A petrological and geochemical reappraisal of the Mesoproterozoic diamondiferous Majhgawan pipe of central India: evidence for transitional kimberlite – orangeite (group II kimberlite) – lamproite rock type

Abstract

The Mesoproterozoic diamondiferous Majhgawan pipe of central India is re-examined in the light of new and recently published petrological, geochemical and isotope data. This investigation reveals that its tectonic setting is similar to that of lamproites and orangeites (Group II kimberlite of southern Africa) and not that of a typical kimberlite. The petrography and mineralogy are comparable to lamproite and to some extent to orangeite, whereas the major element geochemistry is more akin to that of kimberlite. Trace element geochemistry is closer to that of lamproite but Nd isotope systematics are atypical of lamproite or orangeite. The inferred petrogenesis of the Majhgawan pipe is also similar to that of other such potassic ‘metasomatised mantle magmas’ without any strong affinity to a particular clan/group. It is demonstrated in this study that the Majhgawan pipe shares the petrological, geochemical and isotope characteristics of all three rock types. It is therefore suggested to constitute a transitional kimberlite–orangeite (Group II kimberlite)–lamproite rock. The existence of such transitional magmas in space and time in other cratons, outside India, is also highlighted. The name majhgawanite is proposed for this rock – keeping in mind the antiquity of the Majhgawan pipe, its intriguing petrological and geochemical characteristics and also on the basis of India’s legacy for introducing diamond to the world – to designate such mafic potassic-ultrapotassic transitional rock types so as to distinguish them from the classical kimberlite, lamproite or orangeite. It is concluded that the correlations between kimberlite petrography, geochemistry and isotopic types (viz., Group I and II), as established for kimberlites in southern Africa, need not be necessarily valid elsewhere. Hence, the recommendations of I.U.G.S. on classification of kimberlite, orangeite and lamproite are clearly inadequate when dealing with the transitional mafic potassic ultrapotassic rocks. It is further stressed that mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic aspects of mafic potassic-ultrapotassic rocks need to be considered in unison before assigning any name as the nomenclature of such exotic and rare alkaline rock types invariably implies economic and tectono-magmatic (regional) significance.