中文摘要：

山东蒙阴和辽宁复县有早古生代（460 Ma）的金刚石和金伯利岩,表明该区的岩石圈厚约200 km；河南鹤壁有金伯利岩无金刚石,表明岩石圈厚度不超过150 km;而中国东部新生代岩石圈厚度仅80～120 km,于是认为新生代岩石圈厚度相对于早古生代减薄了约100 km.但是,金伯利岩和金刚石是罕见的岩石和矿物,不可能代表华北早古生代岩石圈全区的面貌,实际上我们并不知道华北克拉通早古生代时岩石圈究竟有多厚.因此,华北岩石圈减薄是一个莫须有的错误的命题.“华北克拉通破坏”是“华北岩石圈减薄”命题的继承,又是“岩石圈减薄”命题的否定,它否定了“岩石圈减薄”的错误,提出了新的更为广泛的命题.因此,“克拉通破坏”与“岩石圈减薄”相比是一个明显的进步.而目前学术界关注的中生代华北克拉通的“失稳”和“活化”以及伴随而来的大规模岩浆活动,是华北克拉通演化历史上一次最强烈、最显著的“破坏”.

英文摘要：

The early Paleozoic kimberlites have been found in the North China Craton in two localities. Diamond bearing kimberlites in Mengyin, Shandong and Fuxian, Liaoning, indicate that the lithospheric thickness is ca. 200 km during the emplacement of the kimberlite in these two area. In the meanwhile, the diamond free kimberlite in Hebi, Henan indicates that the lithospherie thickness is less than 150 km. Basalt and geophysic research indicate that the lithospheric thickness of the eastern part of North China Craton is ca. 80~120 km in Cenozoic. Based on the above two observations,most workers believed that the North China Craton has lost ca. 100 km since the early Paleozoic to Cenozoic. However, the key question is how can we infer the thickness of the whole area only based on the very limited kimberlites or diamond. I think we cannot use such limited mineral or rock information to deduce the whole thickness of the North China Craton in Paleozoic, accordingly, the＂thinning of the lithosphere of the North China Craton＂is a wrong terminology. The North China cratonic destruction comes from the thinning of the lithosphere of the North China Craton, but very different from it. The＂destruction＂ contain a boarder meaning, hence the destruction is more proper than the thinning. Recently, academic circles focus on the＂instability＇and＂activation＇of the North China Craton in Mesozoic and the accompanying large-scale magmatic activity, which is sort of ＂destruction＂during the evolution history of the North China Craton.