TECTONOPHYSICS

ELSEVIER Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21

Riphean rifting and major Palaeoproterozoic crustal boundaries in the

basement of the East European Craton: geology and geophysics
a •
S.V. B o g d a n o v a ' , I.K. P a s h k e v i c h b, R. G o r b a t s c h e v a, M.I. O r l y u k b
a Institute of Geology, Lund University, SOlvegatan 13, S-223 62 Lurid, Sweden
b Institute of Geophysics, National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine, Palladin Ave. 32, 252 680, Kiev, Ukraine
Received 20 December 1995; accepted 31 May 1996

Abstract

The East European Craton, which occupies the northeastern half of the European continent, is characterized by the
presence of giant, even transcratonic systems of Riphean (Meso- to Neoproterozoic) rifts (aulacogens).
The largest of these Riphean rift systems tend to follow the course of Palaeoproterozoic sutures and junction zones
that subdivide the craton into three crustal segments with autonomous development histories. These segments, named
Fennoscandia, Volgo-Uralia and Sarmatia, are marked by distinct T-MAGSAT anomalies.
Genetically, the intersegment junction zones represent different types of collisional and accretional interaction between
the component crustal segments of the craton.
In accordance with this, the Riphean rift systems vary in width, the presence or absence of Moho uplifts, and other
properties like, for instance, heat flow values. However, all of them follow belts of weakly magnetized crust studded
with local magnetic maxima due to the presence of mafic rocks associated with the rifting. The rift system-intersegment
junction zone relationships, in consequence, similarly represent a range of variation and cannot be referred to one single
model.

Keywords: rifts; sutures; Palaeoproterozoic; Riphean; crust; East European Craton

1. Introduction and aulacogens. The most extensive are the Volhyn-

Drillings into the crystalline basement and geo-
physical surveys have demonstrated the presence
of numerous Meso- to Neoproterozoic ('Riphean')
grabens and troughs beneath the sedimentary cover
of the East European Craton (e.g., Shatsky, 1955,
1964; Khain, 1977; Valeev, 1978; Peive et al., 1981;
Milanovsky, 1983). Many of these structures be-
long to large, even transcratonic systems of rifts
* Corresponding author. Fax: -t-46.46.121-477.
Orsha-Central Russian, the Pachelma, and the Peri-
Uralian systems. In each of these, the earliest struc-
tures are faults that delimit grabens, but from the
Neoproterozoic III (the 'Vendian', cf. Chumakov
and Semikhatov, 1981; Plumb, 1991) onwards, the
original rifts became the loci of more widespread
subsidence. As a result, large intracratonic basins
were formed.
Many authors have assumed tentatively that the
Riphean rift systems are related somehow to the
crustal structure of the East European Craton (EEC),

0040-1951/96/$15.00 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Pll S 0 0 4 0 - 1 9 5 1 ( 9 6 ) 0 0 2 3 2 - 6
2 S.V. Bogdanova et al./Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
possibly outlining ancient tectonic boundaries or
zones of weakness (e.g., Gafarov, 1976; Valeev,
1978; Kratz, 1979; Milanovsky, 1983). A factual
basis for such correlation, however, was missing un-
til very recently, when studies of the EEC suggested
that the craton is made up of three different crustal
segments and that the Riphean transcratonic rift sys-
tems, with the exception of the Peri-Uralian one,
extend along the junctions between these segments
(Bogdanova, 1993a,b; Gorbatschev and Bogdanova,
1993; Khain and Leonov, in press). This model has
replaced previous concepts that envisaged a more
uniform crustal structure where the craton was de-
scribed as a mosaic of Archean massifs and blocks
scattered in a 'matrix' of Proterozoic folded belts
(Khain, 1977; Peive et al., 1981; Rundquist and
Mitrofanov, 1993; cf. the review by Goodwin, 1991).
The principal purpose of the present study is to in-
tegrate the existing and some unpublished geological
and geophysical information in order to characterize
the interrelationships of the older junction zones be-
tween the different crustal segments and the Riphean
rift systems, and to investigate regional variation of
these relationships.
In general, the Riphean rift systems together with
the Palaeoproterozoic junction zones between the
crustal segments are marked by wide belts of dis-
continuous, linear magnetic and gravity anomalies,
commonly associated with Moho uplifts (e.g., Ga-
farov, 1976; Kozlova and Patrusheva, 1976; Valeev,
1978). They also appear to coincide with zones of
transition between crustal units of different magneti-
zation which have been recognized by the combined
interpretation of near-surface and T-MAGSAT mag-
netic fields (Pashkevich et al., 1990, 1993).
Another apparent regularity requiring study and
genetic interpretation, but not considered at length in
the present context, is the observation that virtually
all large provinces of high magnetization of the crust
that complicate the T-MAGSAT field are situated in
the periphery of the craton. This may indicate mafic
igneous activity along the margins of the craton
during the development of the adjacent Phanerozoic
orogenic belts. Related or unrelated to such orogenic
processes may be local, intense reorganization of
the Precambrian magnetic field of the EEC due to
intraplate Palaeozoic tectonics along, for instance,
the Devonian Pripyat'-Dniepr-Donets Aulacogen.
2. The three-segment structure of the East
European craton
The recently proposed three-segment model for
the East European Craton, already referred to in the
introduction, was developed during the work on the
third edition of the 'International Tectonic Map of
Europe and Adjacent Areas' (Khain and Leonov, in
press). Its basis is a compilation of all then available
lithological and geochronological data obtained from
drill-core samples and the juxtaposition of these data
with the results of geophysical studies. Geodynamic
contexts suggested by the exposed crystalline crust in
the Baltic and Ukrainian Shields, and the Voronezh
Massif, were also taken into account. The synthesis
of this information indicated significant differences
of regional crustal structure and development histo-
ries of the Precambrian crust in various parts of the
EEC (Bogdanova, 1993a,b). As a result, three differ-
ent, once autonomous crustal segments were identi-
fied which were named Fennoscandia (that segment
also includes the Baltic Shield), Volgo-Uralia and
Sarmatia, the latter comprising the Ukrainian Shield
and the Voronezh Massif with adjacent unexposed
areas (Fig. 1, inset and Fig. 3).
The three crustal segments differ in their tectonic
patterns, the ages of the crust-forming processes in
the Archean and the Proterozoic, and particularly in
their Palaeoproterozoie crustal dynamics.
Eastern Fennoscandia and Volgo-Uralia are both
characterized by predominant Meso- to Neoarchean,
3.0-2.6-Ga-old crust (e.g., Bogdanova, 1986; Ga~il
and Gorbatschev, 1987; Gorbatschev and Bogda-
nova, 1993; Bibikova et al., 1994), but the patterns of
structure and the directions of structural trends dif-
fer drastically as do the respective Palaeoproterozoic
histories (cf. Figs. 1 and 2 in Bogdanova, 1993b;
Gorbatschev and Bogdanova, 1993; Fig. 2). In the
Palaeoproterozoic and the earliest Mesoproterozoic,
after ca. 2.1-2.0 Ga, Fennoscandia grew by gradual
accretion of new crust in the west. This was preceded
by rifting of the Archean craton and even its disper-
sal during the earliest Palaeoproterozoic (ca 2.5-2.1
Ga ago). The rifted Archean domains were partly
reassembled during the collisional orogeny that af-
fected northeastern Fennoscandia between 1.9 and
1.8 Ga.
Volgo-Uralia, in contrast, underwent a thorough
 S. V. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21 3

"\
, I
/
/
\1
,.,\
t

t\ ) "x •

i
500 km
I ",, "------."-1
Isolines, nT: Intensity of mean magneti-
~'~ positive zation of the crust, A/m: I I virtually non-magnetic
zero ~ 2.5 and higher ~ Bordersof the East
European Craton
negative ~ 2.0 - 2.5

about 0.5
Fig. 1. T-MAGSAT anomalies (after Coles et al., 1982) and magnetic crustal provinces of the East European Craton. The inset shows the
three-segment model for the craton according to S.V. Bogdanova (1993b) with some additional modifications. Its dashed line along the
axis of the Pachelma Aulacogen marks the trace of the gently NE-dipping boundary between Volgo-Uralia and Sarmatia at depths of ca.
30 km.

reorganization of its Archean crust into a system of
giant Palaeoproterozoic dome-like structures (Bog-
danova, 1986). The Palaeoproterozoic rifts and colli-
sion sutures prominent in northeastern Fennoscandia
do not appear to continue into Volgo-Uralia across
the junction zone between the two crustal segments.
At least, they are not seen in the Volgo-Uralian mag-
netic anomaly patterns. Subsequently, crustal growth
in southwestern Fennoscandia lasted until ca. 1.55
Ga and there was substantial structural and meta-
morphic reworking of the crust during the Sveconor-
wegian/Grenvillian orogeny between 1.1 and 0.9 Ga
 S. V. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21

~
0
0
0,I
0
0
0

0
~ ==oo. o _
oO,,,

~ o(-._~ ~ o o

~o~E~o
iI~p

4o
.=~
o
0

~ "~ o ~-~ ~
0 ".--"

\ 0

~p
.u <
0

- - .u Z

r~

r/~ 0t) o
e- N
o .. ":"

.-,,,¢.:.~.~..
!~!- E

iI
0

~..:::.-

eq ~ . -
/©
 S. V. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
ago (e.g., Larson et al., 1986; Ga~il and Gorbatschev,
1987; t~da~illet al., 1995).
Sarmatia is the most specific amongst the three
crustal segments. It differs from the others both in
regard to its Archean and Proterozoic chronology of
crust formation, and by the extensive presence of
Meso- and even some Palaeoarchean crust of 3.65
to 3.0 Ga age (Shcherbak et al., 1984; Bibikova and
Williams, 1990; Samsonov et al., 1996). Sarmatia
consists of four or five different Archean terranes
which appear to have been welded together into a
coherent unit in the latest Archean and the earliest
Palaeoproterozoic. This process ended between 2.3
and 2.1 Ga ago (cf. Shchipansky and Bogdanova,
1996). Later, Sarmatia was bounded by marginal
folded belts. The ca. 2.1-Ga Lipetsk-Losev Volcanic
Belt and the East Voronezh Province in the east mark
the boundary between Sarmatia and Volgo-Uralia,
while the ca. 2.0-Ga Osnitsk-Mikashevichi belt in
the northwest outlines the position of the Sarmatia-
Fennoscandia junction.
Autonomous histories of Fennoscandia, Sarma-
tia and Volgo-Uralia in the Palaeoproterozoic are
indicated by lithological and age differences, and
still more by differently trending Palaeoproterozoic
structural grain and rock unit boundaries in the three
crustal segments (Fig. 2). The three-segment model
for the EEC agrees well with changes of the rel-
ative positions of Sarmatia and Fennoscandia sug-
gested by palaeomagnetic data from the Baltic and
Ukrainian Shields and from the Voronezh Massif
(Elming et al., 1993; Iosifidi et al., 1995), but the
precise chronologies of particular plate movements
still remain to be elaborated.
As far as the patterns of the Palaeoproterozoic in-
tersegment sutures and Riphean rifts are concerned,
the Central Russian rift system continues toward the
southwest, passing into the Volhyn-Orsha depres-
sion. It marks the boundary separating Fennoscandia
from the other two crustal segments all the way
from the Tornquist-Teisseyre-Zone trans-European
crustal boundary to the Timan Province in the north-
east (Fig. 1, inset).
The Pachelma (also known as the Moscow-
Ryazan-Saratov) rift system is close to the junc-
tion between Volgo-Uralia and Sarmatia. It extends
from the Peri-Caspian depression to the vicinity of
Moscow.
5
The other Riphean rifts, in contrast, are not im-
mediately related to Palaeoproterozoic intersegment
boundaries. Some follow the Urals or associate with
the Timan region, while others complicate the interi-
ors of the three crustal segments. The latter outline
major within-segment zones of weakness (cf. Fig. 3)
but do not separate crustal domains of independent
crustal histories in the Palaeoproterozoic.
3. Principal magnetic characteristics of the EEC
lithosphere
3.1. General
Three types of magnetic anomalies character-
ize the lithosphere of the East European Craton.
These are: (1) short-wavelength anomalies caused by
sources within the uppermost crust down to 18-20
km depth, and partly even within the sedimentary
cover atop the crystalline basement; (2) long-wave-
length anomalies produced by sources within the
lower crust down to the Moho discontinuity and/or
the Curie isotherm; and (3) T-MAGSAT anomalies
nearly 1000 km in diameter (Coles et al., 1982;
Haines, 1985; Nolte and Hahn, 1992) which arise
from the total effect of crustal and probably also
upper mantle sources (Bulina, 1976; Krutikhovskaya
et al., 1982; Pashkevich et al., 1990, 1994; Nolte and
Hahn, 1992).
The main sources of all these magnetic anoma-
lies are mafic igneous rocks, some of these related
to orogenic, others to anorogenic lithospheric pro-
cesses (Krutikhovskaya et al., 1982; Pashkevich et
al., 1994). Banded iron formations like those of the
Kursk, Oskol and Krivoy Rog iron belts in Sarmatia
are exceptional sources contributing locally impor-
tant but altogether only subordinate components of
the overall magnetization of the crust.
In broad outline, the pattern of T-MAGSAT
anomalies in the EEC corresponds closely to the
subdivision of the craton into three crustal segments
as described in the previous text section. Two large
positive T-MAGSAT anomalies in the southeastern
half of the EEC, with more than 14 nT and 6 nT, re-
spectively, coincide with Sarmatia and Volgo-Uralia
(Fig. 1). In contrast, Fennoscandia, which comprises
crustal provinces of widely different ages and char-
acters, features more magnetic inhomogeneity. A
6 S.V. Bogdanova et al./Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21

+ + + + + +
,x

Baltic Shield ~ N

I- + + + +
(I
+ + + +
),
• + + <~"~, p,.

LO~

VOLGOo
L'FENN( NDIA URALIA
j /-" +

Baltic
Sea
. . . . • • • /. , • ... • •

~ ' i"/~eri-Caspian
" :
\

x, VM

~ ~ S AULACOGEN(J ,
UkrainianShield ~ , ~ ~ Caspi~
~ Riphean rift system i~ ~ +~ f ~ ' ~ Sea
~ Geophysicallyinferred Riphean
magmatic intrusionsand volcanicfields
~ East Voronezh marginal belt (EVS)
Black Sea
I~-~l Osnitsk-MikashevichiIgneous Belt (O-M) I 250 km I

Fig. 3. Riphean rift systems in the East European Craton and their relationships with Palaeoproterozoic intersegment junction zones
and boundaries. Letter symbols are for Riphean troughs: B = Bothnian, K = Kandalaksha, Kr = Krestzy (also Molokovo), L =
Leshukonskoye, La = Ladoga-Pasha, V = Valday, V-O = Volhyn-Orsha; for Palaeoproterozoic belts: EVB = East Voronezh Marginal
Belt, including the Lipetsk-Losev Volcanic Belt and the East Voronezh Schist Province, and O-M = Osnitsk-Mikashevichi Igneous
Belt; Kt = the Kotlas intrusion of presumably Riphean age. Double lines mark the boundaries and transition zones between crustal
segments. The Voronezh Massif (VM) is the part of Sarmatia, north of the Dniepr-Donetz Aulacogen.

large part of its territory even coincides with a nega- craton. In northern Fennoscandia, such anomalies
tive anomaly. Magnetization of the crust ranges from continue outside the boundaries of the craton into the
almost nil to more than 2.5 A/m (Fig. 1). The crust of Barents Sea shelf region.
Volgo-Uralia and Sarmatia has more homogeneous The short-wavelength, near-surface magnetic
magnetization with mean intensities of ca. 2.0-2.5 anomalies closely reflect the structural patterns of
A/m and 2.5-3.5 A/m, respectively. High-gradient the crust and have been employed extensively in the
zones in the T-MAGSAT anomaly pattern are situ- geological mapping of the crystalline basement be-
ated very close to the junction zones between the neath the platformal sediments (e.g., Gafarov, 1976;
three crustal segments. Figs. 1 and 2 also show that Kratz, 1979; Puura, 1980; Peive et al., 1981; Kubicki
intense, positive, long-wavelength and T-MAGSAT and Ryka, 1982; Bogdanova, 1986; Aksamentova
anomalies are located close to the margins of the and Naydenkov, 1990; Khain and Leonov, in press).
 S. V. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysic s 268 (1996) 1-21
Similar to the T-MAGSAT patterns, marked gra-
dients of the near-surface magnetic anomalies and
changes of these magnetic field patterns are closely
connected with the major Proterozoic crustal discon-
tinuities (Fig. 2).
3.2. Fennoscandia
This segment features a very variable crust, rang-
ing in thickness between 30 and 60 km (Blundell
et al., 1992; Belousov and Pavlenkova, 1993; Ko-
rja et al., 1993; Petrov and Suprunenko, 1994). The
outer, marginal parts of Fennoscandia are variably
magnetized with intensities from 0.5 to 2.2 A/m,
while some interior parts are virtually non-magnetic
(Fig. 2). The highly negative T-MAGSAT anomaly
occupying the southern half of Fennoscandia (Fig. 1)
has been explained partly by a thermal high in the
vicinity of St. Petersburg that minimizes total crustal
magnetization and the thickness of the magnetoac-
tive 'layer' (Hahn and Wonik, 1990; Pashkevich et
al., 1993). However, the low (1.0-1.5 A/m) crustal
magnetization in this part of Fennoscandia is also a
consequence of the apparent scarcity of highly mag-
netic rocks in the crust. Most of the magnetic sources
in the upper crust occur in southwestern and north-
ern Fennoscandia where large, deep-seated magnetic
sources exist in rifting and collisional environments.
3.3. Sarmatia
Sarmatia is characterized by an average crustal
thickness of ca. 48 km and a highly magnetized
lithosphere (Pashkevich et al., 1994). The mean
magnetization of the crystalline crust is about 2.5
A/m to which adds another 0.2 A/m to account for
the contribution from magnetic igneous rocks in the
platform cover. The magnetization of the upper ca.
10 km of crust varies strongly, ranging from 0.5
to 5.0 A/m. The most magnetized rocks are the
banded iron formations of the Kursk-Oskol type (cf.
Shchipansky and Bogdanova, 1996) which have val-
ues of ca. 10 A/m. Deep-seated sources in the lower
crust of Sarmatia have magnetizations up to 4 A/m
and are thus somewhat more magnetic than compa-
rable sources in the lower crusts of Fennoscandia
and Volgo-Uralia. Some of these sources associate
with Moho lows down to 60 km, others with Moho
7
steps (Pashkevich et al., 1990). A probable cause of
such relationships could be mafic igneous underplat-
ing similar to that described by Korja et al. (1993)
from Finland.
Calculations by Pashkevich et al. (1993) have
shown that the Sarmatian T-MAGSAT anomaly can-
not be induced solely by upper and middle crustal
magnetic sources such as the Palaeoproterozoic
Kursk, Oskol and Krivoy Rog banded iron forma-
tions. Highly magnetized sources in the lower crust
and upper mantle must also be involved. This agrees
with a Curie isotherm that is mostly below the Moho.
According to Orlyuk and Pashkevich (1994),
magnetic inhomogeneities present at different lev-
els in the crust and upper mantle of Sarmatia
could be due to strong disturbance, and structural
and compositional reorganization of the lithosphere
during the development of the Palaeozoic Dniepr-
Donets Aulacogen and the associated voluminous
input of mafic magmas. The lower-crustal mag-
netic sources associated with the Devonian Dniepr-
Donets Aulacogen are ca. 60 x 200 km in size and
ca. 2 A/m in magnetization. Unlike the magnetic
sources related to the Riphean rift systems, the for-
mer occupy large areas and can continue through the
whole crust into the upper mantle. Thus, the intense
Palaeozoic deep-seated mafic magmatism within the
DDA contributes to the effect of the Precambrian
high-magnetic rocks to bring the total magnetization
of the lithosphere in Sarmatia up to the values of
the highly positive T-MAGSAT anomaly (Pashke-
vich et al., 1990). Also, along the margins of the East
European Craton in Sarmatia as well as in southwest-
ern and northern Fennoscandia, magnetization of the
crust is highest where there appear to exist large
deep-seated magnetic sources. Areas of Vendian and
Palaeozoic magmatism in the East European Craton
(e.g., Moskaleva et al., 1993; Grachev et al., 1994)
coincide reasonably well with highly magnetic parts
of the crust.
3.4. Volgo-Uralia
With an average thickness of ca. 40 km, the crust
of this segment is thinner than that of the other
crustal segments and has a mean magnetization of
less than 2.2 A/m. The location of magnetic sources
and their nature are similar to those in the Sarma-
8 S.V. Bogdanova et al./Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
tian segment, but there appears to exist no important
contribution from banded iron formations. A specific
feature of the near-surface magnetic field in Volgo-
Uralia is its large-scale 'mosaic' pattern dominated
by oval and rounded, concentric anomalies 300 km
and more in diameter (Fig. 2, cf. also Bogdanova,
1986). These reflect the Paleproterozoic tectonic
pattern of this crustal segment. Towards the Peri-
Caspian part of Volgo-Uralia, clearly discemible
magnetic anomalies tend to disappear because of
the screening effect of a sedimentary platform cover
of ca.15-20 km thickness.
4. The Riphean rift systems and the
Palaeoproterozoic intersegment junction zones
4.1. General
The two major Meso- to Neoproterozoic (Riph-
ean) graben and trough systems in the basement of
the EEC trend transversely, roughly perpendicularly
to the boundaries of the craton (Fig. 3). Smaller
Riphean rifts are branches of the major systems and
continue into the interior parts of the crustal seg-
ments following distinct zones of weakness in the
Archean and Proterozoic crust.
The southwestem part of the transcratonic
Volhyn-Orsha-Central Russian rift system outlines
the boundary between Fennoscandia and Sarma-
tia, while its northeastern part follows the bound-
ary between Fennoscandia and Volgo-Uralia. The
Pachelma system extends along the boundary be-
tween Sarmatia and Volgo-Uralia but is situated
somewhat inside the Volgo-Uralian crustal segment.
Close to the Pericaspian depression, it splits up into
several arms (Fig. 3).
In both these rift systems, mostly red, continen-
tal clastic deposits altemating with marine siltstones
and shales form the sedimentary fills of the grabens
and troughs. They are accompanied by volcanoclas-
tic rocks, basaltic lavas, mafic sills and layered intru-
sions, and dykes of dolerite. The thickness of the sed-
imentary piles varies in the different structures, but
drilling and geophysical data suggest that it usually
does not exceed 5 km. The igneous rocks are domi-
nantly sub-alkalic, subordinately alkali-basaltic. The
distribution of the rocks of different composition in
the various Riphean rifts appears to be rather irreg-
ular (e.g., Moskaleva et al., 1993; Grachev et al.,
1994).
Magmatic activity in the different rifts became
more intense with time, in the Volhyn'-Orsha de-
pression, for instance, culminating only towards the
end of the Riphean (e.g., Nagomy, 1990).
The stratigraphies and ages of the rift fills have
been studied both by correlation with the Riphean
stratotypes of the Urals and by employing palaeon-
tological dating of the sediments and isotopic dating
of the igneous rocks (e.g., Postnikova, 1977; Valeev,
1978; Chumakov and Semikhatov, 1981; Nagorny,
1990). The ages obtained show that rifting and sed-
iment accumulation began in the easternmost EEC,
around 1.65 Ga ago. This applies both to the Peri-
Uralian troughs and the Pachelma rift system. The
Volhyn-Orsha -Central Russian rift system and the
interior rifts of Fennoscandia (e.g., the Ladoga and
Bothnian rifts) began to develop later, at ca. 1.4-1.3
Ga (e.g., Nagorny, 1990; Moskaleva et al., 1993;
Grachev et al., 1994; Vidal and Moczydlowska,
1995). Tectonic activity and sedimentation in vir-
tually all the rifts lasted into the Vendian, i.e. close
to ca. 700 Ma ago. By this time, the rift systems had
evolved into wide, platformal basins (e.g., Khain,
1977; Milanovsky, 1983; Grachev et al., 1994; Garet-
sky, 1995).
The Central Russian and Pachelma rift systems
comprise series of echeloned, narrow, individual
troughs which define an anastomosing, transten-
sional pattern of strike-slip movements and exten-
sion. The troughs are flanked by normal steep faults,
but some portions of the rift bottoms have been
uplifted into horsts by high-angle reverse faulting
that has been suggested to have taken place in the
Vendian or even the Palaeozoic (e.g., Valeev, 1978).
Transverse strike-slip faults are also very character-
istic.
Structurally, the Volhyn'-Orsha depression is an
exception. It continues the Central Russian rift struc-
tures toward the southwest and is morphologically
different from the other aulacogens. It is a large,
rather shallow, late Riphean basin which over-
lies several separate older grabens (Valeev, 1978;
Nagorny, 1990).
In the wide zones of junction between the three
Archean to Palaeoproterozoic crustal segments, the
Riphean transcratonic rift systems are only one of
 $. V Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
the characterising structural components. Other ma-
jor features are the presence of Palaeoproterozoic
marginal belts along the edges of Sarmatia and the
juxtaposition of disconnected slivers of older crust
derived from both the neighbouring crustal segments
(Fig. 3). The latter is particularly characteristic of the
junction between Fennoscandia and Volgo-Uralia.
The differing relationships between Riphean rift-
ing and the Palaeoproterozoic intersegment sutures
are recorded well by differences of the gravity- and
magnetic-potential field characteristics, and by vari-
ations of crustal thicknesses.
4.2. The Central Russian rift system and the junction
zone between Fennoscandia and Volgo-Uralia
This junction zone is a 250-300-km-wide belt
where blocks and slivers of crust derived from the
adjoining Fennoscandian and Volgo-Uralian crustal
segments appear to be juxtaposed with each other.
Riphean rifting that created the Central Russian rift
system occurred in the axial part of this junction
zone; its more peripheral parts are characterized by a
rhomboidal pattern of faults and grabens.
Close to the southwestern part of the junction
zone, southeast of the axis of rifting (Fig. 4), there
is a sizable unit of Archean crust known as the Neli-
dov (also the Rzhev) Block which is geophysically
similar to the Karelian granite-greenstone province.
This similarity is also confirmed by deep drillings
(cf. Chekulaev and Berkovsky, 1988; Bogdanova,
1993b). Lithologically and geophysically it appears
most reasonable to conclude that the Nelidov Block
is a disconnected fragment of the Archean province
in Karelia. If so, the relative displacement of the
Nelidov Block and the Archean Domain in Kare-
lia appears to be 250-300 km and thus suggests
very substantial dextral strike-slip along the junction
zone (Fig. 4). The presence of the Nelidov Block in
the junction zone, in turn, has much influenced the
location and lithologies of the adjacent minor Riph-
ean grabens and troughs (Erinchek and Mil'shtein,
1993).
There are also other disconnected slivers of
Fennoscandian and Volgo-Uralian crust in the junc-
tion zone. Fragments of granulitic crust, like that
in Volgo-Uralia, have thus been found by drillholes
into the basement in the Lubim area and close to
9
Moscow in the part of the junction zone adjacent
to Volgo-Uralia (Fig. 4). These fragments are com-
monly marked by local gravity highs and sometimes
also by magnetic lows which appear to be due to
the weak magnetization of metapelitic granulites and
anatectites.
In the vicinity of the junction zone, the ma-
jor intra-segment, interprovincial boundaries in
Fennoscandia appear curved and displaced (Figs. 2
and 4; cf. fig. I in Bogdanova, 1993b). This is seen
particularly well in the case of the high-grade Belo-
morian Belt which is easily identified geophysically
due to the contrasting petrophysical signatures of its
rock components (cf. Gafarov, 1976; Peive et al.,
1981). A shift from regional NW-SE to more N-S
strikes occurs already some distance to the north of
the junction zone between Fennoscandia and Volgo-
Uralia. At the northern edge of the junction zone the
change of strikes is abrupt. Here, a large, elongated
fragment of Belomorian crust within the junction
zone has a northeasterly trend, concordant with the
strike of that zone but almost at right angles to the
regional trends in the main part of the Belomorian
Belt.
Geophysically, the junction between Fennoscan-
dia and Volgo-Uralia including the Central Russian
rift system is of variable character (Fig. 3, cf. also
Kostiuchenko et al., 1995). Magnetically, the junc-
tion zone is a transition between highly magnetized
Volgo-Uralia and weakly magnetized Fennoscandia
(Fig. 1). Close to the northwestern edge of the zone
there are 7.5-9-km-thick upper crustal units that have
densities between 2.8 and 2.9 kg/m 3 (Kozlova and
Patrusheva, 1976). These bodies associate with cir-
cular positive magnetic anomalies ca. 100 km in di-
ameter and have been suggested to represent Riphean
intrusions or volcanoes. This has actually been con-
firmed by drilling into one of the anomalies (Valeev,
1978). A dense rock body (2.75-2.80 kg/m 3) of 8 to
10 km thickness also occurs in the upper crust of the
southeastern part of the junction zone. However, this
body is accompanied by an intense negative rather
than a positive linear magnetic anomaly. The anomaly
area coincides with drilling-core evidence of slivers of
the Volgo-Uralian metapelitic granulites mentioned
above (Fig. 4). Narrow, almost linear, NNE magnetic
anomalies oblique to the delimitation of the junction
zone create a specific, rhomboidal anomaly pattern
 10 S. V. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21

Boundary between Fennoscandia and

Volgo Uralia
Boundaries of the Fennoscandian-Volgo-
Uralian junction zone
Boundaries of the Central-Russian rift system
Faults

Positive magnetic anomalies

High-density rocks of the upper crust

Axis of zone of the thinned crystalline crust

Position of the A-B line cross-section

Cross-sections of the crust alonq A=B line:

Crustal discontinuities

Moho discontinuity

Sources of positive magnetic anomalies

Mean magnetization of the crust (A/m)

Curve of the T -anomaly field

Longwavelength component of the
. T-anomaly field

A junct,on- l F'°°
, /i IX /I
T M o

"" ~.0-
0 250 km

A B

Fig. 4. Geological-geophysical pattern of the Central Russian rift system and the Fennoscandia-Volgo-Uralia junction zone. High-density
rocks in the upper crust are shown according to Kozlova and Patrusheva (1976). Letter symbols are: BLB = a high-density block in
the upper crust, geophysically comparable to the Belomorian Belt of the Baltic Shield; Lb = the Lubim occurrence of metapelitic
granulites; KA = the Karelian granite-greenstone terrain; Kt = the Kotlas intrusion, N = the Nelidov Block comparable to the Karelian
granite-greenstone terrain, SFD = the Palaeoproterozoic Svecofennian Domain. M indicates the site of Moscow.

in its interior which coincides with the morpholo-
gies and sites of echeloned Riphean grabens. These
are located in the central part of the Fennoscandia-
Volgo-Uralia junction zone and are characterized by
series of NE-striking, flanking parallel faults. Ar-
eas marked by structural signatures such as sidesteps
to adjacent parallel faults and autonomous develop-
ments of distinct grabens may represent pull-apart
basins (Figs. 3 and 4).
The Central Russian rifts coincide with a narrow
belt where the crustal thickness is only ca. 34 km
(Petrov and Suprunenko, 1994), which is much less
than the 44-46 km of the crust in the adjacent parts
of both Fennoscandia and Volgo-Uralia (Fig. 4). Su-
perimposed on this general pattern, however, each
of the individual Riphean grabens is characterized
by a negative linear gravity anomaly which is re-
lated to local basement subsidence and the atten-
 S. V. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
dant presence of thicker rift-fill sediments. These
local negative anomalies are flanked by steep gravity
and magnetic gradients related to normal faults, and
probably due to the association of these faults with
mafic intrusions (cf. Kostiuchenko et al., 1995).
The heterogeneous structure and composition of
the crust in the junction zone between Fennoscandia
and Volgo-Uralia has been confirmed further by
quantitative studies of the magnetic anomalies across
that zone (Fig. 4, inset). The low-magnetized crust
of 0.5 A/m in the northwestern part of the junction
zone is a direct continuation of the Fennoscandian
low-magnetic province. The southeastern border of
the junction zone, in contrast, is marked by steep
magnetic gradients and an abrupt increase of the
magnetization up to 1.0 A/m, to resemble the highly
magnetic Volgo-Uralian province (Fig. 1).
A series of magmatic bodies causing local mag-
netic anomalies can be traced down to depths of ca.
35 km. They outline a complex set of normal and re-
verse faults which dip steeply, predominantly towards
the southeast along the Fennoscandian edge of the
junction zone and northwest in its Volgo-Uralian part
(Fig. 4, inset). The boundary between the two crustal
segments appears to have a steep northwesterly dip.
4.3. The Pachelma rift system and the junction zone
between Sarmatia and Volgo-Uralia
This junction zone represents the most com-
plicated relationships between Riphean tiffing and
Palaeoproterozoic crustal structure in the East Euro-
pean Craton. Along the junction zone, the Archean
crust of Volgo-Uralia and the Archean core of Sar-
matia are separated from each other by the Palaeo-
proterozoic, ca. 2.1-Ga-old, mostly andesitic, calc-
alkaline igneous rocks of the Lipetsk-Losev Vol-
canic belt and the similarly 2.1-Ga-old accretionary-
prism metasedimentary rocks of the East Voronezh
Province of Sarmatia (cf. Shchipansky and Bog-
danova, 1996). This indicates that the junction zone
between Sarmatia and Volgo-Uralia was formed by
Palaeoproterozoic collision. From the marked discor-
dancy between the generally NW-trending bound-
ary between Volgo-Uralia and Sarmatia and the
NS tectonic grain of the Lipetsk-Losev Volcanic
Belt and the East Voronezh Province (Fig. 3; cf.
also Shchipansky and Bogdanova, 1996) it can be
11
concluded that the intersegment collision occurred
between Archean Volgo-Uralia and the Palaeopro-
terozoic margin of Sarmatia.
A minimum age of the collisional juxtaposition is
indicated by a chain of ca. 1.95-Ga-old, anorogenic
ultramafic, mafic and dioritic intrusions, that mark
the suture (Krestin, 1980; Bocharov and Chernyshov,
1985; Kolosovskaya, 1992).
The Riphean Pachelma rifts are not situated along
the surface trace of the intersegment suture but rather
within the Volgo-l_lralian crustal segment, at dis-
tances of between ca. 100 and 200 km to the north-
west of that suture, striking sub-parallel to its course
(Figs. 3 and 5). Geophysical modelling (Fig. 5, inset)
indicates that the gently to moderately NE-dipping
intersegment boundary meets or passes into a seis-
mic subhorizontal refractor at depths of 30-33 km
(Yurov, 1977). This refractor appears to mark a
lower crustal detachment zone. The inflexion point
is almost exactly beneath the central axis of the
Pachelma rift system. However, the rift faults mostly
do not dip vertically but rather moderately toward
the southwest.
Within Volgo-Uralia, the Pachelma rift system
appears to follow a pre-existing Palaeoproterozoic
zone of weakness. That zone separates the Archean
high-grade interior of the Volgo-Uralian crustal seg-
ment in the northeast from a southwestern marginal
part where the granulites are buried beneath Palaeo-
proterozoic metasediments and strongly retrograded
(Fig. 5; cf. e.g., Bogdanova and Gafarov, 1978).
The entire length of the junction zone between Sar-
matia and Volgo-Uralia coincides with a MAGSAT
low that separates the Sarmatian and Volgo-Uralian
regions of high magnetization (Fig. 1). Similarly,
modelling by Orlyuk (1993) indicates that the crust
of the intersegment junction zone is little magne-
tized. Available data on its deep structure indicate
that the Moho boundary is at depths between 44 and
47 km (Yurov, 1977), somewhat deeper beneath the
adjoining parts of Volgo-Uralia than beneath those
of Sarmatia (Fig. 5, inset). Along a new DSS pro-
file (Kostiuchenko, 1995) there is evidence of a 2-
4 km subsidence of the Moho beneath the Pachelma
Aulacogen in relation to the adjacent regions.
The Pachelma rift system features an en-echelon
chain of distinct NW-striking grabens which appears
to correspond to a sinistral relative displacement of
12 S. V. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21

p
0
.~- R
o
--°=8"
®'~
Z) .= ~ ~ - -

.=
o

~ .~ o~> ~ o

~D
,., "7 ~ = : ~ =° 'B ~--

o o = ~ ~
~ ~ ~ - po
~.°.._~
•-

-
~. ~.~ ,.,"~

-~ -~.-
= ~ ~
~e
.~, ~ c-

~o
~,~

~.~

u/
Z

~'~
...1
4~ '~.N
----.--IP--
o ~ ~
m

o
~'~
t ° < ~'~
-j_
I---
e~ e~

ffl
• !
/ J~

oo o oo ~; e~
j.',
 s. v. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
the adjoining crustal blocks (Figs. 3 and 5). Geo-
physically, the system is characterized by a domi-
nantly NW-trending set of elongated positive mag-
netic anomalies which coincide with zones of high
density in the upper crust (Kozlova and Patrusheva,
1976, also Fig. 5). The gravity modelling of these
zones shows that the upper limits of the high-density
sources extend above the surface of the crystalline
basement, i.e. they form elevations at the base of
the Riphean(?)-Palaeozoic sedimentary cover. These
dense and highly magnetic bodies may thus be mafic
volcanics related to the Riphean rifting. The most
intense magnetic anomalies reach 2000 nT and have
sources which can be traced down to 40 km depth
(Bulina, 1976). These anomalies are not located
beneath the axis of the Pachelma rift system but
rather beneath and outside its southwestern shoulder
(Fig. 5). Here the anomalies outline rift-associated
faults dipping SW. Similar relationships also charac-
terize most individual rift-arms of the system where
local, positive linear anomalies are commonly asym-
metric in relationship to the troughs, being displaced
towards the southwest. Southwestern dips of faults
belonging to the rift system have been established by
quantitative interpretation of the magnetic anomalies
(Fig. 5, inset). Similar trends have also been traced
using refractors in the crust (Yurov, 1977). All these
observations suggest that the Pachelma rift system is
controlled by a zone of oblique faults that dips, in
general, towards the southwest, whereas the bound-
ary between the Volgo-Uralian and Sarmatian crustal
segments dips in the opposite direction.
NE- to E-trending dips also characterize the
boundaries of the ca. 2.1-Ga Lipetsk-Losev Vol-
canic Belt and the East Voronezh Province. Each
of these units has its own geological and geophys-
ical patterns. The magnetic field of the Lipetsk-
Losev Volcanic Belt is very diverse. This appears
to relate to the variable composition of the vol-
canic piles. In the north, differently magnetized
andesites, dacites and co-magmatic granitoid plu-
tonics prevail, while the southern part appears to be
more mafic and is consequently more magnetized
(Chekunov, 1992). The East Voronezh Province is
mainly composed of almost non-magnetic metased-
iments pierced by numerous bodies of anatectic
granites. However, the chains of the ca. 1.95 Ga
anorogenic ultramafic, mafic and dioritic intrusions
13
mentioned above, and the associated volcanics are
marked by strong magnetic highs. The distribution
of these rocks is clearly controlled by regional faults
(Krestin, 1980; Bocharov and Chernyshov, 1985;
Kolosovskaya, 1992).
4.4. The Volhyn-Orsha rift system and the junction
between Fennoscandia and Sarmatia
The intersegment boundary between Fennoscan-
dia and Sarmatia separates two very different types
of crust. The Fennoscandian crustal segment in this
part of the craton is dominantly juvenile Palaeopro-
terozoic. Isotopic datings suggest a range of ages
generally compatible with a pattern of younging to-
ward the west (Bogdanova et al., 1994; Bibikova
et al., 1995b). Most conspicuous is multiple alter-
nation of major, beltiform, N-S-trending terrains of
granulites and rocks of the amphibolite facies (e.g.,
Kubicki and Ryka, 1982; Aksamentova and Nay-
denkov, 1990; Koistinen, 1994).
Along the junction of Fennoscandia and Sarmatia,
this pattern of alternating granulite- and amphibolite-
facies belts is markedly discordant in relationship to
the Fennoscandia-Sarmatia boundary (cf. Aksamen-
tova and Naydenkov, 1990; Bogdanova, 1993b; Bog-
danova et al., 1994) and also in relationship to a belt
of ca. 2.0-Ga-old, mostly igneous rocks that outlines
the northwestern margin of Sarmatia (Fig. 3). This
belt is known as the Osnitsk-Mikashevichi Igneous
Belt (e.g., Aksamentova and Naydenkov, 1991; Gor-
batschev and Bogdanova, 1993), but is in the Ukraine
sometimes referred to as the Volhyn-Polessie Belt
(e.g., Kolosovskaya, 1992). In the adjoining, more
interior parts of Sarmatia, Archean and Proterozoic
high-grade rocks coexist.
The Osnitsk-Mikashevichi Igneous Belt is 200
to 250 km wide and is made up of volcanic, dyke
and plutonic rocks. The volcanic and hypabyssal
rocks are metabasalts, dolerites, meta-andesites, and
metakeratophyres, all metamorphosed in various
ranges of the amphibolite facies. The plutonic rocks
dominate quantitatively. They represent a wide com-
positional range where granodiorites and granites
are most conspicuous (e.g., Aksamentova and Nay-
denkov, 1991), but large batholithic plutons with
substantial amounts of gabbro and diorite are also
a prominent feature. The plutonic rocks are only
14 S. V. Bogdanova et aL /Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
weakly deformed and metamorphosed. The metavol-
canics and some interbedded metasediments either
occupy minor areas within the plutons or form septa
between them.
Together, all the igneous rocks define a differen-
tiated, co-magmatic, calc-alkaline suite (e.g., Svesh-
nikov et al., 1992). Recent Sm-Nd studies demon-
strate ~Nd values between +1.5 and +2.4, and thus
suggest a dominant juvenile Proterozoic component
(Bibikova et al., 1995a). U-Pb zircon age determina-
tions on granitoids from the Osnitsk-Mikashevichi
Belt have yielded 1970 -4- 20 Ma ages both in Belarus
and in the Ukraine (Shcherbak et al., 1990), while a
suite of metavolcanic rocks from the Ukrainian part
of the belt gave ages between 2020 and 1970 Ma
(e.g., Shcherbak, 1991).
Atop of the Osnitsk-Mikashevichi Belt there
are later, weakly metamorphosed, sedimentary rocks
with interbedded volcanics related to the Ukrainian
rapakivi-type granitoids of ca.1.8-1.75 Ga age (U-
Pb zircon ages by Shcherbak et al., 1990).
A recent palaeomagnetic study (Iosifidi et al.,
1995) gives good evidence that ca. 2.0 Ga ago the
Osnitsk-Mikashevich Belt together with the rest of
Sarmatia had a geographical position that was dif-
ferent from the present one in relationship to the
Baltic Shield and the Fennoscandian crustal segment
in general. That study also suggests that the two
crustal segments began to be welded together into
a single craton ca. 1.83 Ga ago, when the earli-
est Palaeoproterozoic belts of Fennoscandia collided
with Sarmatia (cf. also Bibikova et al., 1995a). In a
different investigation, Elming et al. (1993) indicated
much later (ca. 1.3 Ga) relative shifts of crustal-seg-
ment positions.
The lithotectonic pattern of the Osnitsk - Mika-
shevichi Belt is clearly imaged by magnetic and
gravity data showing large, intense, mosaic-type pos-
itive anomalies (Fig. 2). Except for areas where dis-
turbance by Palaeozoic rifting occurred (e.g., the
Pripyat Trough, cf. Juhlin et al., 1996), the belt is
characterized by a crust that is up to 56 km thick,
the lower crust having a thickness up to 35 km
(Chekunov, 1992). This crust is dense and has mag-
netizations up to 3.0 A/m. It is anomalous in regard
to seismic wave properties along the northwestern
margin of the belt (Fig. 6, inset).
The geophysical signatures of the Fennoscandian
crust to the northwest of the Fennoscandia-Sarmatia
suture differ drastically from those in the Osnitsk-
Mikashevichi Belt of Sarmatia. These patterns are
consistent with the structural pattern in that part
of Fennoscandia with its large Palaeoproterozoic
belts of different lithologies, ages and metamor-
phic grades, including large granulite belts trend-
ing NNE-SSW. The magnetization of this crust is
variable, ranging from moderate to virtually non-
magnetic (Figs. 1 and 6). NNE-SSW-trending lin-
ear magnetic anomalies prevail in accordance with
the beltiform structure of the crust. The thickness
of the crust is generally less than in the Osnitsk-
Mikashevichi Belt. It averages ca. 45 km but is
complicated by Moho steps and by a Moho eleva-
tion up to 40 km beneath the Volhyn-Orsha rifts
(Fig. 6, inset) where the lower crust (P-waves >6.8
km/s) makes up more than a half of the total crustal
thickness (Sollogub, 1986).
Combined quantitative interpretation of the seis-
mic and magnetic data (Fig. 6, inset) suggests that all
the major crustal discontinuities in the Fennoscan-
dian crust are related to the boundaries of different
lithological belts. These plunge beneath Sarmatia,
similar to the inferred dip of the Fennoscandia-
Sarmatia suture. The crustal zone of anomalous seis-
mic properties, already shortly mentioned in the
context of the Osnitsk-Mikashevichi Belt, similarly
dips gently southeast following the Fennoscandia-
Sarmatia boundary. It can be traced down to depths
of ca. 100 km (Sollogub, 1986; Chekunov et al.,
1991), where magneto-telluric sounding registered
the top of the asthenosphere (Fig. 6, inset). However,
this signature may have been created by Palaeozoic
magmatism in the Pripyat-Dniepr-Donets Aulaco-
gen rather than by Precambrian plate-tectonics.
The Riphean Volhyn-Orsha rift system occurs
in the central part of the larger Volhyn-Orsha de-
pression which covers the Fennoscandia-Sarmatia
suture nearly symmetrically (Fig. 3). Its axis almost
coincides with the northwestern boundary of the
Osnitsk-Mikashevichi Igneous Belt. This depression
is a wide, shallow extensional basin where precursor
rifting began along several minor zones of fault-
ing which may define the stepwise shape of the
Moho boundary (cf. above and Fig. 6, inset). The
individual Volhyn-Orsha rifts are relatively shal-
low, wide troughs and grabens filled by late Riph-
 S. V. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21 15

Boundary between Fennoscandia, Sarmatia

and Volgo-Uralia
Boundary of magnetic provinces of the crust
Boundary of the Volhyn-Orsha depression
Faults
Osmtsk-Mikashevichi igneous Belt
Granuhte belts and domains
Positive magnetic anomalies
Position of the A-B line cross-section

Cross-sections of the crusl; along A-I~ line:

Crustal discontinuities
Curie isotherm of magnetite
Isolines of Vp (km/s)
Moho discontinuity
Reflectors in the upper mantle
Boundary of the astenosphere boundary by
magneto-telluric sounding
Boundary of the anomalous seismic zone
Curve of the T-anomaly field
Longwavelength component of the T-anomaly field

nT

$E

.: , 7... ; ~ . > : : : i

50 • *,.

I00- ~ "~ "~'~'~ -

A B
r ~
0 2 3 3.5A/m

Fig. 6. Geological-geophysical pattern of the Volhyn-Orsha rift system and the Fennoscandia-Sarmatia suture. Mi indicates the site of
Minsk. The seismic structure of the crust and upper mantle in the inset are according to an interpretation by Sollogub et al. (1988). Letter
symbols for some Palaeoproterozoic granulite belts and domains in Fennoscandia are: BBGB = Belarus-Baltic Granulite Belt; VG =
Vitebsk Granulite Domain. DDA indicates a continuation of the Dniepr-Donets Aulacogen.

ean (Mesoproterozoic) marine sediments (Nagomy, 5. Synopsis and discussion

1990). They are overlain by latest Riphean to Ven-
dian (Neoproterozoic) marine sediments intercalated As described in the preceding text, the East Eu-
with volcanics. ropean Craton is subdivided into three crustal seg-
16 S. V. Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
ments, each having its own specific geological and
geophysical signatures. This subdivision is reflected,
among other things, by the T-MAGSAT and the
near-surface magnetic patterns where the interseg-
ment junction zones appear as wide belts marked by
virtually non-magnetic crust. They are studded with
local linear and elongated positive magnetic anoma-
lies associated with mafic rocks, and delimited by
zones of high gradient in the T-MAGSAT field.
The Pachelma, Central Russian and Volhyn-
Orsha transcratonic systems of Meso- to Neoprotero-
zoic, Riphean rifts (aulacogens) and basins all follow
these belts of weakly magnetized crust and associate
with the intersegment junctions. However, the struc-
tural patterns, the dynamic roles of the junctions and
their relationships with the rifting vary substantially.
Thus there is no single structural or genetic model
that can be applied either to describe the geodynamic
significance and modes of formation of the junctions
or the nature of junction-rift relationships.
The Pachelma and Volhyn-Orsha rift-aulacogen
systems, which both outline the intracratonic bound-
aries of Sarmatia, associate with the junctions that
feature prominent belts of calc-alkaline igneous
rocks and/or continental margin metasediments sug-
gesting Palaeoproterozoic active, convergent mar-
gins. Along the Pachelma rift system in the northeast,
such belts are the ca. 2.1 Ga Lipetsk-Losev Volcanic
Belt and the similarly 2.1 Ga East Voronezh Schist
Province of Sarmatia, and the Palaeoproterozoic
rocks covering the southwestern margin of Volgo-
Uralia. In the northwest, an analogous role is played
by the ca. 2.0 Ga Osnitsk-Mikashevichi Igneous
Belt.
However, while the Pachelma rift system runs par-
allel to a mobile-zone junction between two Archean
cratonic nuclei, where Archean Volgo-Uralia has
been thrust atop Archean-earliest Palaeoproterozoic
Sarmatia, there exists no Archean Fennoscandian
counterpart of Sarmatia on the opposite side of
the Osnitsk-Mikashevichi Belt and the Volhyn-
Orsha Aulacogen. Instead, the junction zone between
Fennoscandia and Archean Sarmatia is a belt of
accretion of Palaeoproterozoic Fennoscandian crust
onto the northwestern margin of Sarmatia.
At the Earth's surface, a suture zone can be in-
ferred from the angular discordance between the
structures and course of the Osnitsk-Mikashevichi
Belt and the differently trending Palaeoproterozoic,
alternatingly granulite- and amphibolite-facies rock
belts of Fennoscandia. At depth, a continuation of
this suture zone can be seen as a zone of anoma-
lous properties of the seismic waves in the crust
and the upper mantle (e.g., Sollogub et al., 1988;
Chekunov et al., 1991; cf. Fig. 6, inset). That zone
dips southeastwards beneath Sarmatia and may sug-
gest the one-time presence of a zone of southeast-
ward Palaeoproterozoic subduction.
In contrast to the border zones of Sarmatia, the
junction between Fennoscandia and Volgo-Uralia ap-
pears to lack extensive Palaeoproterozoic rock for-
mations characteristic of volcanic belts or continen-
tal margins. The difference between Volgo-Uralia
and the Archean part of Fennoscandia, and the defi-
nition of their junction are therefore mainly a matter
of different tectonic grain, prevalence of extensive
granulite terrains in Volgo-Uralia, and differences of
crustal thicknesses and magnetization. Neither can
the geophysical patterns of the collisional Palaeo-
proterozoic orogens and the Archean Belomorian
Belt of Fennoscandia be traced across the Central
Russian junction zone into Volgo-Uralia. To a large
extent, the present intersegment differences between
Fennoscandia and Volgo-Uralia depend on differ-
ences of the Palaeoproterozoic crustal histories. In
the Archean, the crusts of the two segments need not
have been very different. The distance between the
segments may have been relatively short.
The hallmark of the junction zone between
Fennoscandia and Volgo-Uralia is the apparently
tectonic juxtaposition of geophysically different, dis-
connected large crustal blocks and slivers derived
from both these adjoining crustal segments. From
the distribution of these blocks, substantial dextral
strike-slip displacement can be inferred. However,
it is not clear to what extent this dextral strike-slip
occurred during the formation of the collisional junc-
tion or during faulting associated with the formation
of the Riphean rift systems. Because of the absence
of distinct lithological or other time markers, the
difference between these two stages of crustal de-
velopment is much less clear in the Central Russian
junction zone than along the other two intersegment
junctions considered. However, the Nelidov Block of
displaced Archean Fennoscandian crust appears to
control the distribution of minor rifts in the Central
 S. V. Bogdanova et aL / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
Russian rift system. This suggests a distinct time
difference between the collision and the rifting.
As to the principal characteristics of the three
rift systems, the Central Russian and the Pachelma
systems feature well-defined rifts and positive lin-
ear magnetic anomalies, distinct delineations of the
rift-system boundaries, and elevated heat flow. In
contrast, the rifts and grabens are less distinctly
developed in the Volhyn-Orsha Aulacogen, which
also has less sharply defined external boundaries and
relatively low heat flow (Garetsky, 1995). The Cen-
tral Russian and the Volhyn-Orsha rift systems both
associate with prominent extensional and transten-
sional thinning of the underlying continental crust,
a feature which appears to be absent in the crust
around the Pachelma Aulacogen. The latter rift-
junction zone still appears to retain a thickening
of the crust presumably caused by the overthrust-
ing of Volgo-Uralia onto Sarmatia. If anything, the
Pachelma Aulacogen appears as a depression of the
immediately underlying segment of the Moho by
between 2 and 4 km (Kostiuchenko, 1995).
In regard to the relationships between Riphean
rifting and the Palaeoproterozoic intersegment junc-
tions there is substantial variation:
(1) Where the junction zones are reasonably steep,
the axes of the Riphean rift-aulacogen systems ap-
pear to coincide closely with the intersegment su-
tures. Such is the case in the Central Russian rift
system where the axis of rifting is situated in the
central part of the junction zone, and in the Volhyn-
Orsha Aulacogen where the aulacogen axis coincides
with the intersegment suture along the northern edge
of the Osnitsk-Mikashevichi Belt.
(2) However, while the Central Russian rift sys-
tem is a well defined belt, the Volhyn-Orsha system
is much wider and more diffusely delimited. Sev-
eral hypothetical explanations can be suggested to
account for this difference.
(3) One could be that the Central Russian junction
zone is a boundary between two stable segments of
Archean crust, whereas the junction between Sar-
matia and Fennoscandia is a zone where Palaeopro-
terozoic crust accreted to an Archean nucleus. The
accretion appears to have occurred in several stages,
and several roughly parallel crustal discontinuities
could have been developed between the various belts
of accreted Palaeoproterozoic crust.
17
c2
Fig. 7. Sketch map of the East European Craton showing hypo-
thetical kinematics of one-time interaction between Fennoscan-
dia, Volgo-Uralia and Sarmatia during Riphean rifting between
1.4 and 1.1 Ga.
Another hypothetical explanation can be based on
indications of a dextral sense of strike-slip move-
ment along the Central Russian rift system and the
associated junction zone between Fennoscandia and
Volgo-Uralia, but a sinistral strike-slip movement in
the Pachelma Aulacogen can be deduced from the
en-echelon arrangement of its individual rift grabens.
If so, Volgo-Uralia could have acted as a wedge be-
tween Fennoscandia and Sarmatia that moved toward
the present west. This can have caused a successive
extensional widening of the Volhyn-Orsha Aulaco-
gen (Fig. 7, cf. also Bogdanova, 1995).
Yet another explanation of the difference between
the Volhyn-Orsha Aulacogen and the Central Rus-
sian rift system could be that this whole system
of faulting and basin formation represents Neopro-
terozoic failed-arm rifting emanating from a triple
point at the edge of the East European Craton, some-
where in the vicinity of the present Tornquist-Line
Trans-European lithospheric boundary.
(4) Finally, in the Pachelma case, the junction
zone between Sarmatia and Volgo-Uralia is a gently
dipping thrust system. Here, the Pachelma aulaco-
gen is situated asymmetrically in relationship to
the Earth's surface trace of the intersegment suture,
some distance inside Volgo-Uralia, i.e. within the
upper, overthrusted one of the two crustal segments.
18 S. V Bogdanova et al. / Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
6. Conclusions
From the present study the following conclusions
can be drawn.:
(1) In the East European Craton, the three Riph-
can transcratonic rift-aulacogen systems tend to fol-
low Palaeoproterozoic junction zones between three
large, once autonomous segments of continental
crust.
(2) Dynamically, the three intersegment junctions
represent different kinds of Palaeoproterozoic plate-
tectonic events. The Pachelma suture was created
by the overthrusting/underthrusting juxtaposition of
Volgo-Uralia and Sarmatia, the Volhyn-Orsha junc-
tion by the accretion of the Palaeoproterozoic crust
of Fennoscandia to Sarmatia, and the Central Rus-
sian junction by the apparently oblique collision of
Volgo-Uralia and the Archean part of Fennoscandia,
with a substantial component of strike-slip move-
ment along the belt of juxtaposition.
(3) Similarly, the three Riphean rift systems differ
both structurally and geophysically, and in relation-
ship to the associated Palaeoproterozoic zones of
intersegment junction. They vary in terms of width,
distinctness of the rift faulting, arrangement of the
rift grabens, structure of subjacent crust, heat flow,
and symmetry in relationship to the intersegment
junctions.
(4) In consequence, the three rift-junction couples
each have their individual structural patterns and
differ in regard to the dynamics of formation. Thus
no single model can be applied to describe the rift-
junction zone interrelationships.
Acknowledgements
This paper is a result of geological-geophysical
collaboration within the framework of the
ILP/ESF EUROPROBE projects EUROBRIDGE
and GEORIFT. Many data on which this study and
the three-segment model for the East European Cra-
ton are based have been obtained previously, largely
in association with the compilation of the new, third
edition of the 'International Tectonic Map of Eu-
rope and Adjacent Areas' (CGMW/IUGS), and the
work of IGCP-projects 275 'Deep Geology of the
Baltic Shield' and 371 COPENA. Grants from the
Swedish Natural Science Research Council (NFR),
the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (KVA) and
the INTAS Association funded substantial parts of
the present work and the workshop activity, and are
gratefully acknowledged. Prof. D.G. Gee, Dr. R.A.
Stephenson and Prof. E Ziegler much encouraged
the authors to write this paper. Britt Nyberg drew
perfectly most of the figures.
References
/~,h~ill, K.-I., Persson, E-O. and Ski61d, T., 1995. Westward
accretion of the Baltic Shield: implications from the 1.6 Ga
.Am~l-Horred Belt, SW Sweden. Precambrian Res., 70: 235-
251.
Aksamentova, N.V. and Naydenkov, I.V., 1990. Geological Map
of the Crystalline Basement of Belorussia and Adjoining Ar-
eas. Institute of Geochemistry and Geophysics of the Academy
of Sciences of the Belorussian SSR, Minsk.
Aksamentova, N.V. and Naydenkov, I.V., 1991. Explanatory
Notes of the Geological Map of the Crystalline Basement of
Belorussia and the Adjoining Areas. Academy of Sciences of
the Belorussian SSR, Minsk, 78 pp. (in Russian with English
summary).
Belousov, V.V. and Pavlenkova, N.I., 1993. The crustal structure
of Europe and some considerations for its evolution. In: A.V.
Chekunov (Editor), The Lithosphere of Central and Eastern
Europe. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, pp. 10-35 (in Russian).
Bibikova, E.V. and Williams, I.S., 1990. Ion microprobe U - T h -
Pb isotopic studies of zircons from three early Precambrian
areas in the USSR. Precambrian Res., 48: 203-221.
Bibikova, E.V., Kirnozova, T.I., Popova, L.R, Postnikov, A.V.,
Makarov, V.A. and Kremenetsky, A.A., 1994. U-Pb age and
correlation of igneous rocks from granulite and amphibolite
complexes of the Volgo-Uralian province of the East-European
Craton. Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation, 1994(2/3):
3-7.
Bibikova, E.V., Claesson, S., Bogdanova, S.V. and Naydenkov,
I.V., 1995a. Palaeoproterozoic age provinces in the southwest-
ern part of the East European Craton. In: V.A. Glebovitsky and
A.B. Kotov (Editors), Precambrian of Europe: Stratigraphy,
Structure, Evolution and Mineralization. Abstracts. Institute of
Precambrian Geology and Geochronology, Russian Academy
of Sciences, St. Petersburg, pp. 12-13.
Bibikova, E.V., Bogdanova, S.V., Claesson, S., Gorbatschev, R.
and Kirnozova, T.I., 1995b. Age, nature and structure of the
Precambrian crust in Belarus. Stratigraphy and Geological
Correlation, 1995(6): 591-601.
Blundell, D., Freeman, R. and Mueller, S., 1992 (Editors). A
Continent Revealed. The European Geotraverse. Cambridge
University Press, pp. 275.
Bocharov, V.L. and Chernyshov, N.M., 1985. Endogenous
regimes of the Early Precambrian of the Voronezh Crystalline
Massif. In: ER Mitrofanov and V.A. Glebovitsky (Editors),
Endogenous Regimes of the Crustal Formation and Ore Origin
in the Early Precambrian. Nauka, Leningrad, pp. 192-205 (in
Russian).
 S. V. Bogdanova et aL /Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
Bogdanova, S.V., 1986. The Crust of the Russian Platform in the
Early Precambrian. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 224 (in Russian).
Bogdanova, S.V., 1993a. The three-segment hypothesis for the
East European Craton. Terra Nova, Abstracts, 5: 313.
Bogdanova, S., 1993b. Segments of the East European Craton.
In: D.G. Gee and M. Beckholmen (Editors), EUROPROBE
in Jablonna 1991. Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of
Sciences-European Science Foundation, Warszawa, pp. 33-38.
Bogdanova, S.V., 1995. Riphean intraplate rifting in the three-
segment East European Craton. Abstracts of the 5th Zo-
nenshain Conference on Plate Tectonics, November 22-25,
Moscow.
Bogdanova, S.V. and Gafarov, R.A., 1978. Composition and
structure of the basement of the eastern part of the Russian
platform and some peculiarities of formation of its crust in
the Early Precambrian. In: M.S. Markov (Editor), Tectonics
of the Basement of the East European and Siberian Platforms.
Nauka, Moscow, pp. 71-108 (in Russian).
Bogdanova, S.V., Bibikova, E.V. and Gorbatschev, R., 1994.
Palaeoproterozoic U-Pb zircon ages from Belorussia: new tec-
tonic implications for the East European Craton. Precambrian
Res., 68: 231-240.
Bulina, L.V., 1976. Typical features of the distribution of lower
borders of magnetized bodies in the USSR territory. In: S.I.
Subbotin (Editor), Magnetic Anomalies of the Earth's Depths.
Naukova Dumka, Kiev, pp. 137-150 (in Russian).
Chekulaev, V.P. and Berkovsky, A.N., 1988. Position of granite-
greenstone terrains in the basement of the East European Cra-
ton. In: S.B. Lobach-Zhuchenko (Editor), Greenstone Belts in
the Basement of the East European Craton. Nauka, Leningrad,
pp. 5-9 (in Russian).
Chekunov, A.V., 1992 (Editor). Sketch Map of the Deep Struc-
ture of the Lithosphere in the southwestern part of the East Eu-
ropean Craton. Scale 1: 1,000,000. GOSKOMGEOLOGIYA,
Kiev, 6 sheets.
Chekunov, A.V., Garetsky, R.G. and Pashkevich, I.K., 1991.
Deep structure and geodynamics of the lithosphere in the
southeastern part of the East European Craton. In: V.V. Be-
lousov, N.I. Pavlenkova and G.N. Kvyatkovskaya (Editors),
Deep Structure of the USSR Territory. Nauka, Moscow, pp.
7-21.
Chumakov, N.M. and Semikhatov, M.A., 1981. Riphean and
Vendian of the U.S.S.R. Precambrian Res., 15: 229-253.
Coles, R.L., Haines, G.V., Jansen van Beek, G., Nandi, A. and
Walker, J.K., 1982. Magnetic anomaly maps from 40°N to
83°N derived from MAGSAT satellite data. Geophysic. Res.
Lett., 9: 281-284.
Elming, S.-,~., Pesonen, L.J., Leino, M.A.H., Khramov, A.N.,
Mikhailova, N.P., Krasnova, A.E, Mertanen, S., Bylund, G.
and Terho, M., 1993. The drift of the Fennoscandian and
Ukrainian shields during the Precambrian: a palaeomagnetic
analysis. Tectonophysics, 223: 177-198.
Erinchek, Y.M. and Mil'shtein, E.D., 1993. The Central Russian
transplatformal palaeorift system. Dokl. (Trans.) Acad. Sci.,
329: 82-86.
Ga,'fl, G. and Gorbatschev, R., 1987. An outline of the Precam-
brian evolution of the Baltic Shield. Precambrian Res., 35:
19
15-52.
Gafarov, R.A., 1976. Comparative Tectonics of the Basement
and Types of Magnetic Anomalies in Old Cratons. Nauka,
Moscow, 270 pp. (in Russian).
Garetsky, R.G., 1995. Aulacogens of the cratons in Northern
Euroasia. Geotektonika, 1995(4): 16-28 (in Russian).
Goodwin, A.M., 1991. Precambrian Geology. Academic Press
Limited, London, 666 pp.
Gorbatschev, R. and Bogdanova, S., 1993. Frontiers in the Baltic
Shield. Precambrian Res., 64: 3-21.
Grachev, A.F., Nikolaev, V.G. and Seslavinsky, K.B., 1994. Evo-
lution of structure, sedimentation and magmatism of the East-
European Platform in the Late Precambrian and Paleozoic.
In: Yu.G. Leonov, M.P. Antipov, A.F. Morozov and L.N.
Solodilov (Editors), Tectonics and Magmatism of the East Eu-
ropean Platform. Nauka Rossii, Geo-invex, Moscow, pp. 5-36
(in Russian).
Hahn, A. and Wonik, T., 1990. Interpretation of aeromagnetic
anomalies. In: R. Freeman and S. Mueller (Editors), Sixth
EGT Workshop: Data Compilations and Synoptic Interpreta-
tion. European Science Foundation, Strasbourg, pp. 225-236.
Haines, G.V., 1985. MAGSAT vertical field anomalies above
40°N from spherical Cap Harmonic Analysis. J. Geophys.
Res., 90: 2593-2598.
Iosifidi, A.G., Khramov, A.N., Bylund, G. and Bogdanova, S.V.,
1995. New palaeomagnetic data from Ukrainian Shield and its
bearing to the Fennoscandia-Sarmatia relationship. In: V.A.
Glebovitsky and A.B. Kotov (Editors), Precambrian of Eu-
rope: Stratigraphy, Structure, Evolution and Mineralization.
Abstracts, Institute of Precambrian Geology and Geochronol-
ogy, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, 43 pp.
Juhlin, C., Stephenson, R.A. and Klushin, S., 1996. Reappraisal
of deep seismic reflection profile VIII across the Pripyat
Trough. In: R.A. Stephenson, M. Wilson, H. de Boorder and
V.I. Starostenko (Editors), EUROPROBE: Intraplate Tecton-
ics and Basin Dynamics of the Eastern European Platform.
Tectonophysics, 268:99-108 (this volume).
Khain, V.E., 1977. The new international tectonic map of Europe
and some problems of structure and tectonic history of the
continent. In: D.V. Ager and M. Brooks (Editors), Europe
from Crust to Core. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., London, pp.
19-40.
Khain, V.E. and Leonov, Yu.G. (Editors), in press. International
Tectonic Map of Europe and Adjacent Areas. 3rd ed., Scale
1:5,000,000, CGMW/IUGS, St. Petersburg.
Koistinen, T. (Editor), 1994. Precambrian Basement of the Gulf
of Finland and Surrounding Area, 1:1 mill. Geological Survey
of Finland, Espoo.
Kolosovskaya, V.A. (Editor), 1992. Structural-Formational Map
of the Crystalline Basement of the South-West of the East-
European Platform. Scale 1: 1,000,000, Ukrainian State Com-
mittee on Geology and Utilization of Mineral Resources, Kiev,
6 sheets.
Korja, A., Korja, T., Luosto, U. and Heikkinen, P., 1993. Seismic
and geoelectric evidence for collisional and extensional events
in the Fennoscandian Shield - - implications for Precambrian
crustal evolution. Tectonophysics, 219: 129-152.
20 S. V. Bogdanova et aL /Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 1-21
Kostiuchenko, S., 1995. Deep structure of the Russian Plat-
form aulacogens: their similarities and differences. Abstracts
of EUROPROBE Workshop 'Geodynamics and Intracratonic
Rifting: East European Craton and Pripyat-Dniepr-Donets
Rift', July 28-31, 1995, Leeds.
Kostiuchenko, S.L., Egorkin, A.B. and Solodilov, L.N., 1995. A
tectonic model for the Precambrian of the Moscow depression.
Razvedka i Okhrana Nedr, 1995(5): 8-12 (in Russian).
Kozlova, E.E and Patrusheva, V.A., 1976. Methods and results
of interpretations of gravimetric data in studies of the deep
geological structure of the Russian Platform. Rasvedochnaya
Geofiz., 72:105-112 (in Russian).
Kratz, K.O. (Editor), 1979. Main Problems of the Geological
Structure of the Russian Platform. Nauka, Leningrad, 120 pp.
(in Russian).
Krestin, E.M., 1980. Precambrian of KMA and its main features
of the geological development. Izv. Vuzov, Geol. Razvedka, 9:
3-23 (in Russian).
Krutikhovskaya, Z.A., Pashkevich, I.K. and Silina, I.M., 1982.
Magnetic Model and Structure of the Crust in the Ukrainian
Shield. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 216 pp. (in Russian).
Kubicki, S. and Ryka, W. (Editors), 1982. Geological Atlas of
Crystalline Basement in the Polish Part of the East European
Platform. Wydawnistwa Geologiczne, Warsaw, 24 tables.
Larson, S.,~., Stigh, J. and Tullborg, E.-L., 1986. The defor-
mation history of the eastern part of the Southwest Swedish
Gneiss Belt. Precambrian Res., 31: 237-257.
Milanovsky, E.E., 1983. Riftogenesis in the Earth's History
(Riftogenesis in Old Cratons). Nedra, Moscow, 280 pp. (in
Russian).
Moskaleva, V.N., Markovsky, B.A. and Kolbantsev, L.R., 1993.
Riphean riftogenic systems. In: A.D. Shcheglov (Editor), Mag-
matism and Metallogeny of Riftogenic Systems in the Eastern
Baltic Shield. Nedra, St. Petersburg, pp. 133-143 (in Russian).
Nagorny, M.A., 1990. Tectonics of the Volhyn-Central Russian
Systems of Troughs. Nabuka i Teknika, Minsk, 105 pp. (in
Russian).
Nolte, H.J. and Hahn, A., 1992. A model of the distribution of
crustal magnetization in central Europe compatible with the
field of magnetic anomalies deduced from MAGSAT results.
Geophys. J. Int., 111: 483-496.
Orlyuk, M.I., 1993. Geotraverse III. Magnetic model. In: S.S.
Krasovsky (Editor), Lithosphere of Central and Eastern Eu-
rope. Geotraverses III, VII, IX. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, pp.
30-35 (in Russian).
Orlyuk, M.I. and Pashkevich, I.K., 1994. Estimation of mag-
netization of the crystalline crust in the Dniepr-Donetz
Aulacogen. Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ukrainy, 1994(5): 125-128
(in Ukrainian).
Pashkevich, I.K., Markovsky, V.S., Orlyuk, M.I., Eliseeva, S.V.,
Mozgovaya, A.P. and Tarashchan, S.A., 1990. Magnetic Model
for the Lithosphere of Europe. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 165 pp.
(in Russian).
Pashkevich, I.K., Orlyuk, M.I., Eliseeva, S.V. and Mozgovaya,
A.P., 1993. Magnetic inhomogeneities of the continental Eu-
rope. In: A.V. Chekunov (Editor), The Lithosphere of Central
and Eastern Europe. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, pp. 82-97 (in
Russian).
Pashkevich, I.K., Orlyuk, M.I. and Eliseeva, S.V., 1994. Platfor-
mal areas of Europe. In: D.M. Pechersky (Editor), Petromag-
netic Model of the Lithosphere. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, pp.
109-124.
Peive, A.V., Bogdanov, A.A. and Khain, V.E. (Editors), 1981.
International Tectonic Map of Europe and Adjacent Areas.
2nd ed., Scale 1:2,500,000, CGMW/IUGS, 20 sheets.
Petrov, B.V. and Suprunenko, E.I., 1994. Geoblock subdivisions
and deep structure of the East European Craton. Geol. Zh.,
1994(2): 16-22 (in Russian).
Plumb, K.A., 1991. New Precambrian time scale. Episodes, 14:
139-140.
Postnikova, I.E., 1977. The Upper Precambrian of the Russian
Platform and its Hydrocarbon Potential. Nedra, Moscow, 222
pp. (in Russian).
Puura, V. (Editor), 1980. Geological Map of the Crystalline
Basement of the Soviet Baltic Republics, Scale 1:5,000,000.
Moscow.
Rundquist, D.V. and Mitrofanov, F.P. (Editors), 1993. The Pre-
cambrian Geology of the USSR. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 528
PP.
Samsonov, A.V., Chernyshev, I.V., Nutman, A.P. and Compston,
W., 1996. Evolution of the Archaean Aulian Gneiss Complex,
Middle Dniepr gneiss-greenstone terrain, Ukranian Shield:
SHRIMP U-Pb zircon evidence. Precambrian Res., 78: 75-
88.
Shatsky, N.S., 1955. On the origin of the Pachelma trough.
Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Geological
Section, 30:5-26 (in Russian).
Shatsky, N.S., 1964. About troughs of the Donets type. In:
Selected Papers (Izbrannye Trudy). Nauka, Moscow, pp. 544-
553 (in Russian).
Shcherbak, N.P., 1991. The Precambrian subdivisions of the
Ukrainian Shield and their comparison with USSR and inter-
national scales. Geol. Zh., 1991(4): 3-9 (in Russian with short
English summary).
Shcherbak, N.P., Bartnitsky, Ye.N., Bibikova, E.V. and Boyko,
V.L., 1984. Age and evolution of the Early Precambrian con-
tinental crust of the Ukrainian Shield. In: A. Kr~Sner (Editor),
Archaean Geochemistry: the Origin and Evolution of the Ar-
chaean Continental Crust. Springer, Berlin, pp. 251-261.
Shcherbak, N.P., Pap, A.M., Bartnitsky, E.N. and Zayats, A.P.,
1990. The uranium-lead isotopic age of granitoids in Belorus-
sia. Dokl. Akad. Nauk Belorusskoy SSR, 34:740-743 (in
Russian).
Shchipansky, A.A. and Bogdanova, S.V., 1996. The Sarma-
tian crustal segment: Precambrian correlation between the
Voronezh Massif and the Ukrainian Shield across the Dniepr-
Donets Aulacogen. In: R.A. Stephenson, M. Wilson, H. de Bo-
order and V.I. Starostenko (Editors), EUROPROBE: Intraplate
Tectonics and Basin Dynamics of the Eastern European Plat-
form. Tectonophysics, 268:109-125 (this volume).
Simonenko, T.N. and Pashkevich, I.K. (Editors), 1992. Magnetic
Anomaly Map of Europe, Scale 1:5,000,000. Kiev.
Sollogub, V.B., 1986. The Lithosphere of the Ukraine. Naukova
Dumka, Kiev, 182 pp. (in Russian).
 S. V. Bogdanova et al. /Tectonophys&s 268 (1996) 1-21
Sollogub, V.B., II'chenko, T.V., Borodulin, M.A. and Sollogub,
N.V., 1988. Structure of the lithosphere along Geotraverse
VI. Characteristics of geophysical fields and methods of
crustal modelling. In: A.V. Chekunov (Editor), The Litho-
sphere of Central and Eastern Europe. Geotraverses IV, VI,
VIII. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, pp. 67-79 (in Russian).
Sveshnikov, K.A., Sukhorukov, Y.T. and Sheremet, E.M., 1992.
Anorogenic granitoid magmatism and related mineralization in
the Ukrainian Shield. 29th Int. Geol. Congress, Kyoto, Abstr.,
p. 563.
21
Valeev, R.N., 1978. Aulacogens of the East European Craton.
Nedra, Moscow, 152 pp. (in Russian).
Vidal, G. and Moczydlowska, M., 1995. The Neoproterozoic of
Baltica - - stratigraphy, palaeobiology and general geological
evolution. Precambrian Res., 73: 197-216.
Yurov, Y.G., 1977. Results of deep seismic sounding along the
profile Bliznetsy-Kupyansk-Vorkuta. In: Deep Structure of
the Eastern Russian Platform. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 88-108 (in
Russian).