hypothesis (Kirschvink 1992a;
Hoffman et al. 1998) proposes that, at times, during
the Neoproterozoic the continents were covered by
snow and ice and that the oceans were frozen
solid. To test this hypothesis, the distribution of
middle and late Neoproterozoic glacial deposits
(Hambrey & Harland 1981; Scotese et al. 1999)
were plotted on the late Neoproterozoic palaeogeo-
graphic reconstruction (600 Ma) (Fig. 10). The
equatorward edge of both the north and south
polar ice caps was mapped (dashed white line).
The following conclusions may be drawn.
† Both the northern and southern hemispheres
were extensively glaciated.
PLATE TECTONICS AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHY 79
† Like the Permo-Carboniferous Ice House World,
the southern hemisphere was mostly land and,
thus, supported a larger ice cap.
† In the southern hemisphere, the ice sheets
extended to within 258 of the equator.
† In the northern hemisphere, the ice sheets
extended to within 58 of the equator.
† Much of the subtropical and equatorial region
was not glaciated.
† Cratonic Siberia was not glaciated.
Although the palaeogeographic maps presented
here do not prohibit a Snowball Earth, the extent
of ice sheets favour an extensive, bipolar Ice
House World.
Habitat of Neoproterozoic oil
The first economically important accumulations of
hydrocarbons are from Neoproterozoic sources.
The two major source rocks of this age (Nepa of
Siberia and Huqf of Oman) occur in association
with massive Neoproterozoic evaporite deposits.
The locations of these fields are plotted in
Figures 7 and 10. On both maps the Neoproterozoic
source rocks occur in the warm equatorial–
subtropical belt, within 308 of the equator. If one
were to explore for additional Neoproterozoic
source rocks, the most likely place to look would
be the warm shallow seas of East Gondwana, the
Canadian Arctic and cratonic Siberia.
The author would like to thank the Geological Society of
London for the opportunity to present this work at the Con-
ference on Global Infracambrian Hydrocarbon Systems,
London, 29–30 November 2006. J. Craig deserves
credit and thanks for encouraging the author to finish this
contribution. In addition, the author also would like to
thank A. Smith, A. Collins and Z. X. Li for their con-
structive comments regarding the manuscript. The author
greatly benefited from discussions regarding Neoprotero-
zoic plate tectonics with D. Nance, W. S. McKerrow,
J. Goodge, P. Hoffman, J. Meert, R. Hanson, M. Brookfield
and R. Stern. Much of the original research concerning the
location of Pan-African sutures and timing of plate tectonic
events was carried out by D. Nance and W. S. McKerrow.
The research presented here was made possible by the
companies that support the plate tectonic, palaeogeo-
graphic and palaeoclimatic research of the PALEOMAP
Project. All of the figures presented in this paper are
used with the permission of the PALEOMAP Project.
This paper is dedicated to the memory of C. Powell, who
was an inspirational pioneer in the field of ‘impossible’
Neoproterozoic plate tectonics.
References
AUDLEY-CHARLES, M. 1988. Evolution of the southern
margin of Tethys (North Australian region) from
early Permian to late Cretaceous. In:A
UDLEY-
C
HARLES,M.&HALLAM, A. (eds) Gondwana
and Tethys. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 37, 79– 100.
B
AUER, W., THOMAS,R.J.&JACOBS, J. 2003.
Proterozoic–Cambrian history of Dronning Maud
Land in the context of Gondwana Assembly. In:
Y
OSHIDA, M., WINDLEY,B.F.&DASGUPTA,S.
(eds) Proterozoic East Gondwana: Supercontinent
Assembly and Breakup. Geological Society, London,
special Publications, 206, 247–269.
B
OGER,S.D.&MILLER,J.MCL. 2004. Terminal
suturing of Gondwana and the onset of the Ross–
Delamerian Orogeny: the cause and effect of an
Early Cambrian reconfiguration of plate motions.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 219, 35– 48.
B
OGER, S. D., WILSON,C.J.L.&FANNING, C. M. 2001.
Early Palaeozoic tectonism within the East Antarctic
craton: the final suture between East and West Gond-
wana? Geology, 29, 463– 466.
B
OND, G. C., NICKERSON,P.A.&KOMINZ, M. A. 1984.
Breakup of a supercontinent between 625 and 555 Ma:
new evidence and implications for continental
histories. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 70,
325–345.
B
OZHKO, N. A. 1986. The evolution of the mobile zones of
Gondwana and Laurasia in the Late Precambrian.
Tectonophysics, 126, 125– 135.
B
RASIER,M.D.&LINDSAY, J. F. 2001. Did superconti-
nent amalgamation trigger the Cambrian Explosion?
In:Z
HURAVLEV,A.Y.&RIDING, R. (eds) The
Ecology of the Cambrian Radiation. Perspectives in
Palaeobiology and Earth History. Columbia Univer-
sity Press, New York, 69–89.
B
URRETT,C.&BERRY, R. 2000. Proterozoic Australia–
Western United States (AUSWUS) fit between Lauren-
tia and Australia. Geology, 28, 103–116.
B
URRETT,C.&BERRY, R. 2002. A statistical approach to
defining Proterozoic crustal provinces and testing con-
tinental reconstructions of Australia and Laurentia –
SWEAT or AUSWUS? Gondwana Research, 5,
109–122.
B
URRETT, C., LONG,J.&STAIT, B. 1990. Early–Middle
Palaeozoic biogeography of Asia terranes derived from
Gondwana. In:M
CKERROW,W.S.&SCOTESE,C.R.
(eds) Palaeozoic Palaeogeography and Biogeography.
Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 12, 163– 174.
C
AWOOD, P. A., MCCAUSLAND,P.J.A.&DUNNING,
G. R. 2001. Opening Iapetus: constraints from the
Laurentian margin in Newfoundland. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 113, 443 –453.
C
AWOOD, P. A., NEMCHIN, A. A., STRACHAN, R.,
P
RAVE,T.&KRABBENDAM, M. 2007. Sedimentary
basin and detrital zircon record along East Laurentia
and Baltica during the assembly and breakup of
Rodinia. Journal of the Geological Society, London,
164, 257 –275.
C
HEMALE, F., ALKMIM,F.F.&ENDO, I. 1993. Late Pro-
terozoic tectonism in the interior of the Sao Francisco
craton. In:F
INDLAY, R. H., UNRUG, R., BANKS,M.R.
&V
EEVERS, J. J. (eds) Gondwana Eight: Assembly,
Evolution and Dispersal. Balkema, Rotterdam, 29–42.
C
OCKS,L.R.M.&TORSVIK, T. H. 2002. Earth geogra-
phy from 500 to 400 million years ago: a faunal and
palaeomagnetic review. Journal of the Geological
Society, London, 159, 631–644.
C. R. SCOTESE80
CONDIE, K. C. 2003. Supercontinents, superplumes and
continental growth: the Neopropterozoic record. In:
Y
OSHIDA, M., WINDLEY,B.F.&DASGUPTA,S.
(eds) Proterozoic East Gondwana: Supercontinent
Assembly and Breakup. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 206, 1 –21.
C
ONRAD,C.P.&LITHGOW-BERTELLONI, C. 2002. How
mantle slabs drive plate tectonics. Science, 298,
207–209.
C
OSCA, M. A. 1998. The Baltica–Laurentia connection:
Sveconorwegian (Grenvillian) metamorphism, cool-
ing, and unroofing in the Bamble sector, Norway.
Journal of Geology, 106, 549 –552.
D
ALY, M. C. 1986. Crustal shear zones and thrust belts:
their geometry and continuity in Central Africa. Philo-
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
A317, 111– 128.
D
ALZIEL, I. W. D. 1991. Pacific margins of Laurentia and
East Antarctica as a conjugate rift pair: evidence and
implications for an Eocambrian supercontinent.
Geology, 19, 598– 601.
D
ALZIEL, I. W. D. 1997. Neoproterozoic–Palaeozoic
geography and tectonics: review, hypothesis and
environmental speculation. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 109, 16 –42.
D
ALZIEL, I. W. D., MOSHER,S.&GAHAGAN,L.M.
2000. Laurentia–Kalahari collision and the assembly
of Rodinia. Journal of Geology, 108, 499– 513.
D
IRKS,P.H.G.M.&WILSON, C. J. L. 1995. Crustal
evolution of the East Antarctic mobile belt in Prydz
Bay: continental collision at 500 Ma? Precambrian
Research, 75, 189– 207.
E
VANS, D. A. 1998. True polar wander, a supercontinental
legacy. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 157,1–8.
G
EE,D.G.&PEASE, V. 2004. The Neoproterozoic Tima-
nide Orogen of Eastern Baltica. Geological Society,
London, Memoirs, 30, 255.
F
ORSYTH,D.&UYEDA, S. 1975. On the relative impor-
tance of driving forces of plate motion. Geophysical
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 43,
163–189.
G
OODGE, J. W. 2002. From Rodinia to Gondwana: super-
continent evolution in the Transantarctic Mountains.
In:G
AMBLE,J.&SKINNER, D. A. (eds) Antarctica
at the Close of a Millenium. Proceedings of the 8th
International Symposium on Antarctic Earth
Science. Royal Society of New Zealand Bulletin, 35,
61–74.
G
OWER,C.F.&OWEN, V. 1984. Pre-Grenvillilan and
Grenvillian lithotectonic regions in eastern Labrador
– correlations with the Sveconorwegian orogenic belt
in Sweden. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 21,
678–693.
G
RADSTEIN, F. M., OGG,J.G.&SMITH, A. G. 2004.
A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
H
AMBREY,M.J.&HARLAND, W. B. 1981. Earth’s
Pre-Pleistocene Glacial Record. Cambridge Univer-
isty Press, Cambridge.
H
OFFMAN, P. F. 1991. Did the breakout of Laurentia turn
Gondwanaland inside out? Science, 252, 1409– 1412.
H
OFFMAN, P. F. 1999. The break-up of Rodinia, birth of
Gondwana, true polar wander and the snowball
Earth. In:D
EWIT, M. J. (ed.) Gondwana 10: Event
Stratigraphy of Gondwana – Keynote Presentations.
Journal of African Earth Sciences, 28, 17–33.
H
OFFMAN, P. F., KAUFMAN, A. J., HALVERSON,G.P.&
S
CHRAG, D. P. 1998. A Neoproterozoic snowball
Earth. Science, 281, 1342–1346.
I
RELAND, T. R., FLOETTMANN, C. M., FANNING, C. M.,
G
IBSON,G.M.&PREISS, W. V. 1998. Development
of the Early Palaeozoic Pacific margin of Gondwana
from detrital-zircon ages across the Delamerian
Orogen. Geology, 26, 243–246.
J
ACOBS, J., KLEMD, R., FANNING, C. M., BAUER,W.&
C
OLOMBO, F. 2003. Extensional collapse of the late
Neoproterozoic–early Palaeozoic East Africa–
Antarctic orogen in central Dronning Maud Land,
East Antarctica. In:Y
OSHIDA, M., WINDLEY,B.F.
&D
ASGUPTA, S. (eds) Proterozoic East Gondwana:
Supercontinent Assembly and Breakup. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 206, 271–287.
J
OHN, T., SCHENK, V., HAUSE, K., SCHEERER,E.&
T
EMBO, F. 2003. Evidence for a Neoproterozoic
ocean in south-central Africa from mid-ocean-ridge-
type geochemical signatures and pressure-temperature
estimates of Zambian eclogites. Geology, 31,
243–246.
J
OHNSON,P.R.&WOLDEHAIMANOT, B. 2003. Develop-
ment of the Arabian– Nubian shield: perspectives on
accretion and deformation in the northern East
African Orogen and the assembly of Gondwana. In:
Y
OSHIDA, M., WINDLEY,B.F.&DASGUPTA,S.
(eds) Proterozoic East Gondwana: Supercontinent
Assembly and Breakup. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 206, 289–325.
J
OHNSON, S. P., RIVERS,T.&DE WAELE, B. 2005. A
review of the Mesoproterozoic to early Palaeozoic
magmatic and tectonothermal history of south-central
Africa: implications for Rodinia and Gondwana.
Journal of the Geological Society, London, 162,
433–450.
K
ALSBEEK, F., THRANE, K., NUTMAN,A.P.&JEPSEN,
H. F. 2000. Late Mesoproterozoic to early Neoprotero-
zoic history of East Greenland Caledonides: evidence
for Grenvillian orogenisis? Journal of the Geological
Society, London, 157, 1215–1225.
K
ARLSTROM, K. E., HARLAN, S. S., WILLIAMS, M. L.,
M
CCLELLAND, J., GEISSMAN,J.W.&AHALL,
K.-I. 1999. Refining Rodinia: geologic evidence for
the Australia – western US connection in the Protero-
zoic. GSA Today, 9,1–7.
K
IRSCHVINK, J. L. 1992a. Late Proterozoic low-
latitude global glaciation: the Snowball Earth. In:
S
CHOPF,J.W.&KLEIN, C. (eds) The Proterozoic
Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
51–52.
K
IRSCHVINK, J. L. 1992b. A palaeogeographic model for
Vendian and Cambrian time. In:S
CHOPF,J.W.&
K
LEIN, C. (eds) The Proterozoic Biosphere. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 569–581.
K
IRSCHVINK, J. L., RIPPERDAN,R.L.&EVANS,D.A.
1997. Evidence for large-scale reorganization of
Early Cambrian continental masses by inertial inter-
change true polar wander. Science, 277, 541–545.
L
AWVER,L.A.&SCOTESE, C. R. 1987. A revised
reconstruction of Gondwanaland. In:M
CKENZIE,
G. D. (ed.) Gondwana Six: Structure, Tectonics and
PLATE TECTONICS AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHY 81
Geophysics. American Geophysical Union, Geophysi-
cal Monograph, 40, 17– 24.
L
I,Z.X.&POWELL,C.MCA. 1993. Late Proterozoic to
early Palaeozoic palaeomagnetism and the formation
of Gondwanaland. In:F
INDLAY, R. H., UNRUG, R.,
B
ANKS,M.R.&VEEVERS, J. J. (eds) Gondwana
Eight: Assembly, Evolution and Dispersal. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 9 –21.
L
I, Z. X., ZHANG,L.&POWELL,C.MCA. 1996. Positions
of the East Asian cratons in the Proterozoic supercon-
tinent Rodinia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences,
43, 593 –604.
L
I, Z. X., EVANS,D.A.D.&ZHANG, S. 2004. A 90
degree spin on Rodinia: possible causal links
between the Neoproterozoic supercontinent, super-
plume, true polar wander and low-latitude glaciation.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 220, 409– 421.
L
I, Z. X., BOGDANOVA,S.V.ET AL. 2007. Assembly,
configuration, and break-up history of Rodinia: a syn-
thesis. Precambrian Research, 160, 179–210.
L
OWE, D. R. 1992. Major events in the geological events
in the geological development of the Precambrian
Earth. In:S
CHOPF,J.W.&KLEIN, C. (eds) The Pro-
terozoic Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 67 –75.
M
CMENAMIN,M.A.S.&MCMENAMIN, D. L. S. 1990.
The Emergence of Animals: The Cambrian Break-
through. Columbia University Press, New York.
M
CNAMARA, A. K., MAC NIOCAILL, C., VAN DER
PLUIJM,B.A.&VAN DER VOO, R. 2001. West
African proximity of the Avalon terrane in the latest
Precambrian. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
1131, 1161 –1170.
M
EERT, J. G. 2003. A synopsis of events related to the
assembly of eastern Gondwana. Tectonophysics, 362,
1–40.
M
EERT,J.G.&TORSVIK, T. H. 2004. Palaeomagnetic
constraints on Neoproterozoic ‘Snowball Earth’
continental reconstructions. In:J
ENKINS, G. S.,
M
CMENAMIN, M. A., MCKAY,C.P.&SOHL,L.
(eds) The Extreme Proterozoic: Geology, Geochemis-
try and Climate. American Geophysical Union,
Geophysical Monograph, 146, 5 –12.
M
EERT,J.G.&VAN DER VOO, R. 1994. Palaeomagnet-
ism of the Catoctin volcanic province: a new Vendian–
Cambrian apparent polar wander path for North
America. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99,
4625–4641.
M
ETCALFE, I. 1993. Southeast Asian terranes: Gondwana-
land origins and evolution. In:F
INDLAY, R. H.,
U
NRUG, R., BANKS,M.R.&VEEVERS, J. J. (eds)
Gondwana Eight: Assembly, Evolution and Dispersal.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 181– 200.
M
ETCALFE, I. 1999. Gondwana dispersion and Asian acc-
retion: an overview. In:M
ETCALFE, I., JISHUN, R.,
C
HARVET,J.&HADA, S. (eds) Gondwana Dispersion
and Asia Accretion. Balkema, Rotterdam, 9–28.
M
ETZ, K. S. 2001. The Palaeogeography of the Protero-
zoic. Masters Thesis, Department of Earth and
Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at
Arlington, Arlington, TX.
M
OORES, E. M. 1991. Southwest U.S. –East Antarctica
(SWEAT) connection: a hypothesis. Geology, 19,
425–428.
M
URPHY,J.B.&NANCE, R. D. 1989. Model for the evol-
ution of the Avalonian– Cadomian belt. Geology, 17,
735–738.
M
URPHY,J.B.&NANCE, R. D. 1991. Supercontinent
model for the contrasting character of Late Proterozoic
orogenic belts. Geology, 19, 469 –472.
N
ANCE,R.D.&MURPHY, J. B. 1994. Contrasting base-
ment isotopic signatures and the palinspastic restor-
ation of peripheral orogens: example from the
Neoproterozoic Avalonian–Cadomian belt. Geology,
22, 617–620.
N
ANCE,R.D.,MURPHY,J.B.,STRACHAN,R.A.,
D’L
EMOS,R.S.&TAYLOR,G.K.1991.LateProtero-
zoic tectonostratigraphic evolution of the Avalonian and
Cadomian terranes. Precambrian Research, 53, 41–78.
P
ELECHATY, S. M. 1996. Stratigraphic evidence for
Siberia–Laurentia connection and Early Cambrian
Rifting. Geology, 24, 719–722.
P
ISAREVSKY, S. A., WINGATE, M. T. D., POWELL,
C. M
CA., JOHNSON,S.&EVANS, D. A. D. 2003.
Models of Rodinia assembly and fragmentation. In:
Y
OSHIDA, M., WINDLEY,B.F.&DASGUPTA,S.
(eds) Proterozoic East Gondwana: Supercontinent
Assembly and Breakup. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 206, 35 –55.
P
OWELL,C.MCA., MCELHINNY, M. W., LI, Z. X.,
M
EERT,J.G.&PARK, J. K. 1993. Palaeomagnetic
constraints on the timing of the Neoproterozoic
breakup of Rodinia and the Cambrian formation of
Gondwana. Geology, 21, 889–892.
P
OWELL,C.MCA. 1995. Are Neoproterozoic glacial
deposits preserved on the margins of Laurentia
related to the fragmentation of two supercontinents?
Comment. Geology, 23, 1053–1054.
R
IVERS, T. 1997. Lithotectonic elements of the Grenville
Province: review and tectonic implications. Precam-
brian Research, 86, 117–154.
R
OGERS, J. J. W. 1995. Tectonic assembly of Gondwana.
Journals of Geodynamics, 19, 1 –34.
R
OSS,M.I.&SCOTESE, C. R. 1988. A hierarchical tec-
tonic model of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean
Region. In:S
COTESE,C.R.&SAGER, W. W. (eds)
Mesozoic and Cenozoic Plate Reconstructions. Tecto-
nophysics, 155, 139– 168.
R
OWELL, A. J., REES, M. N., DUEBENDORFER, E. M.,
W
ALLIN, E. T., VAN SCHMUS,W.R.&SMITH,E.I.
1993. An active Neoproterozoic margin: evidence
from the Skelton Glacier area, Transantarctic Moun-
tains. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 150,
677–682.
S
CARROW, J. H., PEASE, V., FLEUTELOT,C.&DUSHIN,
V. 2001. The late Neoproterozoic Enganepe ophiolite,
Polar Urals Russia: an extension of the Cadomian arc?
Precambrian Research, 110, 255 –275.
S
COTESE, C. R. 1991. Jurassic and Cretaceous plate tec-
tonic reconstructions. Palaeogeography, Palaeoecol-
ogy, Palaeoclimatology, 87, 493 –501.
S
COTESE, C. R. 1998. A tale of two supercontinents:
the assembly of Rodinia; its break-up, and the for-
mation of Pannoia during the Pan-African event. In:
A
LMOND, J., ANDERSON,J.ET AL. (eds) Gondwana
10: Event Stratigraphy of Gondwana (Special
Abstracts Issue). Journal of African Earth Sciences,
27, 171.
C. R. SCOTESE82
SCOTESE,C.R.&MCKERROW, W. S. 1990. Revised
world maps and Introduction. In:M
CKERROW,
W. S. & S
COTESE, C. R. (eds) Palaeozoic Palaeogeo-
graphy and Biogeography. Geological Society,
London, Memoirs, 12, 1–21.
S
COTESE,C.R.&ROWLEY, D. B. 1985. The orthogonal-
ity of subduction: an empirical rule? Tectonophysics,
116, 173–187.
S
COTESE, C. R., BOUCOT,A.J.&MCKERROW,W.S.
1999. Gondwanan palaeogeography and palaeoclima-
tology. In:D
EWIT, M. J. (ed.) Gondwana 10:
Event Stratigraphy of Gondwana – Keynote Presen-
tations. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 28,
99–114.
S
EARS,J.W.&PRICE, R. A. 2000. New look at the
Siberian connection: no SWEAT. Geology, 28,
423–426.
S
ENGOR, A. M. C., ALTINER, D., CIN, A., USTAOMER,T.
&H
SU, K. 1988. Origin and assembly of the Tethyside
orogenic collage at the expense of Gondwana Land.
In:A
UDLEY-CHARLES,M.&HALLAM, A. (eds)
Gondwana and Tethys. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 37, 119–181.
S
ENGOR,A.M.C.&NATAL’IN, B. A. 1996. Palaeotec-
tonics of Asia: fragments of a synthesis. In:Y
IN,A.
&H
ARRISON, M. (eds) The Tectonic Evolution of
Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
486–640.
S
MITH, A. G. 1999. Gondwana: its shape, sise, position
from Cambrian to Triassic times. In:D
EWIT,M.J.
(ed.) Gondwana 10: Event Stratigraphy of
Gondwana – Keynote Presentations. Journal of
African Earth Sciences, 28, 71 –98.
S
MITH, A. G. 2001. Palaeomagnetically and tectonically
based global maps for the Vendian to mid-Ordovician.
In:Z
HURAVLEV,A.YU.&RIDING, R. (eds) The
Ecology of the Cambrian Radiation. Perspectives in
Palaeobiology and Earth History. Columbia Univer-
sity Press, New York, 11 –46.
S
TERN, R. J. 1994. Arc assembly and continental collision
in the Neoproterozoic East Africa Orogen: impli-
cations for the consolidation of Gondwanaland.
Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33,
319–351.
S
TERN, R. J. 2002. Crustal evolution in the East African
Orogen: a neodymium isotopic perspective. Journal
of African Earth Sciences, 34, 109–117.
S
TEWART, J. H. 2007. World Map showing surface and
subsurface distribution, and lithologic character of
Middle and Late Neoproterozoic Rocks. USGS Open-
File Report 2007-1087, Menlo Park, 52.
T
OHVER, E., VAN DER PLUIJM, B. A., VAN DER VOO, R.,
R
IZZOTTO,G.&SCANDOLARA, J. E. 2002.
Palaeogeography of the Amazon craton at 1.2 Ga:
early Grenvillian collision with the Llano segment of
Laurentia. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 199,
185–200.
T
ORSVIK,T.H.&REHNSTROM, E. F. 2001. Cambrian
palaeomagnetic data from Baltica: implications for
true polar wander and Cambrian palaeogeography.
Journal of the Geological Society, London, 158,
321–329.
T
ORSVIK, T. H., RYAN, P. D., TRENCH,A.&HARPER,
D. A. T. 1991. Cambrian–Ordovician palaeogeogra-
phy of Baltica. Geology, 19, 7 –10.
T
ORSVIK, T. H., SMETHHURST,M.A.ET AL. 1996. Con-
tinental breakup and collision in the Neoproterozoic
and Palaeozoic – A tale of Baltica and Laurentia.
Earth Science Reviews, 40, 229 –258.
T
ORSVIK, T. H., SMETHHURST, M. A., VAN DER VOO,
R., T
RENCH, A., ABRAHAMSEN,N.&HALVORSEN,
E. 1992. Baltica: A synposis of Vendian–
Permian palaeomagnetic data and their palaeo-
tectonic implications. Earth-Science Reviews, 33,
1–20.
T
ROMPETTE, R. 1994. Geology of Western Gondwana
(2000– 500 Ma): Pan-African– Brasiliano Aggrega-
tion of South America and Africa (transl. by
C
AROZZI, A. V.). Balkema, Rotterdam, 350.
T
ROMPETTE, R. 1997. Neoproterozoic (600 Ma) aggre-
gation of Western Gondwana: a tentative scenario.
Precambrian Research, 82, 101–112.
V
EEVERS, J. J. 2000. Billion-year earth history of
Australia and neighbors in Gondwanaland. GEMOC
Press, Sydney, Australia.
W
ANG, Y., LU, S., GAO, Z., LIN,W.&MA, G. 1981.
Sinian tillites of China. In:H
AMBREY,M.J.&
H
ARLAND, W. B. (eds) Earth’s Pre-Pliestocene
Glacial Record. IGCP Project 38: Pre-Pleistocene
Tillites. Cambridge Universiy Press, Cambridge,
386–401.
W
ATTERS, B. R. 1976. Possible late Precambrian
subduction zone in South West Africa. Nature, 259,
471–473.
W
EIL, A. B., VAN DER VOO, R., MACNIOCALL,C.&
M
EERT, J. G. 1998. The Proterozoic supercontinent
Rodinia, palaeomagnetically derived reconstructions
for 1100–800 Ma. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, 154, 13– 24.
W
INGATE, M. T. D., PISAREVSKY,S.A.&EVANS,D.A.
2002. Rodinia connections between Australia and
Laurentia; no SWEAT, no AUSWUS? Terra Nova,
14, 121 –128.
Y
OUNG, G. M. 1992. Late Proterozoic stratigraphy and
the Canada– Australia connection. Geology, 20,
215–218.
PLATE TECTONICS AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHY 83
