TECTONICS, VOL. 24, TC4008, doi:10.
1029/2003TC001617, 2005
Structural geology and regional tectonic significance
of the Ramgarh thrust, Himalayan fold-thrust belt
of Nepal
Ofori N. Pearson and Peter G. DeCelles
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Received 22 December 2003; revised 7 March 2005; accepted 30 March 2005; published 30 July 2005.
[1] The Ramgarh thrust is one of the major fault
systems of the Himalayan thrust belt in Nepal and
northern India. The Ramgarh thrust sheet is
0.2–
2.0 km thick and can be traced along strike the entire
length of the Himalaya in Nepal. The fault generally
places the oldest Paleoproterozoic rocks in the Lesser
Himalayan series upon younger Lesser Himalayan
rocks or lower Miocene foreland basin deposits.
Regional balanced cross sections suggest that the
Ramgarh thrust had at least
120 km of initial south
vergent displacement. Subsequently, the frontal part of
the thrust experienced further slip as the roof thrust for
a large duplex in underlying Lesser Himalayan rocks.
Ramgarh hanging wall strata are greenschist-grade
phyllite, quartzite, and augen gneiss, all of which
locally exhibit phyllonitic and mylonitic fabrics that
indicate a top-to-the-south sense of shear. Structural
fabrics in the Ramgarh thrust sheet are generally
parallel to the fabrics in rocks above and below the
thrust sheet. Regional and local mapping of the
Ramgarh thrust in Nepal demonstrates that the fault
always places a hanging wall flat upon a footwall flat,
except where local lateral ramps complicate its
geometry. Similarly, the structurally overlying Main
Central thrust always places a hanging wall flat in
Greater Himalayan series rocks upon the regionally
flat Ramgarh thrust sheet. These geometric
relationships preclude kinematic and thermal models
that elevate Greater Himalayan and lower Lesser
Himalayan rocks along high-angle thrust ramps in the
vicinity of the present traces of the Ramgarh and Main
Central thrust faults. Instead, the corresponding
footwall ramps for these thrusts must be located
more than 100 km north of the current trace of the
Main Central thrust. The present steep dips of the
Ramgarh and Main Central thrust sheets can be
attributed to tilting during emplacement of
structurally lower thrust sheets within a large
antiformal duplex that occupies most of the Lesser
Himalayan zone. The Ramgarh thrust sheet overlaps a
bed length of at least 100 km in lower Miocene
Copyright 2005 by the American Geophysical Union.
0278-7407/05/2003TC001617
TC4008
foreland basin deposits, indicating that a significant
amount of displacement on the thrust must have
occurred after
15 Ma. Growth of the Lesser
Himalayan duplex and additional slip on the frontal
part of the Ramgarh thrust occurred from
12 to 5 Ma.
The presence of a major greenschist-grade
metasedimentary thrust sheet composed of Lesser
Himalayan rocks directly below the Main Central
thrust suggests that the famous ‘‘inverted
metamorphism’’ in this region is a result of structural
inversion. Similarly, the concept of a broad zone of
intense shear strain related exclusively to emplacement
of the Main Central thrust sheet is probably invalid in
Nepal. Citation: Pearson, O. N., and P. G. DeCelles (2005),
Structural geology and regional tectonic significance of the
Ramgarh thrust, Himalayan fold-thrust belt of Nepal, Tectonics,
24, TC4008, doi:10.1029/2003TC001617.
1. Introduction
[2] In terms of volume, the bulk of the Himalayan thrust
belt in Nepal consists of rocks from the Lesser Himalayan
tectonostratigraphic zone (Figure 1) [Schelling and Arita,
1991; Schelling, 1992; DeCelles et al., 2001; Robinson,
2001; Pearson, 2002; Steck, 2003]. Despite this fact, the
stratigraphy and structural geometry of Lesser Himalayan
zone rocks remain sparsely documented. Notable exceptions
to this are in far-western Nepal [DeCelles et al., 2001;
Robinson, 2001], in the Kathmandu area of central Nepal
[Stöcklin, 1980; Sakai, 1983, 1985, 1989; Pearson, 2002],
and in the Kumaon region of northern India [Valdiya, 1980;
Sinha, 1981; Srivastava and Mitra, 1994, 1996]. These
studies document significant structural complexity and
>250 km of tectonic shortening in Lesser Himalayan rocks.
Workers in the Kumaon region of India [Srivastava and
Mitra, 1994], far-western Nepal [DeCelles et al., 1998b,
2001; Robinson, 2001; Pearson, 2002], and central Nepal
[Pearson, 2002] have shown that a large duplex (the
‘‘Lesser Himalayan duplex’’) and a major thrust fault (the
Ramgarh thrust) in Lesser Himalayan rocks combine to
accommodate most of this tectonic shortening. Recognition
that the Ramgarh thrust is a large-scale and kinematically
important structure challenges the prevailing paradigm in
Himalayan tectonics that most Miocene-Recent shortening
was accommodated by the better known Main Central,
Main Boundary, and Main Frontal thrusts (see summary
1 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 1. (a) Shaded relief map showing the extent of the Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau orogeny and the
location of Nepal. (b) Geologic map of Nepal. Note the areas covered by maps in subsequent figures. See
color version of this figure in the HTML.

by Hodges [2000]). Although the fault is depicted on
regional compilation maps of Nepal [Shrestha et al.,
1987b] and is relatively well known in the Kumaon region
of northern India [Valdiya, 1980], no systematic study of the
Ramgarh thrust has been published, and its significance for
the regional kinematic history of the Himalayan thrust belt
in Nepal has only recently been noted [DeCelles et al.,
2001; Robinson et al., 2003].
[3] In this paper, we provide a systematic description of
the Ramgarh thrust at seven locations across Nepal
(Figure 1). Minor details notwithstanding, the stratigraphic
and structural features of the Ramgarh thrust sheet are
remarkably consistent along the >800 km length of the
thrust belt in Nepal. Our observations suggest that the
Ramgarh thrust is an important regional-scale structure,
and that an understanding of the fault’s structural character-
istics provides new insights into some of the outstanding
issues in Himalayan tectonics. In particular, topics that we
address in this paper include (1) how the famous Himalayan
inverted metamorphism is related to the Ramgarh thrust and
growth of the Lesser Himalayan duplex, (2) how the
presence of the Ramgarh thrust influences the concept of
a broad shear zone associated with the Main Central thrust,
(3) the geometric relationship between Lesser and Greater
Himalayan rocks juxtaposed by the Main Central thrust, and
(4) how tectonic shortening was accommodated in the thrust
belt during the middle Miocene after cessation of large-scale
slip on the Main Central thrust and before the onset of
displacement on the Main Boundary thrust.
2. Regional Geology
[4] The Himalayan thrust belt is growing in response to
the collision between India and Eurasia that began during
latest Paleocene to early Eocene time [Achache et al., 1984;
Beck et al., 1995; Pivnik and Wells, 1996; Rowley, 1996;
Najman and Garzanti, 2000; DeCelles et al., 2004], as
supracrustal rocks that drape the northern margin of the
Indian craton are thrust southward relative to India [Powell
and Conaghan, 1973; Coward and Butler, 1985; Mattauer,
1986; DeCelles et al., 2002]. The Indus-Yarlung suture zone
in southern Tibet marks the contact between the Indian and
Eurasian plates, and forms the northern boundary of the
thrust belt [Gansser, 1964; Yin and Harrison, 2000]. South
of the thrust belt, the Indo-Gangetic foreland basin system
has developed as a flexural response to crustal thickening
[Lyon-Caen and Molnar, 1985].
[5] The Himalayan thrust belt in Nepal consists of four
tectonostratigraphic units, separated by major fault systems,
that record the depositional history and tectonic evolution of
northern Gondwana and south central Asia since the early
Proterozoic [Heim and Gansser, 1939; Gansser, 1964,

2 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
Figure 2. Correlation across Nepal of Lesser Himalayan
zone stratigraphic units. Modified after DeCelles et al.
[2001].
1991; Valdiya, 1980; Garzanti, 1999]. From south to north,
these units are the Subhimalayan, Lesser Himalayan, Greater
Himalayan, and Tibetan Himalayan zones (Figure 1).
[6] The Subhimalayan zone is composed of the middle
Miocene to Pleistocene Siwalik Group, which consists of
unmetamorphosed synorogenic sediments shed by the rising
Himalaya and deposited in the foredeep and wedge-top
depozones of the foreland basin system [Lyon-Caen and
Molnar, 1985; DeCelles et al., 1998a, 1998b]. The age of the
Siwalik Group is constrained by a variety of biostratigraphic,
magnetostratigraphic, and isotopic data sets [e.g., West et al.,
1978; Harrison et al., 1993; Quade et al., 1995; Ojha et
al., 2000]. Across Nepal, the base of the Siwalik Group is
always exposed as a fault contact. This ‘‘Main Frontal
thrust’’ separates the Subhimalayan zone from Quaternary
and modern sediments of the active foreland basin. To the
north, the Main Boundary thrust marks the contact between
the Subhimalayan and Lesser Himalayan zones.
[7] The Lesser Himalayan zone consists of an
10 to
13 km thick succession—the Lesser Himalayan series—of
unmetamorphosed sedimentary to greenschist-grade meta-
sedimentary rocks [Sakai, 1983, 1985; Upreti, 1996]. With
minor modifications, we use the stratigraphic schemes of
Tater et al. [1984], Shrestha et al. [1984a, 1984b, 1987a,
1987b], Stöcklin [1980], and Upreti [1996] to describe the
Lesser Himalayan series (Figure 2). The bulk of the Lesser
Himalayan series is known as the Nawakot unit [Upreti,
1996], which is Paleo- to Meso-Proterozoic in age and
consists of strata that accumulated on the passive northern
margin of the Indian craton. Age constraints for the Nawa-
kot unit come largely from U-Pb ages of zircon grains
[DeCelles et al., 2000]. Detrital zircons from the Kushma
and Ranimata formations in far-western Nepal and the
Robang Formation in central Nepal have age distribution
peaks at
1860 and
1940 Ma. The Ulleri granitic augen
gneiss, which intrudes the Ranimata and Kuncha forma-
tions, contains zircons that are 1831 ± 17 Ma [DeCelles et
3 of 26
TC4008
al., 2000]. Deposition of the Kushma and Ranimata for-
mations (and their lateral equivalents) therefore occurred
between
1860 and
1830 Ma. The Sangram and Galyang
formations (and their lateral equivalents) must be younger
than
1680 Ma because they contain detrital zircons of that
age. Common algal stromatolites in the carbonates of the
Upper Nawakot unit suggest a late Proterozoic age [Sakai,
1985]. A major unconformity separates the Nawakot unit
from the uppermost strata of the Lesser Himalayan zone,
which consist of the Gondwanan Unit (Permian to Paleo-
cene [Sakai, 1985]), and the overlying Eocene Bhainskati
and early Miocene Dumri formations. The Bhainskati and
Dumri formations are the oldest Himalayan synorogenic
sediments in Nepal [DeCelles et al., 1998b, 2004].
[8] Where exposed, the base of the Lesser Himalayan
series is always defined by a fault contact. This fault is
commonly the Ramgarh thrust. Across Nepal, the structure
of the Lesser Himalayan zone is dominated by the Lesser
Himalayan duplex, which forms a regional-scale structural
culmination between the Greater Himalayan zone and
structural outliers of Greater Himalayan rocks [Johnson,
1994; DeCelles et al., 2001]. To the north, the Main Central
thrust separates the Lesser Himalayan zone from the Greater
Himalayan zone. The bulk of Lesser Himalayan zone rocks
are metamorphosed to lower greenschist-grade, but in the
proximal footwall of the Main Central thrust, metamorphic
grade increases, and isograds progress northward from
chlorite to garnet, forming part of the oft-cited Himalayan
inverted metamorphic sequence.
[9] The Main Central thrust is undoubtedly the Himalayan
fold-thrust belt’s most studied structure (see summary by
Hodges [2000]), yet despite much work, no clear consensus
exists in the literature on how to define and identify the fault
[e.g., Pêcher, 1989; Arita, 1983; Reddy et al., 1993; Vannay
and Hodges, 1996; Stephenson et al., 2000, 2001]. This is a
function of the fact that distinguishing hanging wall from
footwall rocks is difficult as both are largely composed of
mudrock protoliths that have been highly deformed and
metamorphosed to upper greenschist and amphibolite facies.
Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to debate the
merits of different schemes used to define the Main Central
thrust, it is important to clarify the definition that we use; we
follow Heim and Gansser [1939] in defining the Main
Central thrust as the structure that places Greater Himalayan
zone rocks above Lesser Himalayan zone rocks. For reasons
described in this paper [see also Johnson et al., 2001;
Robinson, 2001; Pearson, 2002; Martin et al., 2005], our
mapping across Nepal suggests that the fault usually man-
ifests itself in the form of a relatively discrete ductile shear
zone that separates isotopically distinct protoliths.
[10] The Greater Himalayan zone contains amphibolite-
grade metasedimentary and meta-igneous rocks and Mio-
cene leucogranites [Le Fort, 1975; Harrison et al., 1997].
U-Pb ages from Greater Himalayan detrital zircons range as
young as
650 Ma, with an age distribution peak at

1050 –1100 Ma [Parrish and Hodges, 1996; Lee et al.,
2000; DeCelles et al., 2000, 2004]. Zircons from augen
orthogneisses in the upper part of the Greater Himalayan
series are
470 – 510 Ma, establishing a minimum age for
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
deposition of Greater Himalayan sedimentary protoliths
[Ferrara et al., 1983; Le Fort et al., 1986; Hodges et al.,
1996; DeCelles et al., 1998a; Le Fort and Räi, 1999;
Gehrels et al., 2003]. Additionally, Nd isotopic data suggest
that Greater Himalayan rocks have younger model ages than
Lesser Himalayan rocks [Parrish and Hodges, 1996;
Whittington et al., 1999; Ahmad et al., 2000; Robinson et
al., 2001]. In Nepal, Robinson et al. [2001] documented an
average eNd(0) value of 21.5 for Lesser Himalayan rocks
and a value of 16 for Greater and Tibetan Himalayan
rocks. Large klippen of Greater Himalayan rocks overlie
Lesser Himalayan rocks in central and western Nepal and in
northern India [Upreti and Le Fort, 1999].
[11] The South Tibetan Detachment system, a group of
north dipping normal faults [Burg and Chen, 1984;
Burchfiel et al., 1992; Hodges et al., 1996; Searle and
Godin, 2003], separates the Greater Himalayan zone from
the Tibetan Himalayan zone. The Tibetan Himalayan zone
forms the northern half of the thrust belt and consists of
Cambrian to Eocene sedimentary rocks that were deposited
on northern India’s Tethyan passive margin and in the early
Himalayan foreland basin system [Gaetani and Garzanti,
1991; Garzanti, 1999]. Provenance and sparse geochrono-
logic data from India and Nepal suggest that rocks in the
Tibetan Himalayan zone were tectonically shortened mainly
during Eocene – Oligocene time [Ratschbacher et al., 1994;
Najman and Garzanti, 2000; Godin et al., 2001; Godin,
2003; DeCelles et al., 2004].
[12] The Main Central thrust and South Tibetan Detach-
ment system were active during the latest Oligocene to
middle Miocene [Hubbard and Harrison, 1989; Harrison et
al., 1992; Hodges et al., 1996; Coleman, 1996; Grujic et al.,
2002; Searle and Godin, 2003]. Recent work in central
Nepal [Hodges et al., 2004] suggests that faults in the
vicinity of the Main Central thrust may have experienced
more recent, out-of-sequence slip. Major displacement
along the Ramgarh thrust occurred between
15 and

11 Ma, and the Lesser Himalayan duplex grew between

11 and
5 Ma [DeCelles et al., 2001]. The Main
Boundary thrust became active during the Pliocene
[DeCelles et al., 1998a, 2001], and the Main Frontal thrust
is currently active [Powers et al., 1998; Wesnousky et al.,
1999; Lavé and Avouac, 2000].
3. Overview of the Ramgarh Thrust
[13] The Ramgarh thrust is named after the town of
Ramgarh, which lies south of Almora in the Nainital District
of India’s Kumaon region. Although the fault has been
recognized in far-western Nepal [Shrestha et al., 1987a,
1987b; DeCelles et al., 2001], a detailed description has not
been published. In the following section, we summarize
descriptions of the fault in India and provide general
evidence for the fault’s existence in Nepal. Further details
are provided in subsequent sections.
3.1. Ramgarh Thrust in India
[14] Several workers [e.g., Heim and Gansser, 1939;
Pande, 1950; Gansser, 1964; Valdiya, 1980; Srivastava
4 of 26
TC4008
and Mitra, 1994] have mapped the Ramgarh thrust in the
Kumaon region of India. The thrust carries Proterozoic
rocks of the Ramgarh Group, which are metasedimentary
rocks that are locally intruded by quartz-porphyry and
porphyritic granite [Heim and Gansser, 1939; Valdiya,
1980]. The Munsiari and Almora thrusts, which also carry
metasedimentary rocks, bound the Ramgarh thrust sheet at
its top [Valdiya, 1980; Srivastava and Mitra, 1994].
Srivastava and Mitra [1994] suggested that the combined
Ramgarh, Munsiari, and Almora thrusts accommodated
>180 km of displacement. The Ramgarh thrust places the
Ramgarh Group above younger Lesser Himalayan strata,
usually the Proterozoic Nagthat/Berinag or Blaini forma-
tions [Valdiya, 1980; Srivastava and Mitra, 1994; Sharma et
al., 2003]. The two key observations that led workers to
define the contact between the overlying Ramgarh Group
and the underlying Nagthat/Berinag or Blaini formations as
a structural, rather than a depositional contact were (1) a
zone of pronounced mylonitization in the proximal hanging
wall of the Ramgarh thrust (mylonites are absent in the
footwall of the fault [Pande, 1950; Valdiya, 1980]) and
(2) the assumed older-on-younger relationship caused by
the juxtaposition of the Ramgarh Group and underlying
Lesser Himalayan zone rocks.
[15] Despite the presence of low-grade metasedimentary
rocks within the Ramgarh Group, most workers have
referred to it as crystalline basement rocks, hence the
assumption that the Ramgarh Group was older than the
underlying Lesser Himalayan zone rocks. Heim and
Gansser [1939] and Gansser [1964] suggested that the
Ramgarh Group is part of the crystalline Almora klippe,
which is erroneously considered by some to be Indian
crystalline basement [DeCelles et al., 2000; Gehrels et al.,
2003]. The presence of low-grade metasedimentary rocks
within the Ramgarh Group, however, indicates that it is
neither Indian cratonic basement nor related to the Almora
klippe. Instead, the Ramgarh Group represents the lower
part of the Lesser Himalayan series. This interpretation is
supported by Nd isotope studies [Ahmad et al., 2000],
which show that Ramgarh Group rocks have eNd(0) values
and early Proterozoic model ages that are typical of lower
Lesser Himalayan zone rocks in Nepal [e.g., Parrish and
Hodges, 1996; Robinson et al., 2001]. Thus the Ramgarh
Group is in fact even older than early workers had thought,
and the older-on-younger thrust relationship for the Ram-
garh thrust remains valid.
3.2. Evidence for the Ramgarh Thrust in Nepal
[16] Following Shrestha et al. [1987b], DeCelles et al.
[1998b, 2001] mapped the Ramgarh thrust in far-western
Nepal, where the Kushma and Ranimata formations (the
lowermost Lesser Himalayan units) are commonly thrust
above stratigraphically higher Lesser Himalayan rocks
(Figure 2). The fault that carries the Kushma and Ranimata
formations therefore plays a role that is structurally equiv-
alent to that of the Ramgarh thrust in Kumaon. Moreover,
the type Ramgarh thrust in Kumaon and the fault in far-
western Nepal both crop out in similar locations in the thrust
belt. In Kumaon, the Ramgarh thrust occurs in the proximal
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
footwall of the Munsiari thrust, and is folded underneath the
Almora klippe [Valdiya, 1980; Srivastava and Mitra, 1994].
In far-western Nepal, the fault that carries the Kushma and
Ranimata formations is exposed in the footwall of the Main
Central thrust, and is folded conformably underneath the
Dadeldhura/Karnali klippe, which is the eastward continu-
ation of the Almora klippe. For these reasons, DeCelles et
al. [1998b, 2001] defined the Ramgarh thrust in far-western
Nepal as the fault that places greenschist-grade rocks of the
Kushma and Ranimata formations above less metamor-
phosed upper Lesser Himalayan series rocks.
[17] Robinson [2001] and Pearson [2002] also described
the Ramgarh thrust in far-western Nepal, and DeCelles et al.
[2001] suggested that the fault is also present in central and
eastern Nepal. In the following sections, we provide de-
tailed descriptions of the Ramgarh thrust across Nepal that
show the fault to be a regional-scale structure that ranks
with the Main Central, Main Boundary, and Main Frontal
thrusts in terms of shortening and tectonic significance for
the structural evolution of the Himalayan thrust belt. The
descriptions of the fault in the Pokhara and Kathmandu
regions of central Nepal should be especially valuable
because geologic research in Nepal is concentrated in these
areas. This new structural information will enable workers
to combine diverse data sets (e.g., thermochronologic and
thermobarometric studies) to produce a broader and more
complete picture of the thrust belt’s evolution.
4. Descriptions of the Ramgarh Thrust in
Nepal
[18] Over the course of three field seasons, we mapped
the Ramgarh thrust in numerous locations across Nepal.
This section provides detailed descriptions of the fault from
seven locations where it is especially well exposed. From
west to east, these locations are (Figure 1): the Dhuli area of
far-western Nepal; the Modi and Marsyandi River valleys
near Pokhara in central Nepal; the Bhainsedobhan, Mal-
ekhu-Galcchi Bajar, and Langtang areas in the Kathmandu
region of central Nepal; and the Tribeni area in eastern
Nepal. Mapping was carried out along foot traverses at
scales of 1:25,000, 1:50,000, and 1:63,500, depending on
available topographic maps.
4.1. Far-Western Nepal: Dhuli Area
[19] The best exposure of the Ramgarh thrust that we
have found in far-western Nepal is near the remote village
of Dhuli, in the northern part of Bajhang district (Figure 3).
At Dhuli, the Ramgarh thrust sheet is
2 km thick, and is
sandwiched between the northernmost horse of a large
duplex in Lesser Himalayan rocks to the south and Greater
Himalayan rocks carried by the Main Central thrust to the
north (Figure 4a). The Ramgarh thrust sheet at Dhuli
consists of the Kushma and Ranimata formations. The
Kushma Formation is
600 m thick, and is a well-exposed,
thickly bedded, pure orthoquartzite. Muscovite is present in
varying amounts throughout the unit. Sedimentary struc-
tures are locally well preserved and include oscillatory
5 of 26
TC4008
current ripples and planar (Figure 4b), trough, and hum-
mocky cross stratification. Facing directions of sedimentary
structures indicate that the quartzite is structurally upright.
The contact between the Kushma Formation and the over-
lying Ranimata Formation is sharp and conformable. Within
a stratigraphic interval of
10 m, the thick quartzite beds of
the Kushma Formation thin and become increasingly inter-
bedded with chloritic phyllite. We map the base of the
Ranimata Formation where phyllite becomes the dominant
lithology. The Ranimata Formation is
1300 m thick, and is
predominantly a chloritic or sericitic phyllite with a distinc-
tive green color and silky luster. Toward the top of the
Ranimata Formation, near the Main Central thrust, the unit
becomes a fine- to medium-grained chloritic schist. Small
garnet porphyroblasts are abundant throughout the Rani-
mata Formation, as are white quartz augen, lenticles, and
veins. At Dhuli, both the Kushma and Ranimata formations
are also present in the footwall of the Ramgarh thrust
(Figure 3). The two formations in the footwall of the fault
are virtually identical both in terms of lithology and
stratigraphic thickness to those in the hanging wall of the
Ramgarh thrust, with a few minor variations. In the footwall
of the fault, the Ranimata Formation also contains sills of
altered (chloritized) diorite (Figure 4c) and occasional
occurrences of thinly bedded carbonates and gray quartzites.
[20] The Ramgarh thrust is spectacularly exposed in fresh
outcrops along the east bank of the Seti River. This is one of
the two locations we have found where it is possible to
observe the actual fault surface. We did not observe any
kinematic indicators on the fault surface, but a tight Z-
shaped fold in the quartzite directly above the fault surface
shows clockwise rotation, implying a top-to-the-south sense
of motion for the hanging wall (Figure 4d). The Kushma
quartzite in the Ramgarh thrust sheet is an L-S tectonite.
Lineation and foliation are especially well developed toward
the base of the quartzite in the proximal hanging wall of the
Ramgarh thrust, and are more poorly defined toward the top
of the unit. Muscovite crystals define lineation, and quartz
grains show a strong shape-preferred orientation that defines
a continuous foliation (Figure 5). This foliation is generally
parallel to original bedding surfaces, but in some locations
intersects it at a very low angle (
2 – 5). This low-angle
foliation dips toward the north at a slightly steeper angle
than original bedding surfaces, suggesting a top-to-the south
sense of shear. It is possible that the subparallel bedding and
foliation surfaces formed through transposition, but with the
exception of infrequent small Z folds in the proximal
hanging wall of the Ramgarh thrust, we have found no
evidence to support tight isoclinal folding within the
Kushma Formation. It is more likely that the foliation
developed through progressive simple shear, in which case
the Kushma Formation may have accommodated a large
amount of strain. As the foliation is more pronounced
toward the base of the Kushma Formation, this simple shear
is probably related to displacement along the Ramgarh
thrust.
[21] Microstructures within the Kushma quartzite suggest
that deformation within the Ramgarh thrust sheet occurred
at temperatures consistent with upper greenschist- to lower
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 3. (a) Geologic map of the Dhuli area. Poles to bedding/foliation and mean surface within each
formation/zone are shown in the equal-area, lower hemisphere stereonet plots. Mean bedding/foliation
values are (strike/dip) 277/43 (n = 15) in Tibetan zone rocks; 292/54 (n = 17) in Greater Himalayan
zone rocks; 286/47 (n = 8) in the Ranimata Formation in the hanging wall of the Ramgarh thrust; 291/
52 (n = 28) in the Kushma Formation; and 283/50 (n = 11) in the Ranimata Formation in the footwall
of the Ramgarh thrust. (b) Cross section with no vertical exaggeration. Structure in the footwall of the
Ramgarh thrust not shown in Figure 3a is from DeCelles et al. [2001] and Robinson [2001]. See color
version of this figure in the HTML.

amphibolite-grade metamorphism. Microstructures typically
associated with low-grade conditions, such as fractures in
grains, sweeping undulose extinction, evidence for pres-
sure solution and redeposition, and deformation lamellae
were not observed in thin section. Instead, the quartzite
appears to have recrystallized largely through a combina-
tion of both grain boundary migration and subgrain
rotation (Figure 5), which are typical of medium- to
high-grade (400– 700C) conditions [Passchier and Trouw,
1996]. Extensive dynamic recrystallization is also sup-
ported by the fact that the quartzite shows a strong
lattice-preferred orientation when viewed under a micro-
scope with the gypsum plate inserted.
[22] Our interpretation of the geology of the Ramgarh
thrust at the Dhuli is critical because it is one of the two
locations we have found in Nepal where one can observe
the actual fault surface. It is therefore important to summa-
rize the reasons we map the Ramgarh thrust as shown in
Figure 3. In other words, why do we map the Ramgarh
thrust at Dhuli as a structural, rather than depositional
contact? As outlined above, our interpretation is constrained
by the following two key observations: 1) the virtually
identical lithologies and stratigraphic thicknesses of the
Kushma and Ranimata formations in the hanging wall and
footwall of the Ramgarh thrust suggest that structural
duplication has occurred; and 2) structural observations

6 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 4. (a) Photograph of the Ramgarh (RT) and Main Central (MCT) thrusts near Dhuli. The
photograph looks toward the northwest. RN, Ranimata Formation; KS, Kushma Formation; and GHZ,
Greater Himalayan Zone rocks. (b) Planar cross beds in the Kushma Formation at Dhuli. Solid lines show
master bedding and dashed lines show cross beds. The layer shown is
1 m thick. (c) Diorite intrusion
within the Ranimata Formation. Photograph is taken in the footwall of the Ramgarh thrust,
3 m below
the fault surface. Note the abundant quartz lenticles and augen in the Ranimata phyllite. Foliation strikes

100 (from bottom to top of the photograph) and dips
60 to the north (right of photograph). Rock
hammer is for scale. (d) Photographic mosaic of the Ramgarh thrust surface at Dhuli. Note the Z-shaped
fold in the hanging wall, which indicates clockwise rotation, or a top-to-the-south sense of shear. Outcrop
is located at latitude N2945033.000 and longitude E8117028.200. Rock hammer is for scale. See color
version of this figure in the HTML.

described above suggest that the contact between the base of
the Kushma Formation and the Ranimata Formation is
indeed a fault.
[23] The contact with the Main Central thrust and Greater
Himalayan zone rocks at the top of the Ramgarh thrust sheet
is not well exposed. However, the location of the Main
Central thrust can be constrained to within
300 m,
between unambiguous outcrops of the Ranimata Formation
and Greater Himalayan zone paragneiss. Therefore it is
likely that the Main Central thrust is a relatively discrete
structure at this location.
[24] Bedding and foliation orientations of both Lesser
and Greater Himalayan rocks are remarkably consistent in
the Dhuli area (Figure 3). The average foliation orientation

7 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
Figure 5. Photomicrograph of the Kushma Formation
quartzite at Dhuli. Sample is from 250 m above the
Ramgarh thrust and is cut parallel to lineation and
perpendicular to foliation (left side of photograph is
oriented at 193, right side is 13, and foliation dips 43
to the north). Width of view is 9 mm. Note the shape-
preferred orientation of quartz grains (elongated from top
left to bottom right), which defines a continuous foliation.
Subgrain rotation recrystallization (SR) is seen in misor-
iented grains. Grain boundary migration recrystallization
(GBM) is seen in bulging grain boundaries. See color
version of this figure in the HTML.
in the Ranimata Formation from the footwall of the Ram-
garh thrust dips 50 toward N13E. Within the Ramgarh
thrust sheet, average bedding of the Kushma Formation dips
52 toward N21E, and average foliation for the Ranimata
Formation dips 47 toward N16E. Average foliation of
Greater Himalayan zone rocks in the hanging wall of the
Main Central thrust dips 54 toward N22E. Additionally,
observed surfaces of the Ramgarh thrust are parallel to
bedding and foliation in both the hanging wall and footwall
of the fault. Although the Main Central thrust is not exposed
at Dhuli, regional map patterns [DeCelles et al., 2001;
Robinson, 2001] and geomorphic observations suggest that
the Main Central thrust is also parallel to hanging wall and
footwall bedding and foliation orientations. These relation-
ships suggest that (1) the Main Central thrust sheet was
emplaced upon rocks that became the Ramgarh thrust sheet
in a hanging wall flat on footwall flat thrust relationship,
and (2) the Ramgarh thrust sheet was emplaced upon the
footwall Ranimata Formation in a hanging wall flat on
footwall flat thrust relationship. Recognition of these flat-
on-flat relationships is critical for kinematic interpretations
of the Himalayan thrust belt, as they imply that rocks in the
Dhuli area were uplifted and tilted to their present steep
orientations after emplacement of both the Main Central and
Ramgarh thrust sheets along regional thrust flats. As we
show in subsequent descriptions, a similar structural geom-
etry characterizes the Main Central and Ramgarh thrusts
throughout Nepal.
8 of 26
TC4008
4.2. Central Nepal: Pokhara Region
[25] The Ramgarh thrust extends from far-western Nepal
into the Pokhara region of central Nepal. In this section, we
show maps of the thrust in the Modi and Marsyandi River
valleys on the south and east flanks of the Annapurna Range
(Figure 1). As in far-western Nepal, we use the stratigraphic
column suggested by Upreti [1996] (Figure 2). It is impor-
tant to note, however, that many workers have mapped in
this part of central Nepal, and several stratigraphic schemes
have been proposed for Lesser Himalayan rocks [e.g.,
Pêcher, 1978; Tater et al., 1984; Colchen et al., 1986]. In
general, we believe that workers have not recognized some
of the structural repetition that we map in Lesser Himalayan
zone rocks. Local stratigraphic schemes therefore include
more lithologies than those recognized by Upreti [1996].
For example, Tater et al. [1984] added a thick quartzite
called the Naudada Formation to the Lower Nawakot unit.
However, we do not differentiate between the Naudada and
Kushma formations because they are lithologically almost
identical. Tater et al. [1984] mapped four occurrences of the
Kushma and Naudada formations in the Modi River Valley,
but our mapping suggests that these are four thrust-bound
panels of the Kushma and Ranimata formations. Colchen et
al. [1986] also mapped these quartzites in the Modi River
valley, but assigned a different formation name to each
occurrence.
4.2.1. Modi River Valley
[26] The Modi River is located on the south flank of the
Annapurna Range,
25 km to the northwest of Pokhara
(Figure 1). Many workers have mapped in this area [e.g.,
Bouchez and Pêcher, 1976; Arita et al., 1982; Arita, 1983;
Colchen et al., 1986; Hodges et al., 1996], and some have
recognized the fact that Lesser Himalayan lithologic con-
tacts are structural, rather than depositional [e.g., Hodges et
al., 1996]. Both the Ramgarh and Main Central thrust
sheets crop out in the vicinity of the villages of Ghandruk
and Chhomron (Figure 6). Exposure in the area is poor, as
vegetation is dense and the rugged terrain usually prevents
one from leaving established trails. As in the Dhuli area,
the Ramgarh thrust carries the Kushma and Ranimata
formations.
[27] Although it is much thinner (
150 m thick), the
Kushma Formation in the Ramgarh thrust sheet is litholog-
ically similar to that described in the Dhuli area. The unit
consists of a white to pale green, fine- to medium-grained
quartzite that is micaceous in places, with common thin
interbeds of greenish gray siltstone. The quartzite is in-
tensely strained; it is an L-S tectonite, and centimeter-scale,
recumbent, isoclinal folds are present. The best exposures of
the Kushma Formation are in the Kyumnu River valley,
near its confluence with the Modi River. A few planar cross
beds in the upper part of the quartzite suggest that the unit is
structurally upright. We did not observe the Kushma For-
mation farther upstream in the Kyumnu River valley (at the
western edge of the map area), but its presence is inferred
from large, subangular quartzite boulders in the streambed.
The quartzite also forms cliffs on the east bank of the Modi
River. As in the Dhuli area, the Ranimata Formation in the
hanging wall of the Ramgarh thrust is dominantly a chloritic
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 6. (a) Geologic map of the Modi River valley near Ghandruk and Chhomron. Poles to bedding/
foliation and mean surface within each formation/zone are shown in the equal-area, lower hemisphere
stereonet plots. Mean bedding/foliation values are (strike/dip) 296/32 (n = 7) for Greater Himalayan
Zone rocks; 295/25 (n = 15) for the Ranimata and Kushma formations in the hanging wall of the
Ramgarh thrust; and 305/18 (n = 11) for the Ranimata Formation in the footwall of the Ramgarh thrust.
(b) Cross section with no vertical exaggeration. See color version of this figure in the HTML.

phyllite/schist with abundant garnet and white quartz augen,
lenticles, and veins. In the upper part of the formation, near
the Main Central thrust, the phyllite becomes graphitic.
Additionally, thin layers of dolostone and impure marble
crop out near the base and toward the top of the Ranimata
Formation.
[28] As in far-western Nepal, another fault (the Ghandruk
thrust) that carries the Kushma and Ranimata formations
occurs in the footwall of the Ramgarh thrust. This thrust
sheet is the northernmost horse in the ‘‘Gorkha-Pokhara
duplex’’ [Pearson, 2002]. Both the Kushma and Ranimata
formations in this lower thrust sheet are lithologically
almost identical to those described in the Ramgarh thrust
sheet, with the following differences: (1) planar and trough
cross beds are more common in exposures of the Kushma
Formation north of the Kyurri River, (2) the Ranimata
Formation lacks graphitic phyllite and is intruded by sills
of diorite, and (3) the Ulleri gneiss intrudes the Ranimata
Formation in the footwall of the Ghandruk thrust sheet, just
to the south of the map area. Additionally, the stratigraphic
thicknesses of the Ranimata and Kushma formations in the
footwall of the Ramgarh thrust are almost identical to those
in the hanging wall.
[29] The Ramgarh thrust sheet lies directly beneath the
Main Central thrust, which carries Greater Himalayan schist
and paragneiss of formation I. Previous workers have
characterized the Main Central thrust in the Modi River
valley as a broad shear zone [e.g., Arita, 1983; Hodges et

9 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
al., 1996], although Hodges et al. [1996] also map the
‘‘Chomrong thrust,’’ which they view as the principal
movement surface of the Main Central thrust zone. The
trace of the Main Central thrust shown in Figure 6 is based
on Nd isotopic data and U-Pb detrital zircon ages that
confine the Greater Himalayan-Lesser Himalayan protolith
boundary (which is the Main Central thrust) to a narrow
zone [Martin et al., 2005]. Hodges et al. [1996] also
recognized the significance of this sharp lithological con-
tact, and mapped it in a similar location to the trace shown
in Figure 6. Poor outcrops preclude a precise location of the
Ramgarh thrust; its position is inferred on the basis of
the structurally lowest occurrence of Kushma quartzite in
the hanging wall of the fault, and by the structurally highest
exposures of Ranimata phyllite in the footwall. The pres-
ence of the Ramgarh thrust in the Chhomron area has
important implications for the broad shear zone concept,
and we discuss these in subsequent sections.
[30] As in far-western Nepal, bedding and foliation in the
proximal hanging wall of the Main Central thrust, within the
Ramgarh thrust sheet, and in the footwall of the Ramgarh
thrust are generally subparallel. Structural dips are toward
the northeast at 18– 32 (Figure 6), and flatten slightly to the
south. Lesser Himalayan zone rocks south of the map area
flatten further still; south of Ghandruk, dips are subhori-
zontal. As in far-western Nepal, these orientations suggest
that the Main Central thrust placed a hanging wall flat of
Greater Himalayan zone rocks on a footwall flat of the
Ramgarh thrust sheet. A hanging wall flat of the Ramgarh
thrust sheet was subsequently thrust over a footwall flat of
the Ranimata Formation. All rocks in the area were subse-
quently uplifted and tilted to their current orientations
during growth of the Gorkha-Pokhara duplex in Lesser
Himalayan zone rocks to the south [Pearson, 2002].
4.2.2. Marsyandi River Valley
[31] The Marsyandi River drains the northern flank of the
Annapurna Range and forms its eastern boundary. Expo-
sures of the Ramgarh thrust sheet in the Marsyandi River
valley are generally poor. The northernmost exposures of the
thrust sheet are at the village of Khudi (Figure 7), where the
Ramgarh thrust carries the Kushma and Ranimata forma-
tions. The Kushma Formation is
150 m thick, and is a
white, fine- to medium-grained quartzite. The quartzite is not
as micaceous as in the Modi River valley, and contains more
thin interbeds of greenish gray siltstone. Sparse planar and
trough cross beds indicate that the quartzite is structurally
upright. The Ranimata Formation in both the hanging wall
and footwall of the Ramgarh thrust is very similar to that in
the Modi River valley. It is predominantly a green chloritic
or sericitic phyllite/schist that becomes increasingly gra-
phitic toward the upper part of the unit. A sample of the
graphitic phyllite was collected in the Kudi River valley

3 km south of Jimdu for Nd isotopic analysis (Figure 7a);
the eNd(0) value is 24.2 [Pearson, 2002], which is typical
of the Ranimata Formation [Robinson et al., 2001]. The
Ranimata Formation contains abundant white quartz len-
ticles, augen, and veins. Small garnet porphyroblasts
(<1 mm) are present throughout the unit, but on the prom-
inent ridge north of the Puma River, garnets reach
1 cm in
10 of 26
TC4008
diameter. A small diorite intrusion crops out within the
Ranimata Formation along the Khudi River. As in the Modi
River valley, the Ranimata Formation at Khudi also contains
thin beds of impure dolostone and marble. In the proximal
footwall of the Main Central thrust, however, an
400 m
thick section of marble is prominently exposed. The marble
is very clean and coarse grained, and thin beds of greenish
gray siltstone separate individual marble beds. Above the
marble and directly below the Main Central thrust, Martin et
al. [2005] describe a thin phyllite, from which they obtained
an eNd(0) value of 23. This value is typical of the Ranimata
Formation [Robinson et al., 2001], and suggests that the
abnormally thick marble may represent a dramatic facies
variation within the Ranimata. Shrestha et al. [1984b]
mapped the marble as the Ghanpokhara Formation, and
assigned it to the Lesser Himalayan zone. Colchen et al.
[1986], Catlos et al. [2001], and Hodges et al. [2004] also
placed the Main Central thrust above the marble.
[32] The Ramgarh thrust sheet in the Khudi area again
lies in the proximal footwall of the Main Central thrust.
Although the Main Central thrust is not exposed, it can be
isolated to a narrow zone
1 km southwest of the village of
Bahundada on the basis of Nd isotopic data and detrital
zircon U-Pb ages [Martin et al., 2005]. Catlos et al. [2001]
suggested that the Main Central thrust lies in a broad shear
zone that extends from Bahundada to Khudi, with the top of
the shear zone defined by the ‘‘MCT’’ and the base marked
by the ‘‘MCT-I.’’ Their ‘‘MCT-I’’ roughly corresponds to
the location of the Ramgarh thrust. Hodges et al. [2004]
noted the presence of numerous young (postdating late
Pliocene) discrete shear zones in both Greater and Lesser
Himalayan zone rocks in the vicinity of the Main Central
thrust, and mapped several of the larger zones as the Nalu,
Arkhale, Usta, and Nadi thrusts. The location of the Arkhale
thrust [Hodges et al., 2004] corresponds to where we place
the Main Central thrust. Our mapping and the isotopic data
set generated by Martin et al. [2005] suggest that the Nalu
thrust [Hodges et al., 2004] is contained within Greater
Himalayan zone rocks, and that the Usta and Nadi thrusts lie
within the Ranimata Formation. The presence of these
young structures suggests that slip on out-of-sequence thrust
faults has occurred [Hodges et al., 2004], and more work is
needed to quantify the spatial distribution of these young
structures and the amount of slip accommodated by them.
[33] Bedding and foliation in the northernmost exposures
of the Ranimata Formation, in the marble, and in the
hanging wall of the Main Central thrust are subparallel,
which implies a hanging wall flat on footwall flat relation-
ship for the Main Central and Ramgarh thrusts. Structural
dips in both the hanging wall and footwall of the Ramgarh
thrust flatten to the south and are subparallel (Figure 7),
suggesting a hanging wall flat on footwall flat relationship
for the Ramgarh thrust.
4.3. Central Nepal: Kathmandu Region
[34] The Ramgarh thrust sheet is exposed in several
places in the Kathmandu region of central Nepal. We have
mapped it in Langtang National Park and on both the north
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 7. (a) Geologic map of the Marsyandi River valley near Khudi. Location of the Main Central
thrust in the Marsyandi valley is from Martin et al. [2005]. Locations of the Nalu, Usta, and Ngadi thrusts
are from Hodges et al. [2004]. (b) Cross section with no vertical exaggeration. See color version of this
figure in the HTML.

and south flanks of the synformal Kathmandu thrust sheet Upreti and Le Fort, 1999]. There is debate in the literature
(Figure 1). At these locations, the Ramgarh thrust occurs in regarding whether rocks in the Kathmandu thrust sheet
the proximal footwall of the Main Central thrust or its belong to the Greater Himalayan zone, and whether the
southern equivalent, the Mahabharat thrust [Stöcklin, 1980; fault that carries these rocks is the southern continuation of

11 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 8. Stratigraphic column of metasedimentary rocks of the Kathmandu klippe. (a) Column
modified from Stöcklin [1980]. (b) Column suggested by Gehrels et al. [2003], who view the Greater
Himalayan rocks shown in Figure 8a to be duplicated by south vergent thrusts in the Kathmandu klippe.

the Main Central thrust [e.g., Upreti and Le Fort, 1999;
Johnson et al., 2001]. Recent geochronological [Gehrels et
al., 2003] and Nd isotope [Robinson et al., 2001] studies in
central Nepal have shown that the metamorphic rocks
within the Kathmandu thrust sheet are of Greater Himalayan
affinity. We therefore interpret the fault that carries these
rocks as the southern continuation of the Main Central
thrust, but will refer to this segment of the fault parenthet-
ically as the Mahabharat thrust.
[35] Lesser Himalayan rocks in the Kathmandu region
have different names than those previously described in far-
western Nepal and the Pokhara region, but exhibit similar
lithological characteristics [Upreti, 1996]. With one signif-
icant modification, we use the stratigraphic scheme advo-
cated by Stöcklin [1980] (Figures 2 and 8).
4.3.1. Bhainsedobhan Area
[36] Near the village of Bhainsedobhan, three major
faults are exposed within a small area (Figure 9). The Main
Boundary thrust places the Lesser Himalayan zone Danda-
gaon Formation against the Siwalik Group of the Subhima-
layan zone. The Ramgarh thrust bounds the Dandagaon
Formation to the north, and the Main Central (Mahabharat)
thrust forms the northern boundary of the Ramgarh thrust
sheet.
[37] The Ramgarh thrust sheet is exposed
2 km south of
Bhainsedobhan, on the Tribhuvan Highway,
10 km north
of the city of Hetauda (Figure 1). The Ramgarh thrust at
Bhainsedobhan carries rocks of the Robang Formation,
which we interpret as the lateral equivalent of the Kushma
and Ranimata formations. The Robang Formation at Bhain-
sedobhan consists primarily of the Dunga quartzite beds of
Stöcklin [1980]. Individual quartzite beds are white to
green, and range in thickness from
10 cm to
3 m. Planar
and trough cross beds are common, and indicate that the
quartzite is structurally upright. The quartzite is fine to
medium grained, but granule sized clasts are occasionally
present. The quartzite has a weakly developed mylonitic
fabric, and quartz grains show both a shape- and lattice-
preferred orientation. Elsewhere in central Nepal, the
Robang Formation also consists of dark green chloritic or
sericitic phyllite that has been metamorphosed to greens-
chist grade. The phyllite contains small garnet porphyro-
blasts and abundant white quartz lenticles, augen, and veins.
At Bhainsedobhan, we only observed the Robang phyllite in
float and in thin layers interbedded with the quartzites.
Stöcklin and Bhattarai [1982] suggested that a normal fault
cuts out the Robang phyllite. It is equally plausible that the
thickness of the Dunga quartzite beds and the absence of
the phyllite may be due to lateral facies variation within the
Robang Formation. The phyllitic interbeds have a phyllo-
nitic texture, and S-C fabrics show a top-to-the-south sense
of shear. Two diorite sills, each about 20 m thick, intrude the
Robang Formation at Bhainsedobhan (Figure 9).
[38] Stöcklin [1980] suggested that the Robang Forma-
tion lies at the top of the Lesser Himalayan stratigraphic
series, but several lines of evidence indicate that the Robang
is actually the stratigraphically lowest Lesser Himalayan
unit exposed in central Nepal. Detrital zircon U-Pb ages
from Dunga quartzite beds are dominated by
1860 Ma
ages, similar to detrital zircon ages from the Kushma
Formation [DeCelles et al., 2000]. The chloritic/sericitic
phyllite of the Robang Formation is lithologically similar to
the Ranimata Formation in far-western Nepal and in the
Pokhara area, and the Tumlingtar Group (Ranimata equiv-
alent) in eastern Nepal [Schelling, 1992]. The presence of
diorite sills in the Robang Formation is also diagnostic of
the Ranimata Formation and its lateral equivalents. Finally,
an
40 m thick lenticular body of Ulleri gneiss is exposed
within the Robang Formation at the town of Syaphru in
Langtang National Park. The Ulleri gneiss has been dated at

1831 Ma [DeCelles et al., 2000] and, elsewhere in Nepal,
is confined to the lower Nawakot unit [Schelling, 1992;
DeCelles et al., 2000, 2001]. The preponderance of litho-
logical and geochronological evidence therefore suggests
that the Robang Formation is the lowermost part of the
Kuncha Formation, which is broadly equivalent to both the

12 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 9. (a) Geologic map of the Bhainsedobhan area. Mean poles to bedding/foliation for each
formation are shown on the equal-area, lower hemisphere stereonet plot. (b) Cross section with no
vertical exaggeration. See color version of this figure in the HTML.

Kushma and Ranimata formations elsewhere in Nepal
[Upreti, 1996].
[39] Rocks in the hanging wall of the Main Central
(Mahabharat) thrust belong to the Raduwa, Bhainsedobhan,
and Kalitar formations (Figure 8). The Raduwa Formation is
a chloritic phyllite/schist that contains abundant garnet, the
Bhainsedobhan Formation is a coarse-grained marble, and
the Kalitar Formation is a micaceous schist.
[40] Bedding and foliation surfaces in the hanging wall of
the Ramgarh thrust dip
60 toward the north, which is
subparallel to bedding/foliation in both the footwall Danda-
gaon Formation and also in the hanging wall of the Main
Central thrust (Figure 9). This relationship implies a hang-
ing wall flat on footwall flat thrust relationship for both the
Main Central and Ramgarh thrusts.
4.3.2. Malekhu-Galcchi Bajar Area
[41] The Ramgarh thrust sheet is exposed in several
locations along the northern flank of the Kathmandu thrust
sheet. East of longitude 85500E, the thrust parallels the
Trishuli Ganga River. The best exposures of the thrust sheet

13 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 10. (a) Geologic map of the Malekhu area. Mean poles to bedding/foliation for each formation
are shown on the equal-area, lower hemisphere stereonet plot. (b) Cross section with no vertical
exaggeration. See color version of this figure in the HTML.

are near the villages of Malekhu and Galcchi Bajar
(Figure 1). At both locations, the Ramgarh thrust sheet dips
very steeply southward and lies in the proximal footwall of
the Main Central (Mahabharat) thrust (Figures 10 and 11).
[42] Rocks in the Ramgarh thrust sheet belong to the
Robang Formation, which consists of both a chloritic
phyllite/schist and the Dunga quartzite beds. The phyllite
has a deep green color, and contains abundant white quartz
augen, lenticles, and veins. Garnet porphyroblasts are lo-
cally abundant in the phyllite, especially close to the Main
Central (Mahabharat) thrust. The Dunga quartzite beds are
much thinner than at Bhainsedobhan and are separated by
thick interbeds of phyllite. Planar cross beds are common at
Malekhu and show that the rocks are structurally upright.
We did not observe any structural facing indicators at
Galcchi Bajar. Detrital zircons from the Dunga quartzite
beds at Malekhu yielded an age spectrum similar to that
found in the Kushma Formation elsewhere in Nepal
[DeCelles et al., 2000]. At Malekhu, the Robang Formation
also contains a thin (
5 m thick) diorite sill and several
thin, impure beds of marble. The Robang phyllite has a
phyllonitic texture and the Dunga quartzite has a weakly
developed mylonitic texture; in both lithologies, S-C fabrics
suggest a top-to-the south sense of shear. The Robang
Formation and associated Dunga quartzite beds on the north
flank of the synformal Kathmandu thrust sheet are litholog-
ically similar to exposures on the south flank. Johnson et al.
[2001] also worked in the Bhainsedobhan, Malekhu, and
Galcchi Bajar areas, and although they did not map the
Ramgarh thrust, they noted the similar lithological and
textural characteristics of rocks in the vicinity of the Main
Central (Mahabharat) thrust at all three locations.
[43] At Malekhu and Galcchi Bajar, the Ramgarh thrust
sheet overlies thick, siliceous limestone and dolostone of the
Malekhu Formation, which is the youngest Proterozoic
Lesser Himalayan unit (Figure 2). The trace of the Ramgarh
thrust is not exposed at either Malekhu or Galcchi Bajar; the
mapped fault (Figures 10 and 11) therefore lies between the
structurally lowest exposures of the Robang Formation and
the highest exposures of the Malekhu Formation. Addition-
ally, Johnson et al. [2001] noted a sudden drop in meta-
morphic grade from greenschist to anchizone facies in rocks

14 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 11. (a) Geologic map of the Galcchi Bajar area. Mean poles to bedding/foliation for the Robang,
Raduwa, and Malekhu Formations are shown on the equal-area, lower hemisphere stereonet plot.
(b) Cross section with no vertical exaggeration. Note that all formations of the Lesser Himalayan
Nawakot unit are exposed. See color version of this figure in the HTML.

1.25 km below where they mapped the Main Central
(Mahabharat) thrust at Malekhu and Galcchi Bajar. This
drop in metamorphic grade occurs where we map the
Ramgarh thrust.
[44] The Main Central (Mahabharat) thrust places the
Greater Himalayan Raduwa Formation structurally above
the Ramgarh thrust sheet. Although the Raduwa and
Robang formations appear to be lithologically similar (both
are garnet-rich chloritic phyllites/schists), Nd isotope anal-
yses confirm that the Robang Formation has a Lesser
Himalayan affinity, whereas the Raduwa Formation has a
Greater Himalayan affinity [Pearson, 2002]. Poor exposures
and the similar lithologies of the Raduwa and Robang
formations make locating the Main Central (Mahabharat)
thrust difficult. Thus the trace of the fault shown in Figures
10 and 11 is approximate. Map patterns suggest that the
Main Central (Mahabharat) thrust must be a relatively
discrete structure, as opposed to a broad shear zone.
[45] Bedding and foliation orientations of rocks in the
vicinity of the Main Central (Mahabharat) and Ramgarh
thrusts at Malekhu and Galcchi Bajar strike E-NE and dip
very steeply toward the south (Figures 10 and 11). Again,
this implies that the Main Central (Mahabharat) and Ram-
garh thrusts have flat-on-flat thrust relationships with each
other, as well as with Lesser Himalayan rocks in the
footwall of the Ramgarh thrust.
4.3.3. Langtang National Park Area
[46] Many studies have been conducted in Langtang
National Park, which is
50 km north of Kathmandu
(Figure 1) [e.g., Arita et al., 1973; Macfarlane et al.,

15 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 12. (a) Geologic map of the Syaphru area in Langtang National Park. Equal-area, lower
hemisphere stereonet plot shows poles to bedding/foliation. Arrow next to poles shows bedding/foliation
rotating to a WNW-ESE direction in the northern part of the map area. (b) Cross section with no vertical
exaggeration. See color version of this figure in the HTML.

1992; Inger and Harris, 1992, 1993; Reddy et al., 1993;
Parrish and Hodges, 1996; Fraser et al., 2000; Kohn et al.,
2004]. The Ramgarh thrust is exposed on the western edge
of the park in the Trishuli Ganga River valley near the
village of Syaphru (Figure 12). Pearson [2002] documented
the presence of the Ramgarh thrust at Syaphru, and used Nd
isotopes to help constrain the location of both the Ramgarh
and Main Central thrusts. Macfarlane et al. [1992] devised
a stratigraphic nomenclature for rocks in the vicinity of the
Main Central thrust in the Langtang area, but we have not
used their formation names because all Lesser Himalayan
rocks in the area can be described using the modified
stratigraphic scheme (Figures 2 and 8) of Stöcklin [1980]
– the same scheme we used to map at Bhainsedobhan,
Malekhu, and Galcchi Bajar.
[47] At Syaphru, the Ramgarh thrust lies in the proximal
footwall of the Main Central thrust. Greater Himalayan
rocks carried by the Main Central thrust belong to Forma-
tion I, and are predominantly pelitic schists and gneisses,
with subordinate calc-silicates, granitic augen gneisses, and

16 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
rare quartzites. Abundant shear sense indicators within these
rocks show a top-to-the-south sense of shear [Macfarlane et
al., 1992]. As at the locations previously described on the
flanks of the Kathmandu thrust sheet, the Ramgarh thrust at
Syaphru carries rocks of the Robang Formation. The phyl-
lites and phyllitic schists of the Robang Formation contain
abundant garnet porphyroblasts, and have a well-developed
phyllonitic texture. The phyllites tend to be slightly coarser
grained than those in more southern exposures of the
Ramgarh thrust sheet, perhaps reflecting the fact that the
rocks at Syaphru were buried to greater depths than those
near the Main Central (Mahabharat) thrust on the flanks of
the Kathmandu thrust sheet [e.g., Macfarlane, 1999;
Johnson et al., 2001]. The Dunga quartzite beds within
the Robang Formation are clean, white, fine- to medium-
grained quartzites, and have a weakly developed mylonitic
fabric. We observed a few poorly preserved planar cross
beds that suggest the quartzite is structurally upright. As
mentioned previously, the Ramgarh thrust sheet at Syaphru
also contains an
40 m thick lenticular body of the Ulleri
gneiss. Elsewhere in Nepal, the Ulleri gneiss is always
found within the Ranimata Formation [Schelling, 1992;
DeCelles et al., 2001; Robinson, 2001; Pearson, 2002].
The Ramgarh thrust places the Robang Formation above the
Kuncha Formation, which is the central Nepal equivalent of
the Kushma and Ranimata formations (Figure 2). The
Kuncha Formation at Syaphru consists primarily of gritty,
greenish gray phyllite and phyllitic quartzite. Numerous
planar cross beds occur within quartzite beds in the southern
part of the map area, and indicate that the Kuncha Forma-
tion is structurally upright. In the proximal footwall of the
Ramgarh thrust, the Kuncha Formation becomes increas-
ingly graphitic, and thin beds of impure marble, dolostone,
and calcareous phyllite and quartzite crop out. The litholo-
gies in the Kuncha Formation at Syaphru are essentially
identical to those in the footwall of the Ramgarh thrust in
the Modi and Marsyandi River valleys.
[48] Poor outcrop exposures combined with similar li-
thologies hamper precise location of both the Main Central
and Ramgarh thrusts. However, Nd isotopic analyses of
Greater and Lesser Himalayan rocks allowed Pearson
[2002] to constrain the location of the Main Central thrust
to an
200 m wide zone. The trace of the Ramgarh thrust
shown in Figure 12 is constrained by the westernmost
outcrop of Robang Formation. Stratigraphic relationships
combined with Nd isotope analyses suggest that both the
Main Central and Ramgarh thrusts at Langtang are relatively
discrete structures, rather than a broad shear zone composed
of a mélange or imbricated stack of Lesser and Greater
Himalayan zone rocks. This view is supported by garnet
chemistry from rocks in the Ramgarh and Main Central
thrust sheets and from the Lesser Himalayan duplex. Kohn
et al. [2004] observed that a transition from preserved
garnet growth zoning to strong diffusional modification
which indicates different metamorphic histories, occurs at
the same location we map the Main Central thrust.
[49] Macfarlane et al. [1992] also noted that several
brittle faults are present in the Langtang area, and suggested
that these faults form horses within a large-scale duplex in
17 of 26
TC4008
the Main Central thrust zone. We interpret these faults to be
small-scale faults within the Kuncha Formation [see also
Takagi et al., 2003]. Minor brittle faults, such as these, are
ubiquitous across the thrust belt [e.g., Hodges et al., 2004],
and there does not appear to be an increase in fault density
in the Syaphru area. The trends of the Ramgarh and Main
Central thrusts begin an
90 bend at Syaphru (Figures 1
and 12). Macfarlane et al. [1992] suggested that this bend is
caused by a lateral ramp in the footwall of the Main Central
thrust. Because bedding and foliation orientations of all
rocks in the vicinity of the Ramgarh and Main Central
thrusts show this strike rotation, such a lateral ramp must be
at a structural level below the Ramgarh thrust and the Lesser
Himalayan rocks in its footwall. Additionally, bedding and
foliation orientations are subparallel across both the Ram-
garh and Main Central thrusts, which imply the existence of
flat-on-flat thrust relationships for both faults (Figure 12).
4.4. Eastern Nepal: Tribeni Area
[50] The Ramgarh thrust also extends into eastern Nepal
(Figure 1). The fault is very well exposed near the village of
Tribeni, at the confluence of the Sunkoshi, Arun, and Tamor
rivers (Figure 13). At Tribeni, the actual surface of the
Ramgarh thrust is exposed below the western end of the
bridge over the Tamor River (Figure 14a). Akiba et al.
[1973] mapped this structure as the Murghat fault. Lesser
Himalayan rocks above the Ramgarh thrust have been
mapped as the Tumlingtar Group [Schelling, 1992]; these
rocks consist of green chloritic phyllite and white massive
quartzite that are identical to the Ranimata and Kushma
formations, respectively. Therefore we subdivided the Tum-
lingtar Group in our mapping and employ the Ranimata-
Kushma stratigraphic nomenclature.
[51] Both the Kushma and Ranimata formations are
present in the hanging wall of the Ramgarh thrust at Tribeni.
The Kushma Formation in the Ramgarh thrust sheet is a
massively bedded, clean, fine- to medium-grained quartzite
that is
600 m thick. The quartzite holds up a high ridge
directly north of Tribeni. Numerous trough and planar cross
beds indicate that the quartzite is structurally upright. As in
the Dhuli area, the contact between the Kushma and
Ranimata formations is exposed. At the top of the Kushma
Formation, quartzite beds become increasingly interbedded
with chloritic phyllite. We mapped the Kushma-Ranimata
contact where phyllite becomes the dominant lithology. The
Ranimata Formation in the Ramgarh thrust sheet is
2000 m
thick and consists of green chloritic and sericitic phyllite
with abundant white quartz augen, lenticles, and veins. A
thick body of the Ulleri gneiss intrudes the Ranimata
Formation in the north of the map area (Figure 13). The
Ulleri is a granitic augen gneiss (quartz + biotite + musco-
vite + orthoclase + plagioclase) with a well-developed
mylonitic S-C fabric that indicates a top-to-south sense of
shear [Schelling, 1992]. Rocks in the immediate footwall of
the Ramgarh thrust are green and red purple slates of the
Lesser Himalayan Syangia Formation (Figure 2), which also
crops out in pods along a splay of the Ramgarh thrust. The
Ramgarh fault zone is several meters thick and consists of
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 13. (a) Geologic map of the Tribeni area. The equal-area, lower hemisphere stereonet plot shows
mean poles to bedding/foliation for the Kushma and Syangia formations in the Ramgarh thrust sheet (n =
46), the Syangia Formation in the footwall of the Ramgarh thrust (n = 15), and the Ranimata Formation in
the proximal hanging wall of the Ramgarh thrust (n = 14). (b) Cross section with no vertical
exaggeration. See color version of this figure in the HTML.

yellow, greasy slate with a steeply northward dipping
cleavage expressed by preferentially oriented pyrophyllite
crystals in microlithons separated by opaque material that
defines the principal cleavage. The fault surface dips
80
toward the north-northeast.
[52] The Main Central thrust lies in the northern part of
the map area (Figure 13) but is poorly exposed. The trace
shown in Figure 13 is constrained by the northernmost
exposure of the phyllites and fine-grained schists of the
Ranimata Formation. Rocks in the hanging wall of the Main
Central thrust are predominantly garnet-rich pelitic gneiss
and schist [Schelling, 1992]. Two splays of the Main
Boundary thrust crop out just south of the map area shown
in Figure 13. The northern splay places the Galyang
Formation above the Miocene Dumri Formation (Figure 2).
The southern splay places rocks of the Lakarpata Group, the
Gondwanan unit, and the Dumri Formation (Figure 2) above
the lower Siwalik unit of the Subhimalayan zone.
[53] The structural geometry of the Ramgarh thrust at
Tribeni is more complex than in previously described

18 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 14. (a) Photograph of the Ramgarh thrust near Tribeni. The Kushma Formation is the prominent
white quartzite and is thrust on top of slates of the Syangia Formation (at left). Beds dip vertically in both
the hanging wall and footwall of the Ramgarh thrust. Note the person for scale below the fault and the
bridge over the Tamor River. (b) Hanging wall splay in the Ramgarh thrust at Tribeni. The fault-bound
pod of the Syangia Formation (SY) is
20 m thick and is contained within the Kushma Formation (KS).
Photograph is taken from the east bank of the Tamor River, looking toward the west. See color version of
this figure in the HTML.

locations. The thrust sheet contains a hanging wall splay of
the Ramgarh thrust that includes thin pods of slates from the
Syangia Formation. These pods crop out on the banks of
both the Tamor and Arun Rivers (Figure 14b), as well as on
the hillside to the east of Tribeni. Additionally, a lateral
ramp in the hanging wall of the Ramgarh thrust must be
present just west of Tribeni. This lateral ramp removes the
Kushma Formation as the Ranimata Formation is in thrust
contact with the Syangia Formation. Bedding and foliation
orientations of rocks in the vicinity of the Ramgarh thrust
are subparallel, striking W-NW and dipping very steeply
(sometimes vertically to slightly overturned) to the north
(Figure 13). This geometry suggests the following kinematic
sequence for the Ramgarh thrust:
[54] 1. A hanging wall flat of the Ramgarh thrust sheet
was emplaced upon a footwall flat of the Syangia Forma-
tion. A lateral ramp was present to the west of Tribeni, and
cut the basal Kushma Formation out of the Ramgarh thrust
sheet.
[55] 2. A hanging wall splay formed, which duplicated
the Kushma Formation to the east of Tribeni. Undulations in
the Ramgarh fault surface allowed small pods of the
underlying Syangia Formation to be incorporated into the
fault system.
[56] 3. All rocks in the area were later uplifted and tilted
to their present orientation by displacement along the Main
Boundary and Main Frontal thrust systems.
4.5. Other Locations in Nepal
[57] We have also recognized the Ramgarh thrust in
several areas of Nepal that are not described in the preced-
ing sections. In western Nepal, north of the town of
Birendranagar (Surkhet) in the Swat River valley, a thick
section of Kushma quartzite is in thrust contact with the
lower Miocene Dumri Formation. DeCelles et al. [1998b]
describes in detail the Dumri Formation at this location.
Robinson [2001] mapped the Ramgarh thrust in several
other locations in western Nepal. In central Nepal, the fault
is present near the town of Kodari, on the Nepal-Tibet
border (Figure 1). At Kodari, the Robang Formation crops
out in the proximal footwall of the Main Central thrust and
overlies rocks of the upper Nawakot unit. We have not
mapped the area in enough detail to completely understand

19 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 15. (a) Cross section through far-western Nepal modified from DeCelles et al. [2001]. The
Dhuli area corresponds to the northernmost exposure of the Ramgarh thrust. (b) Cross section through the
Kathmandu region of central Nepal modified from Pearson [2002]. The Langtang area corresponds to
the northernmost exposure of the Ramgarh thrust, the Galcchi Bajar and Malekhu areas are on the
northern flank of the Kathmandu klippe, and the Bhainsedobhan area is on the southern flank of the
Kathmandu klippe. Structure within the Kathmandu thrust sheet is suggested by Gehrels et al. [2003]. In
both cross sections, there is no vertical exaggeration. MFT, Main Frontal thrust; MBT, Main Boundary
thrust; RT, Ramgarh thrust; MCT, Main Central thrust; STDS, South Tibetan Detachment system. See
color version of this figure in the HTML.

the Ramgarh thrust’s structural setting, but preliminary
work suggests that the map of Shrestha et al. [1984b]
may not accurately represent the geology near Kodari.
The Ramgarh thrust is also likely exposed east of Tribeni,
along the road north from Dharan (Figure 1). A very thick
section of the Kushma Formation, which holds up a high
ridge north of Dharan, is thrust over slates and phyllites that
may belong to the Syangia Formation. The fault also crops
out north of Katari Bajar, which is
80 km west of Tribeni.
In the Katari Bajar area, the thrust sheet appears very similar
to that on the flanks of the Kathmandu thrust sheet. Phyllite
and thin quartzite beds that may be equivalent to the
Robang Formation and Dunga quartzite beds are thrust over
rocks similar to the Dandagaon Formation. The thick basal
Kushma Formation that appears farther east is not present in
the Katari Bajar area.
5. Discussion
[58] The Ramgarh thrust is clearly a regional-scale struc-
ture. Minor details notwithstanding, the structural character-
istics of the thrust remain remarkably consistent along the
length of the thrust belt in Nepal. Recognition of the
Ramgarh thrust as a regional structure has important impli-
cations for the structure and stratigraphy of the Lesser
Himalayan zone, and for the kinematic evolution of the
southern half of the Himalayan thrust belt.
[59] The structural importance of the Ramgarh thrust
sheet within the thrust belt is best illustrated through
balanced cross sections (Figure 15), which show that the
fault accommodated a significant amount of tectonic short-
ening;
120 km of displacement occurred on the fault in
far-western Nepal [DeCelles et al., 2001], and
193 km
occurred in the Kathmandu region [Pearson, 2002]. These
estimates probably are minima because they do not include
mesoscopic and microscopic strains and no hanging wall
cutoffs are preserved in the Ramgarh thrust sheet. It is likely
that the Ramgarh thrust in the Pokhara region and in eastern
Nepal accommodated similar amounts of shortening. In far-
western Nepal, the Ramgarh thrust acts as the roof thrust for
a large duplex in Lesser Himalayan rocks (Figure 15a)
[DeCelles et al., 2001; Robinson, 2001]. The Kathmandu
area cross section (Figure 15b) also shows a large duplex in
Lesser Himalayan rocks (the Gorkha-Pokhara duplex), but
its roof thrust is the Trishuli thrust, which lies below the
Ramgarh thrust [Pearson, 2002]. It can be argued that the

20 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
Ramgarh thrust may have been the roof thrust for a duplex
that also contained the Trishuli thrust sheet in central Nepal.
Unfortunately, this is impossible to determine because the
leading edge branch line between the Ramgarh and Trishuli
thrusts (if it ever existed) has been eroded.
[60] The Ramgarh thrust became active as slip was
transferred southward from the Main Central thrust sys-
tem, which became active in the latest Oligocene to early
Miocene [e.g., Hodges et al., 1996; Guillot, 1999] and
may have remained active until middle Miocene time
[Grujic et al., 2002; Searle and Godin, 2003; Kohn et al.,
2004]. Both cross sections suggest that the Ramgarh
thrust is the oldest major structure within Lesser Hima-
layan zone rocks. The Ramgarh thrust sheet must have
been tectonically emplaced prior to growth of the Lesser
Himalayan/Gorkha-Pokhara duplex because it is arched
over the crest of the duplex. Provenance data from the
Siwalik Group indicate that the duplex was erosionally
breached by
11 – 12 Ma [DeCelles et al., 1998a], which
provides a minimum age for displacement on the trailing
part of the Ramgarh thrust. The minimum age constraint
for displacement on the frontal part of the Ramgarh thrust
is not well defined. As the roof thrust for the Lesser
Himalayan duplex, the frontal part of the fault could have
remained active until
5 Ma, when the Main Boundary
thrust probably became active [DeCelles et al., 1998a].
The maximum age of displacement for the Ramgarh
thrust is constrained by the thrust sheet’s relationship
with the lower Miocene Dumri Formation. In two loca-
tions in far-western Nepal (on the north flank of the
Dadeldhura klippe and in the Swat River valley), the
Dumri Formation lies in the proximal footwall of
the Ramgarh thrust [DeCelles et al., 1998b, 2001;
Robinson, 2001]. Additionally, in far-western Nepal, the
Dumri Formation is included within horses of the Lesser
Himalayan duplex, for which the Ramgarh serves as the
roof thrust. The minimum age of the Dumri Formation is

15 Ma [DeCelles et al., 1998b; 2001], which suggests
that the Ramgarh thrust was active after that time.
However, as the Ramgarh thrust accommodates such a
large amount of displacement, it is possible that motion
on the thrust began before 15 Ma. This would imply that
the Dumri Formation was partly deposited during dis-
placement on the Ramgarh thrust. This seems unlikely
because provenance data from the Dumri Formation
indicate that it was derived from Greater and Tibetan
Himalayan rocks [DeCelles et al., 1998b, 2004]. Addi-
tionally, the Dumri Formation contains detrital muscovite
grains that have 40Ar/39Ar cooling ages of
20 Ma
[DeCelles et al., 1998b, 2001; see also Najman et al.,
1997], which is consistent with early Miocene emplace-
ment and cooling of the Main Central thrust sheet. The
available evidence therefore suggests that the Ramgarh
thrust sheet was initially emplaced between
15 and

11 Ma in western Nepal. In central Nepal, the timing
of slip on the Ramgarh thrust may have been as young as

11 – 9 Ma [Kohn et al., 2004].
[61] With one exception, in all mapped locations of the
Ramgarh thrust, it exhibits a hanging wall flat on footwall
21 of 26
TC4008
flat thrust relationship. The lone exception is in the Tribeni
area, where a hanging wall lateral ramp is present. Bedding
and foliation in the Ramgarh thrust sheet and its footwall
rocks are always subparallel, which can obscure the pres-
ence of the fault. It can be argued that parallelism is hard to
judge in units such as the Ranimata Formation, which is
predominantly a highly strained phyllite. However, the
Ranimata Formation contains quartzose lithologies with
planar and trough cross beds which show that bedding is
parallel to foliation [Pearson, 2002]. Additionally, bound-
aries of igneous sills within the Ranimata Formation (dio-
rites and the Ulleri gneiss) are generally parallel to foliation.
Other rocks in the hanging wall (the Kushma Formation)
and footwall (the Galyang, Syangia, and Dumri formations)
of the Ramgarh thrust commonly contain sedimentary
structures that show unambiguous bedding orientations that
are parallel to the fault. On a regional scale, the Ramgarh
thrust must have both frontal and lateral footwall ramps, as
stratigraphic units in the footwall of the fault vary. This can
be seen with the aid of stratigraphic separation diagrams
(Figure 16). At all locations where we have mapped the
Ramgarh thrust in the northernmost exposures of Lesser
Himalayan rocks (Figure 16b), the fault places the Kushma
Formation above the Ranimata Formation. Stratigraphic
units in the footwall of the Ramgarh thrust on the northern
flanks of the Kathmandu and Dadeldhura thrust sheets
(Figure 16c) are higher in the Lesser Himalayan series,
which implies the presence of a frontal ramp in the footwall
of the Ramgarh thrust between northern and central expo-
sures. Footwall lateral ramps in these central exposures of
the Ramgarh thrust must also exist in areas we have not
mapped, because the location of the thrust within the
footwall stratigraphy varies within the upper Nawakot unit.
Footwall lateral ramps must also exist in the southern
exposures of the Ramgarh thrust (Figure 16d). Additionally,
the stratigraphic separation diagrams clearly show that the
base of the Kushma Formation serves as a regional-scale
detachment.
[62] Our mapping of the Ramgarh thrust shows that the
fault is always located in the proximal footwall of the
Main Central thrust. With few exceptions, the footwall of
the Main Central thrust in Nepal is the Ranimata Forma-
tion (or its lateral equivalents) in the Ramgarh thrust
sheet. The Ranimata Formation therefore also serves as a
regional-scale detachment. Foliation orientations in Greater
Himalayan rocks carried by the Main Central thrust are
always subparallel to bedding and foliation orientations
within the Ramgarh thrust sheet, which implies that the
Main Central thrust at its current exposure level is a
hanging wall flat. This regional flat-on-flat geometry is
well expressed in the Arun River valley in eastern Nepal,
where an immense slab of Greater Himalayan rocks rests
subhorizontally on top of the Ranimata Formation
(Figures 1 and 13) for a north-south distance of more
than 100 km [Schelling, 1992]. It is possible to argue that
foliation in the hanging wall of the Main Central thrust
has been transposed into parallelism with the fault during
deformation, thereby obscuring original stratigraphic and
structural relationships. However, if transposition did
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL TC4008

Figure 16. (a) Mapped locations of the Ramgarh thrust in Nepal. The thrust sheet is exposed in the
northern part of the fold-thrust belt (solid lines), the central part on the north flanks of the Dadeldhura
klippe and Kathmandu nappe (dashed lines), and in the southern part (gray lines). (b), (c), and
(d) Stratigraphic separation diagrams for the Ramgarh thrust. Lesser Himalayan stratigraphy is on the
vertical axes; mapped locations of the thrust are on the horizontal axes. Solid lines show mapped
relationships; dashed lines show correlation between locations. See DeCelles et al. [2001] and Robinson
[2001] for details of exposures on the flanks of the Dadeldhura klippe and Pearson [2002] for details of
exposure in the Thulo River on the northern flank of the Kathmandu klippe.

occur, we would expect to see regional isoclinal folds and
repetitions of tectonostratigraphic units in the Greater
Himalayan series. This is not the case; the well-docu-
mented stratigraphy of the Greater Himalayan zone (For-
mations I, II, and III) in central Nepal [Le Fort, 1975]
can be traced for over 100 km along strike, as well as in
the tectonic transport direction, with no evidence of
regional isoclinal folds. Similarly, in eastern Nepal
Schelling [1992] found no evidence for regional scale
folds or repetition of lithologic units. Additionally, the

22 of 26
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
stratigraphy in both the hanging wall and footwall of the
Main Central thrust underneath the Kathmandu thrust
sheet shows a flat-on-flat relationship for the fault [e.g.,
Stöcklin and Bhattarai, 1982; Pearson, 2002] with some
internal imbrication that may have taken place during an
early Paleozoic orogenic event [Gehrels et al., 2003].
[63] Our interpretation of a regional flat-on-flat geom-
etry for the Main Central thrust contrasts with the widely
held belief [e.g., Copeland et al., 1996; Räi et al., 1998;
Harrison et al., 1998; Upreti and Le Fort, 1999; Catlos
et al., 2001] that the steep north-northeastward dip of the
Main Central thrust is due to the presence of a structural
ramp on the fault (or fault zone) itself. This difference in
views has profound implications for tectonic and petro-
logic models of the Himalaya [Robinson et al., 2003]. If
ramps are present at the current exposure level of the
Main Central thrust, it is only natural to adopt kinematic,
petrologic, and thermal models that transport Greater
Himalayan rocks toward the surface along a steeply
dipping thrust ramp [e.g., Vannay and Hodges, 1996].
Instead, the regional flat-on-flat geometry of both the
Ramgarh and Main Central thrusts suggests that younger
structures within the thrust belt may be dominantly
responsible for uplifting and tilting rocks carried by
these thrusts to their present locations and orientations
[Robinson et al., 2003]. Of special importance are anti-
formal culminations that developed in Lesser Himalayan
rocks now exposed to the north of the Kathmandu,
Jajarkot, and Dadeldhura-Almora thrust sheets, and in
large structural windows in eastern Nepal. These structural
culminations lie astride a system of large antiformal
duplexes in Lesser Himalayan rocks [Schelling, 1992;
Srivastava and Mitra, 1994; Johnson, 1994; DeCelles et
al., 2001; Robinson, 2001; Pearson, 2002]. The difference
in exposure of Lesser Himalayan rocks from west to east
in Nepal may be attributed to a lesser degree of culmina-
tion growth in eastern Nepal. The Main Central thrust
sheet probably acquired its current steep northward dip
during growth of the Lesser Himalayan duplex system, as
rocks on the northern limb of the duplex (including the
Main Central thrust sheet) were passively uplifted and
tilted northward [Robinson et al., 2003]. Although a
structural ramp in the Main Central thrust is not respon-
sible for the steep dips currently seen in Greater Himala-
yan zone rocks, a footwall ramp in the thrust is required in
order to have elevated Greater Himalayan rocks to shallow
crustal levels during early Miocene time. Given the
presence of regional detachments at the top and base of
the Ramgarh thrust sheet and the flat-on-flat relationship
between the Ramgarh and Main Central thrusts, such a
footwall ramp must be located far to the north of the
present northernmost exposures of the Main Central thrust.
This important point is shown by the fact that in order to
balance the hanging wall detachment of the Ramgarh
thrust, a corresponding footwall detachment in Lesser
Himalayan rocks must have existed for >100 km (the
length of the flat in the Ramgarh thrust) north of the
northernmost exposures of the Main Central thrust while
the younger Ramgarh thrust was active (see restored cross
23 of 26
TC4008
sections of DeCelles et al. [2001], Robinson [2001], and
Pearson [2002]). The footwall ramp in the Main Central
thrust may therefore lie as far north as the Indus-Yarlung
suture.
[64] In far-western and eastern Nepal the Ramgarh
thrust sheet is
2 km thick, whereas in central Nepal it
is only several hundred meters thick. The regional flat-on-
flat structural relationship exhibited by both the Ramgarh
and Main Central thrust sheets may help to explain how
such a thin thrust sheet accommodated a large amount of
slip. The high strength of the thrust sheet can be
explained by the fact that during slip on the Ramgarh
thrust, the thrust sheet was overlain by many kilometers
of Greater Himalayan and Tibetan Himalayan rocks above
the Main Central thrust. Thus the true thickness of the
composite Ramgarh thrust sheet, from a mechanical
perspective, is much greater than the
200 – 2000 m
thickness of Lesser Himalayan zone rocks carried by
the fault.
[65] The presence of the Ramgarh thrust sheet beneath
the Main Central thrust throughout Nepal also provides
insight into the issue of inverted (i.e., northward increas-
ing grade of) metamorphism in the Main Central thrust
zone [e.g., Guillot, 1999]. The upper greenschist [Kohn et
al., 2001; Catlos et al., 2001] metasedimentary and meta-
igneous rocks in the Ramgarh thrust sheet occupy an
intermediate position between the upper amphibolite
grade rocks above the Main Central thrust and the lower
greenschist grade rocks in the footwall of the Ramgarh
thrust. Because virtually all of the structural facing
direction indicators we have found are upright, the simple
explanation for the northward increase in metamorphic
grade is that the rocks beneath the Main Central thrust
were buried to greater depths toward the north, and
subsequently were imbricated in the southward verging
Lesser Himalayan portion of the thrust belt [Robinson et
al., 2003].
[66] As the Ramgarh thrust sheet lies within a region
that is commonly referred to as the ‘‘Main Central thrust
zone,’’ [e.g., Arita, 1983; Macfarlane et al., 1992;
Hodges et al., 1996; Kohn et al., 2001] the presence of
the fault has important implications for the concept of a
broad, crustal-scale shear zone. Although it is possible to
argue that the Ramgarh thrust (and other structurally
lower Lesser Himalayan faults) is just one of many faults
that compose the Main Central thrust zone, we prefer to
think of the faults as separate structures for several
reasons. First and foremost, as originally defined by Heim
and Gansser [1939], the Main Central thrust juxtaposes
Greater and Lesser Himalayan rocks; the Ramgarh thrust
however, lies entirely within Lesser Himalayan rocks.
Second, as shown in the regional cross sections
(Figure 15), the Ramgarh thrust must root into the main
Himalayan detachment surface, and therefore the branch
line for the Ramgarh thrust does not lie on the Main
Central thrust. Thirdly, although the Ramgarh thrust shares
a structural history with the Main Central thrust (as the
footwall flat upon which the Main Central thrust sheet
was emplaced), it also has a distinct history of its own,
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
manifested by the >120 km of displacement accommo-
dated by the fault. Finally, we argue that distinguishing
between the two faults allows workers to continue the
process of unraveling details of the fold-thrust belt’s
structural evolution. A good example of this can be
found in the work of Kohn et al. [2004] from the
Langtang area. On the basis of our work across Nepal,
our alternate view of the broad Main Central thrust zone
can be summarized as follows. (1) Structural and isoto-
pic data sets [Parrish and Hodges, 1996; Pearson, 2002;
Martin et al., 2005] suggest that the Main Central thrust
can be defined as a relatively discrete shear zone that
juxtaposes Greater and Lesser Himalayan zone rocks.
(2) The Main Central thrust accommodated a large
amount of slip under ductile conditions; hanging wall
rocks of the Main Central thrust sheet and footwall rocks
later carried by the Ramgarh thrust were strained as a
result of this displacement. (3) During emplacement of
the Ramgarh thrust sheet, rocks in the hanging wall of
the fault and Lesser Himalayan rocks in the footwall
of the thrust were strained. Fabric in the hanging wall of
the Ramgarh thrust is therefore genetically related to
displacement on both the Main Central and Ramgarh
thrusts. However, fabric in rocks in the footwall of the
Ramgarh thrust is genetically related to displacement on
the Ramgarh thrust and other, structurally lower faults
within the Lesser Himalayan duplex.
[67] The discovery and documentation over the past few
years of a structure as significant as the Ramgarh thrust
emphasizes the importance of viewing the Himalayan-
Tibetan orogen as a system. The South Tibetan detachment,
the Main Central and Ramgarh thrusts, faults within the
Lesser Himalayan duplex, and the Main Boundary and
Main Frontal thrusts all work together as a system to
achieve the deformation within the Himalayan thrust belt
that is required by dynamic and thermodynamic conditions
(paraphrasing Davis [1984]). Other unrecognized regional
structures may also exist within Greater Himalayan and
Tibetan zone rocks. Future models of the Himalayan thrust
belt must take into account the structural complexity that
exists throughout the Himalayan thrust belt, and not simply
focus on the Main Central, Main Boundary, and Main
Frontal thrusts.
6. Conclusions
[68] From the observations presented in this paper, we
draw the following main conclusions.
[69] 1. The Ramgarh thrust is a regional-scale structure
that exists within Lesser Himalayan rocks. With few
exceptions, the Ramgarh thrust carries rocks of the
Kushma and Ranimata Formations, or their lateral equiv-
alents. The Ramgarh thrust accommodated >120 km of
tectonic shortening, not including mesoscopic and micro-
scopic strain.
[70] 2. After slip on the Main Central thrust ended in
the middle Miocene and before displacement on the Main
Boundary thrust began in the Pliocene, tectonic shorten-
ing was accommodated by structures contained within
24 of 26
TC4008
Lesser Himalayan rocks. The Ramgarh thrust was active
during the middle Miocene in western Nepal, between

15 and
11 Ma. In central Nepal the fault may have
been active somewhat later. Growth of the Lesser Hima-
layan duplex occurred during the late Miocene between

11 and
5 Ma.
[71] 3. The Ramgarh thrust has a hanging wall flat on
footwall flat relationship with respect to Lesser Himala-
yan rocks beneath the fault. The base of the Ramgarh
thrust sheet is almost always composed of the Kushma
Formation (or its lateral equivalents), which suggests that
a regional detachment exists at the base of the Ramgarh
thrust sheet.
[72] 4. The Ramgarh thrust is spatially associated with
the Main Central thrust. Bedding and foliation in the
Ramgarh thrust sheet and in the proximal hanging wall of
the Main Central thrust are subparallel, which implies a
hanging wall flat on footwall flat relationship for the two
thrust sheets. With few exceptions, the Main Central
thrust sheet rests upon the Ranimata Formation in the
Ramgarh thrust sheet, which implies that a regional
detachment also exists at the top of the Ramgarh thrust
sheet.
[73] 5. In order to balance the hanging wall detachment
of the Ramgarh thrust, a corresponding footwall detach-
ment in Lesser Himalayan zone rocks must have existed
for >100 km north of the northernmost exposures of the
Main Central thrust while the younger Ramgarh thrust
was active. Thus the footwall ramp in the Main Central
thrust that is responsible for elevating Greater Himalayan
rocks to shallow crustal levels must also lie >100 km to
the north.
[74] 6. The hanging wall flat on footwall flat relationship
for the Ramgarh and Main Central thrusts means that
younger structures are responsible for tilting rocks in the
vicinity of the northernmost exposures of the Main Central
thrust to their current steep orientations. Balanced regional
cross sections through the thrust belt suggest that this tilting
occurred during growth of the Lesser Himalayan duplex
system.
[75] 7. The presence of a separate thrust sheet (the
Ramgarh thrust) in the proximal footwall of the Main
Central thrust suggests that interpretations of the Main
Central thrust as a broad, crustal scale shear zone are
problematic. Some of the fabric in strained Lesser Himala-
yan rocks in the footwall of the Main Central thrust may be
genetically related to slip on the Ramgarh thrust, rather than
Main Central thrust.
[76] Acknowledgments. We thank B. Wernicke and K. Hodges for
careful and constructive reviews of the manuscript. Gautam Mitra
assisted with identification of microstructures in thin section. We
gratefully acknowledge assistance in the field by Senanu Pearson and
Steve Ahlgren. Discussions with T. Ojha, B. N. Upreti, G. Mitra, G. E.
Gehrels, D. M. Robinson, A. J. Martin, and C. N. Garzione helped to
guide our thinking. This research was supported by the National Science
Foundation (grant EAR-0207179), the Department of Geosciences at the
University of Arizona, the GeoStructure Partnership (especially Exxon-
Mobil and Midland Valley Exploration) at the University of Arizona, and
a Chevron Summer Field Support grant. Himalayan Experience in
Kathmandu provided logistical support.
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
References
Achache, J., V. Courtillot, and Z. Y. Xiu (1984), Paleo-
geographic and tectonic evolution of southern Tibet
since middle Cretaceous time: New paleomagnetic
data and synthesis, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 10,311 –
10,339.
Ahmad, T., N. B. W. Harris, M. Bickle, H. Chapman,
J. Bunbury, and C. Prince (2000), Isotopic con-
straints on the structural relationships between the
Lesser Himalayan series and the High Himalayan
crystalline series, Garhwal Himalaya, Geol. Soc.
Am. Bull., 112, 467 – 477.
Akiba, C., S. Amma, and Y. Ohta (1973), Arun River
region, in Geology of the Nepal Himalayas, edi-
ted by S. Hashimoto, Y. Ohta, and C. Akiba, pp.
13 – 31, Saikon, Sapporo, Japan.
Arita, K. (1983), Origin of the inverted metamorphism
of the lower Himalayas, central Nepal, Tectonophy-
sics, 95, 43 – 60.
Arita, K., Y. Ohta, C. Akiba, and Y. Maruo (1973),
Kathmandu region, in Geology of the Nepal Hima-
layas, edited by S. Hashimoto, Y. Ohta, and
C. Akiba, pp. 93 – 133, Saikon, Sapporo, Japan.
Arita, K., D. Hayashi, and M. Yoshida (1982), Geology
and structure of the Pokhara-Piuthan area, central
Nepal, J. Nepal Geol. Soc., 2, 59.
Beck, R. A., et al. (1995), Stratigraphic evidence for an
early collision between northwest India and Asia,
Nature, 373, 55 – 58.
Bouchez, J. L., and A. Pêcher (1976), Microstructures
and quartz preferred orientations in quartzites of the
Annapurna area (central Nepal), in the proximity of
the Main Central Thrust, Himalayan Geol., 6, 118 –
131.
Burchfiel, B. C., Z. Chen, K. V. Hodges, Y. Liu, L. H.
Royden, C. Deng, and J. Xu (1992), The south
Tibetan detachment system, Himalayan orogen: Ex-
tension contemporaneous with and parallel to short-
ening, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am., 269, 41 pp.
Burg, J. P., and G. M. Chen (1984), Tectonics and
structural zonation of southern Tibet, China,
Nature, 311, 219 – 223.
Catlos, E. J., T. M. Harrison, M. J. Kohn, M. Grove,
F. J. Ryerson, C. E. Manning, and B. N. Upreti
(2001), Geochronologic and thermobarometric con-
straints on the evolution of the Main Central Thrust,
central Nepal Himalaya, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
16,177 – 16,204.
Colchen, M., P. Le Fort, and A. Pêcher (1986), Re-
cherches Géologiques Dans l’Himalaya du Népal:
Annapurna – Manaslu – Ganesh Himal, Cent. Natl.
de la Rech. Sci., Paris.
Coleman, M. E. (1996), Orogen-parallel and orogen-
perpendicular extension in the central Nepalese Hi-
malayas, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 108, 1594 – 1607.
Copeland, P., P. Le Fort, S. M. Räi, and B. N. Upreti
(1996), Cooling history of the Kathmandu crystal-
line nappe: 40Ar/39Ar results, paper presented at
11th Himalayan-Karakoram-Tibet Workshop,
North. Ariz. Univ., Flagstaff, Ariz.
Coward, M. P., and R. W. H. Butler (1985), Thrust
tectonics and the deep structure of the Pakistan Hi-
malaya, Geology, 13, 417 – 420.
Davis, G. H. (1984), Structural Geology of Rocks and
Regions, 492 pp., John Wiley, Hoboken, N. J.
DeCelles, P. G., G. E. Gehrels, J. Quade, T. P. Ojha,
P. A. Kapp, and B. N. Upreti (1998a), Neogene fore-
land basin deposits, erosional unroofing, and the ki-
nematic history of the Himalayan fold-thrust belt,
western Nepal, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 110, 2 – 21.
DeCelles, P. G., G. E. Gehrels, J. Quade, and T. P. Ojha
(1998b), Eocene-early Miocene foreland basin de-
velopment and the history of Himalayan thrusting,
western and central Nepal, Tectonics, 17, 741 – 765.
DeCelles, P. G., G. E. Gehrels, J. Quade, B. LaReau,
and M. Spurlin (2000), Tectonic implications of U-
Pb zircon ages of the Himalayan orogenic belt in
Nepal, Science, 288, 497 – 499.
DeCelles, P. G., D. M. Robinson, J. Quade, T. P. Ojha,
C. N. Garzione, P. Copeland, and B. N. Upreti
(2001), Stratigraphy, structure, and tectonic evolu-
tion of the Himalayan fold-thrust belt in western
Nepal, Tectonics, 20, 487 – 509.
DeCelles, P. G., D. M. Robinson, and G. Zandt (2002),
Implications of shortening in the Himalayan fold-
thrust belt for uplift of the Tibetan Plateau, Tec-
tonics, 21(6), 1062, doi:10.1029/2001TC001322.
DeCelles, P. G., G. E. Gehrels, Y. Najman, A. J. Martin,
A. Carter, and E. Garzanti (2004), Detrital geochro-
nology and geochemistry of Cretaceous-early Mio-
cene strata of Nepal: Implications for timing and
diachroneity of initial Himalayan orogenesis, Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett., 227, 313 – 330.
Ferrara, G. B., B. Lombardo, and S. Tonarini (1983),
Rb/Sr geochronology of granites and gneisses from
the Mount Everest region, Nepal Himalayas, Geol.
Rundsch., 59, 552 – 580.
Fraser, G., B. A. Worley, and M. Sandiford (2000),
High-precision geothermobarometry across the
High Himalayan metamorphic sequence, Langtang
Valley, Nepal, J. Metamorph. Geol., 18, 665 – 681.
Gaetani, M., and E. Garzanti (1991), Multicyclic his-
tory of the northern India continental margin (north-
western Himalaya), AAPG Bull., 75, 1427 – 1446.
Gansser, A. (1964), Geology of the Himalayas, 289 pp.,
Wiley Interscience, Hoboken, N. J.
Gansser, A. (1991), Facts and theories on the Hima-
layas, Eclogae Geol. Helv., 84, 33 – 59.
Garzanti, E. (1999), Stratigraphy and sedimentary his-
tory of the Nepal Tethys Himalaya passive margin,
J. Asian Earth Sci., 17, 805 – 827.
Gehrels, G. E., P. G. DeCelles, A. Martin, T. P. Ojha,
G. Pinhassi, and B. N. Upreti (2003), Initiation of
the Himalayan orogen as an early Paleozoic thin-
skinned thrust belt, GSA Today, 13, 4 – 9.
Godin, L. (2003), Structural evolution of the Tethyan
sedimentary sequence in the Annapurna area, cen-
tral Nepal Himalaya, J. Asian Earth Sci., 22, 307 –
328.
Godin, L., R. R. Parrish, R. L. Brown, and K. V.
Hodges (2001), Crustal thickening leading to exhu-
mation of the Himalayan metamorphic core of cen-
tral Nepal: Insight from U-Pb geochronology and
40
Ar/39Ar thermochronology, Tectonics, 20, 729 –
747.
Grujic, D., L. S. Hollister, and R. R. Parrish (2002),
Himalayan metamorphic sequence as an orogenic
channel: Insight from Bhutan, Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett., 198, 177 – 191.
Guillot, S. (1992), An overview of the metamorphic
evolution in central Nepal, J. Asian Earth Sci.,
17, 713 – 725.
Guillot, S. (1999), An overview of the metamorphic
evolution in central Nepal, J. Asian Earth Sci.,
17, 713 – 725.
Harrison, T. M., P. Copeland, W. S. F. Kidd, and A. Yin
(1992), Raising Tibet, Science, 255, 1663 – 1670.
Harrison, T. M., P. Copeland, S. A. Hall, J. Quade,
S. Burner, T. P. Ojha, and W. S. F. Kidd (1993),
Isotopic preservation of Himalayan/Tibetan uplift,
denudation, and climatic histories of two molasse
deposits, J. Geol., 101, 157 – 175.
Harrison, T. M., F. J. Ryerson, P. Le Fort, A. Yin, O. M.
Lovera, and E. J. Catlos (1997), A late Miocene-
Pliocene origin for the central Himalayan inverted
metamorphism, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 146, E1 –
E7.
Harrison, T. M., M. Grove, O. M. Lovera, and E. J.
Catlos (1998), A model for the origin of Himalayan
anatexis and inverted metamorphism, J. Geophys.
Res., 103, 27,017 – 27,032.
Heim, A., and A. Gansser (1939), Central Himalaya—
Geological observations of the Swiss expedition,
1936, Mem. Soc. Helv. Sci. Nat., 73, 1 – 245.
Hodges, K. V. (2000), Tectonics of the Himalaya and
southern Tibet from two perspectives, Geol. Soc.
Am. Bull., 112, 324 – 350.
Hodges, K. V., R. R. Parrish, and M. P. Searle
(1996), Tectonic evolution of the central Anna-
25 of 26
TC4008
purna Range, Nepalese Himalayas, Tectonics, 15,
1264 – 1291.
Hodges, K. V., C. Wobus, K. Ruhl, T. Schildgen, and
K. Whipple (2004), Quaternary deformation, river
steepening, and heavy precipitation at the front of
the higher Himalayan ranges, Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett., 220, 379 – 389.
Hubbard, M. S., and T. M. Harrison (1989), 40Ar/39Ar
age constraints on deformation and metamorphism
in the Main Central thrust zone and Tibetan slab,
eastern Nepal Himalaya, Tectonics, 8, 865 – 880.
Inger, S., and N. B. W. Harris (1992), Tectonothermal
evolution of the High Himalayan crystalline se-
quence, Langtang Valley, northern Nepal, J. Meta-
morph. Geol., 10, 439 – 452.
Inger, S., and N. B. W. Harris (1993), Geochemical
constraints on leucogranite magmatism in the Lang-
tang Valley, Nepal Himalaya, J. Petrol., 34, 345 –
368.
Johnson, M. R. W. (1994), Culminations and domal
uplifts in the Himalaya, Tectonophysics, 239,
139 – 147.
Johnson, M. R. W., G. J. H. Oliver, R. R. Parrish, and
S. P. Johnson (2001), Synthrusting, metamorphism,
cooling, and erosion of the Himalayan Kathmandu
complex, Nepal, Tectonics, 20, 394 – 415.
Kohn, M. J., E. J. Catlos, F. J. Ryerson, and T. M.
Harrison (2001), Pressure-temperature-time path
discontinuity in the Main Central thrust zone, cen-
tral Nepal, Geology, 29, 571 – 574.
Kohn, M. J., M. S. Wieland, C. D. Parkinson, and B. N.
Upreti (2004), Miocene faulting at plate tectonic
velocity in the Himalaya of central Nepal, Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett., 228, 299 – 310.
Lavé, J., and J.-P. Avouac (2000), Active folding of
fluvial terraces across the Siwalik Hills, Himalayas
of central Nepal, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 5735 –
5770.
Lee, J., B. R. Hacker, W. S. Dinklage, Y. Wang,
P. Gans, A. Calvert, J. L. Wan, W. Chen, A. E.
Blythe, and W. McClelland (2000), Evolution of
the Kangmar Dome, southern Tibet: Structural, pet-
rologic, and thermochronologic constraints, Tec-
tonics, 19, 872 – 895.
Le Fort, P. (1975), Himalayas: The collided range, pre-
sent knowledge of the continental arc, Am. J. Sci.,
275A, 1 – 44.
Le Fort, P., and S. M. Räi (1999), Pre-Tertiary felsic
magmatism of the Nepal Himalaya: Recycling of
continental crust, J. Asian Earth Sci., 17, 607 – 628.
Le Fort, P., F. Debon, A. Pêcher, J. Sonet, and P. Vidal
(1986), The 500 Ma magmatic event in alpine
southern Asia: A thermal episode at Gondwana
scale, Sci. Terre Mem., 47, 191 – 209.
Lyon-Caen, H., and P. Molnar (1985), Gravity anoma-
lies, flexure of the Indian plate, and the structure,
support, and evolution of the Himalaya and Ganga
Basin, Tectonics, 4, 513 – 538.
Macfarlane, A. M. (1999), The metamorphic history of
the crystalline rocks in the High Himalaya, Nepal:
Insights from thermobarometric data, J. Asian
Earth Sci., 17, 741 – 753.
Macfarlane, A. M., K. V. Hodges, and D. R. Lux
(1992), A structural analysis of the Main Central
Thrust zone, Langtang National Park, central Nepal
Himalaya, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 104, 1389 – 1402.
Martin, A. J., P. G. DeCelles, G. E. Gehrels, P. J.
Patchett, and C. Isachsen (2005), Isotopic and struc-
tural constraints on the location of the Main Central
thrust in the Annapurna Range, central Nepal Hi-
malaya, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 117, 926 – 944.
Mattauer, M. (1986), Intracontinental subduction, crust-
mantle décollement and crustal-stacking wedge in
the Himalayas and other collision belts, in Collision
Tectonics, edited by M. P. Coward and A. C. Ries,
Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ., 19, 37 – 50.
Najman, Y. M. R., and E. Garzanti (2000), Reconstruct-
ing early Himalayan tectonic evolution and paleo-
geography from Tertiary foreland basin sedimentary
TC4008 PEARSON AND DECELLES: RAMGARH THRUST OF NEPAL
rocks, northern India, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 112,
435 – 449.
Najman, Y. M. R., M. S. Pringle, M. R. W. Johnson,
A. H. F. Robertson, and J. R. Wijbrans (1997),
Laser 40Ar/39Ar dating of single detrital muscovite
grains from early foreland-basin sedimentary de-
posits in India: Implications for early Himalayan
evolution, Geology, 25, 535 – 538.
Ojha, T. P., R. F. Butler, J. Quade, P. G. DeCelles,
D. Richards, and B. N. Upreti (2000), Magnetic
polarity stratigraphy of the Neogene Siwalik Group
at Khutia Khola, far western Nepal, Geol. Soc. Am.
Bull., 112, 424 – 434.
Pande, J. C. (1950), A geological note on the Ramgarh
area, dist. Nainital (U. P.), Q. J. Geol. Min. Metall.
Soc. India, 22, 15 – 23.
Parrish, R. R., and K. V. Hodges (1996), Isotopic con-
straints on the age and provenance of the Lesser and
Greater Himalayan sequences, Nepalese Himalaya,
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 108, 904 – 911.
Passchier, C. W., and R. A. J. Trouw (1996), Microtec-
tonics, 289 pp., Springer, New York.
Pearson, O. N. (2002), Structural evolution of the cen-
tral Nepal fold-thrust belt and regional tectonic and
structural significance of the Ramgarh Thrust,
Ph.D. thesis, 231 pp., Univ. of Ariz., Tucson.
Pêcher, A. (1978), Déformation et métamorphisme
associes à une grande zone de cisaillement, exem-
ple du grand chevauchement central Himalayen
(MCT), transversales des Annapurnas et du Mana-
slu, Népal, thèse d’état thesis, 310 pp., Univ. de
Grenoble, Grenoble, France.
Pêcher, A. (1989), The metamorphism in the central
Himalaya, J. Metamorph. Geol., 7, 31 – 41.
Pivnik, D. A., and N. A. Wells (1996), The transition
from Tethys to the Himalaya as recorded in north-
west Pakistan, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 108, 1295 –
1313.
Powell, C. M., and P. Conaghan (1973), Plate tectonics
and the Himalayas, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 20, 1 –
12.
Powers, P. M., R. J. Lillie, and R. S. Yeats (1998),
Structure and shortening of the Kangra and Dehra
Dun reentrants, sub-Himalaya, India, Geol. Soc.
Am. Bull., 110, 1010 – 1027.
Quade, J., J. M. L. Cater, T. P. Ojha, J. Adam, and T. M.
Harrison (1995), Late Miocene environmental
change in Nepal and the northern Indian subconti-
nent: Stable isotopic evidence from paleosols, Geol.
Soc. Am. Bull., 107, 1381 – 1397.
Räi, S. M., S. Guillot, P. Le Fort, and B. N. Upreti
(1998), Pressure-temperature evolution in the Kath-
mandu and Gosainkund regions, central Nepal,
J. Asian Earth Sci., 16, 283 – 298.
Ratschbacher, L., W. Frisch, and L. Guanghau (1994),
Distributed deformation in southern and western
Tibet during and after the India-Asia collision,
J. Geophys. Res., 99, 19,917 – 19,945.
Reddy, S. M., M. P. Searle, and J. A. Massey (1993),
Structural evolution of the High Himalayan gneiss
sequence, Langtang Valley, Nepal, in Himalayan
Tectonics, edited by P. J. Treloar and M. P. Searle,
Geol. Spec. Publ., 74, 375 – 389.
Robinson, D. M. (2001), Structural and Nd-isotopic
evidence for the tectonic evolution of the Himala-
yan fold-thrust belt, western Nepal and the northern
Tibetan Plateau, Ph.D. thesis, 224 pp., Univ. of
Ariz., Tucson.
Robinson, D. M., P. G. DeCelles, P. J. Patchett, and
C. N. Garzione (2001), The kinematic evolution
of the Nepalese Himalaya interpreted from Nd iso-
topes, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 192, 507 – 521.
Robinson, D. M., P. G. DeCelles, C. N. Garzione, O. N.
Pearson, T. M. Harrison, and E. J. Catlos (2003),
Kinematic model for the Main Central Thrust in
Nepal, Geology, 31, 359 – 362.
Rowley, D. B. (1996), Age of initiation of collision
between India and Asia: A review of stratigraphic
data, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 145, 1 – 13.
Sakai, H. (1983), Geology of the Tansen Group of the
Lesser Himalaya in Nepal, Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyushu
Univ., Ser. D, 15, 27 – 74.
Sakai, H. (1985), Rifting of the Gondwanaland and
uplifting of the Himalayas recorded in Mesozoic
and Tertiary fluvial sediments in the Nepal Hima-
layas, in Sedimentary Facies in the Active Plate
Margin, edited by A. Taira and F. Masuda, pp.
723 – 732, Terra Sci., Tokyo.
Sakai, H. (1989), Rifting of Gondwanaland and uplift-
ing of the Himalayas recorded in Mesozoic and
Tertiary fluvial sediments in the Nepal Himalayas,
in Sedimentary Facies in the Active Plate Margin,
edited by A. Taira and F. Masuda, pp. 723 – 732,
Terra Sci., Tokyo.
Schelling, D. D. (1992), The tectonostratigraphy and
structure of the eastern Nepal Himalaya, Tectonics,
11, 925 – 943.
Schelling, D. D., and K. Arita (1991), Thrust tectonics,
crustal shortening, and the structure of the far-east-
ern Nepal Himalaya, Tectonics, 10, 851 – 862.
Searle, M. P., and L. Godin (2003), The south Tibetan
detachment and the Manaslu leucogranite: A struc-
tural reinterpretation and restoration of the Anna-
purna-Manaslu Himalaya, Nepal, J. Geol., 111,
505 – 523.
Sharma, R., P. Verma, and H. K. Sachan (2003), Stron-
tium isotopic constraints for the origin of barite
mineralization of Tons Valley, Lesser Himalaya,
Curr. Sci., 85, 653 – 656.
Shrestha, S. B., J. N. Shrestha, and S. R. Sharma
(1984a), Geologic map of eastern Nepal, scale
1:250,000, Topogr. Surv. Branch, Surv. Dep., Kath-
mandu.
Shrestha, S. B., J. N. Shrestha, and S. R. Sharma
(1984b), Geological map of central Nepal, scale
1:250,000, Topogr. Surv. Branch, Surv. Dep., Kath-
mandu.
Shrestha, S. B., J. N. Shrestha, and S. R. Sharma
(1987a), Geological map of mid western Nepal,
scale 1:250,000, Topogr. Surv. Branch, Surv.
Dep., Kathmandu.
Shrestha, S. B., J. N. Shrestha, and S. R. Sharma
(1987b), Geological map of far western Nepal,
scale 1:250,000, Topogr. Surv. Branch, Surv.
Dep., Kathmandu.
Sinha, A. K. (1981), Geology and tectonics of the Hi-
malayan region of Ladakh, Himachal, Garwhal-Ku-
maun, and Arunachal Pradesh: A review, in Zagros,
Hindu Kush, Himalaya: Geodynamic Evolution,
Geodyn. Ser., vol. 3, edited by H. K. Gupta and
F. M. Delany, pp. 122 – 148, AGU, Washington, D. C.
Srivastava, P., and G. Mitra (1994), Thrust geometries
and deep structure of the outer and Lesser Hima-
laya, Kumaon and Garhwal (India): Implications for
evolution of the Himalayan fold-and-thrust belt,
Tectonics, 13, 89 – 109.
26 of 26
TC4008
Srivastava, P., and G. Mitra (1996), Deformation
mechanisms and inverted thermal profile in the
North Almora Thrust mylonite zone, Kumaon Les-
ser Himalaya, India, J. Struct. Geol., 18, 27 – 39.
Steck, A. (2003), Geology of the northwest Indian Hi-
malaya, Eclogae Geol. Helv., 96, 147 – 196.
Stephenson, B. J., D. J. Waters, and M. P. Searle
(2000), Inverted metamorphism and the Main Cen-
tral Thrust: Field relations and thermobarometric
constraints from the Kishtwar Window, northwest
Indian Himalaya, J. Metamorph. Geol., 18, 571 –
590.
Stephenson, B. J., M. P. Searle, D. J. Waters, and
D. Rex (2001), Structure of the Main Central Thrust
zone and extrusion of the High Himalayan deep
crustal wedge, Kishtwar-Zanskar Himalaya,
J. Geol. Soc. London, 158, 637 – 652.
Stöcklin, J. (1980), Geology of Nepal and its regional
frame, J. Geol. Soc. London, 137, 1 – 34.
Stöcklin, J., and K. D. Bhattarai (1982), Photogeologi-
cal map of part of central Nepal, scale 1:100,000,
U. N. Dev. Program, Tehran, Iran.
Takagi, H., K. Arita, T. Sawaguchi, K. Kobayashi, and
D. Awaji (2003), Kinematic history of the Main
Central Thrust zone in the Langtang area, Nepal,
Tectonophysics, 366, 151 – 163.
Tater, J. M., S. B. Shrestha, and J. N. Shrestha (1984),
Geological map of western central Nepal, scale
1:250,000, Topogr. Surv. Branch, Surv. Dep., Kath-
mandu.
Upreti, B. N. (1996), Stratigraphy of the western Nepal
Lesser Himalaya, J. Nepal Geol. Soc., 13, 11 – 28.
Upreti, B. N., and P. Le Fort (1999), Lesser Himalayan
crystalline nappes of Nepal: Problems of their ori-
gin, in Himalaya and Tibet; Mountain Roots to
Mountain Tops, edited by A. M. Macfarlane, R. B.
Sorkhabi, and J. Quade, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am.,
328, 225 – 238.
Valdiya, K. S. (1980), Geology of the Kumaon Lesser
Himalaya, 291 pp., Wadia Inst. of Himalayan
Geol., Dehra Dun, India.
Vannay, J.-C., and K. V. Hodges (1996), Tectonometa-
morphic evolution of the Himalayan metamorphic
core between Annapurna and Dhaulagiri, central
Nepal, J. Metamorph. Geol., 14, 635 – 656.
Wesnousky, S. G., S. Kumar, R. Mohindra, and V. C.
Thakur (1999), Uplift and convergence along the
Himalayan Frontal Thrust of India, Tectonics, 18,
967 – 976.
West, R. M., J. R. Lukacs, J. Munthe, and S. T. Hussain
(1978), Vertebrate fauna from Neogene Siwalik
Group, Dang Valley, western Nepal, J. Paleontol.,
52, 1015 – 1022.
Whittington, A., G. Foster, N. Harris, D. Vance, and
M. Ayres (1999), Lithostratigraphic correlations in
the western Himalaya: An isotopic approach, Geol-
ogy, 27, 585 – 588.
Yin, A., and T. M. Harrison (2000), Geologic evolution
of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen, Annu. Rev. Earth
Planet. Sci., 28, 211 – 280.
P.
G. DeCelles and O. N. Pearson, Department of
Geosciences, University of Arizona, 1040 E. 4th Street,
Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. (opearson@geo.arizona.edu)