The controversy.

The emplacement age of the Spontang Ophiolite represents a crucial problem in Himalayan geology, which has been lively debated for two decades (e.g., Searle 1986; Kelemen et al. 1988; Garzanti et al. 1987; Guillot et al. 2003). In a series of papers, Mike Searle and co-workers have long proposed and supported the idea that the Spontang Ophiolite was obducted in the Late Cretaceous, making implicit or explicit correlation with the well-studied Semail Ophiolite of Oman (e.g, Searle 1983; 1986; Pedersen et al. 2001; Corfield et al. 2001, 2005).

Semail and Spontang, however, are two very different ophiolite complexes. The Semail crust has a supra-subduction geochemical signature and was generated in the mid-Cretaceous (Searle & Cox 1999). Instead, the Spontang basalts have a MORB-like signature and were generated in the mid-Jurassic (Pedersen et al. 2001), similar rather to the other Oman ophiolite exposed on Masirah Island (Gnos et al. 1997). The analogy with the Semail Ophiolite obduction, associated with Late Cretaceous nappe stacking and high-pressure metamorphism of the underthrusted Arabian margin (Searle & Cox 1999), led Searle (2001) to reject the geochronological evidence for the Eocene age of high-pressure metamorphism of Indian-margin rocks (Kaghan and Tso–Morari eclogites; Tonarini et al. 1993; De Sigoyer et al. 2000).

Because of the Eocene age of the eclogites, and of the fact that the Spontang Ophiolite lies tectonically on top of Indian margin sediments as …