A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the...

23
A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD 1 , CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU 2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY 3 1 ISTO, UMR 6113, Université d’Orléans, 45067–Orléans, France (E-mail: [email protected]) 2 Laboratoire de Géographie Physique, UMR 8591, 1 pl A. Briand, 92195–Meudon, France 3 ‹stanbul Technical University, Eurasian Institute of Earth Sciences, Ayaza¤a, TR–80626 ‹stanbul, Turkey Abstract: Lower Miocene conglomerates in the Köprü and Manavgat basins contain pebbles that can be confidently traced back to their source areas, owing to their distinctive lithologies. Among others, are the green Hu¤lu volcanics (Late Trias), known only in allochthonous units from the Beyflehir region, or the Alanya blueschists, restricted to the Sugözü unit in the Alanya Massif. The problem is to find out how this detrital material could have travelled about eighty kilometres through the Taurus calcareous units during the Miocene. Fortunately, the present drainage system is not yet fully reorganised in the Taurus, and large areas of the chain still retain fossil morphologies. These may be seen in the upper karstic areas of the chain, where a large part of a high surface (1500–2200 m) is preserved. On this surface several dry valleys, some of them 400 m deep, with meanders and tributaries, have been recognised. They are disconnected from the present drainage, and represent fragments of a former network directed NE–SW, at right angles to the structures of the Taurus chain. The age of this network may be attributed indirectly to the Early Miocene. On the other hand, the presence of blueschist fragments in conglomerates of the Aksu Basin cannot be explained through a NE–SW-directed drainage system, and implies instead that the Alanya Massif extends to the west below the Miocene cover of the Antalya Gulf. Later, Late Miocene faulting fragmented the high surface and disrupted the drainage system. Uplift of the Taurus chain followed in the Pliocene and Quaternary, and is responsible for the extensive karstic circulation seen today, which left aside remnants of the ancient morphology of the chain. Key Words: fluviatile network, tracer pebbles, Miocene morphology, karst, Taurus, Turkey Bat› Toroslar'da Miosen Yaflta Bir Akaçlama Sistemi Özet: Köprü ve Manavgat havzalar›nda bulunan Alt Miyosen konglomeralar›n›n kaynak alan›n›n saptanmas›, çak›llar›n karakteristik litolojik özellikleri nedeni ile kolayd›r. Örne¤in, baz› çak›llar sadece Beyflehir bölgesindeki allokton birimlerden bilinen, Erken Triyas yaflta yeflil Hu¤lu volkanitlerinden, veya Alanya Masifi'nin Sugözü Nap›'nda tan›mlanan maviflistlerden oluflmufltur. Bu klastik malzemenin Miyosen'de Toroslar›n karbonat birimleri üzerinden akarsular ile nas›l 80 km tafl›nd›¤› önemli bir sorundur. Bu konuya ›fl›k tutabilecek bir gözlem, Toroslarda günümüz akaçlama sisteminin tam geliflmedi¤i ve genifl alanlarda akaçlaman›n fosil özellikler tafl›d›¤›d›r. Fosil akaçlama bilhassa Toroslar›n yüksek k›s›mlar›nda (1500–2200 m) korunmufltur. Bu yüzeylerde, yer yer derinlikleri 400 metreye ulaflan, yan kollar› bulunan menderesli kuru vadiler yer al›r. Bu eski vadiler modern akaçlama sisteminden izole olmufl, Toros da¤ silsilesi yönüne dik, KD–GB gidiflli eski bir akaçlama sisteminin art›klar›n› oluflturur. Dolayl› veriler eski akaçlama sisteminin yafl›n›n Erken Miyosen oldu¤unu gösterir. Köprü ve Manavgat havzalar›ndan farkl› olarak Aksu Havzas› konglomeralar›ndaki maviflist çak›llar›n› KD–GB gidiflli bir akaçlama sistemi ile aç›klamak mümkün de¤ildir. Aksu Havzas›ndaki maviflist çak›llar›n›n varl›¤›, Alanya Masifi'nin Antalya Körfezi Miyosen örtüsünün alt›ndan bat›ya do¤ru uzand›¤›na iflaret eder. Geç Miyosen'deki faylanma ile yüksek düzlükler parçalanm›fl, ve KD–GB gidiflli akaçlama sistemi bozulmufltur. Toros da¤ silsilesinin Pliyosen ve Kuvaterner'de tekrar yükselmesi sonucunda bugünkü kapsaml› karstik akaçlanma geliflmeye bafllam›fl, ve eski akaçlama sistemi ancak izole olarak baz› yüksek bölgelerde korunmufltur. Anahtar Sözcükler: akaçlama sistemi, k›lavuz çak›llar, Miyosen morfolojisi, karst, Toroslar, Türkiye Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences (Turkish J. Earth Sci.), Vol. 15, 2006, pp. 1-23. Copyright ©TÜB‹TAK 1

Transcript of A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the...

Page 1: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

A Miocene Palaeovalley Networkin the Western Taurus (Turkey)

OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

1 ISTO, UMR 6113, Université d’Orléans, 45067–Orléans, France(E-mail: [email protected])

2 Laboratoire de Géographie Physique, UMR 8591, 1 pl A. Briand, 92195–Meudon, France3 ‹stanbul Technical University, Eurasian Institute of Earth Sciences, Ayaza¤a, TR–80626 ‹stanbul, Turkey

Abstract: Lower Miocene conglomerates in the Köprü and Manavgat basins contain pebbles that can be confidentlytraced back to their source areas, owing to their distinctive lithologies. Among others, are the green Hu¤luvolcanics (Late Trias), known only in allochthonous units from the Beyflehir region, or the Alanya blueschists,restricted to the Sugözü unit in the Alanya Massif. The problem is to find out how this detrital material could havetravelled about eighty kilometres through the Taurus calcareous units during the Miocene. Fortunately, the presentdrainage system is not yet fully reorganised in the Taurus, and large areas of the chain still retain fossilmorphologies. These may be seen in the upper karstic areas of the chain, where a large part of a high surface(1500–2200 m) is preserved. On this surface several dry valleys, some of them 400 m deep, with meanders andtributaries, have been recognised. They are disconnected from the present drainage, and represent fragments ofa former network directed NE–SW, at right angles to the structures of the Taurus chain. The age of this networkmay be attributed indirectly to the Early Miocene. On the other hand, the presence of blueschist fragments inconglomerates of the Aksu Basin cannot be explained through a NE–SW-directed drainage system, and impliesinstead that the Alanya Massif extends to the west below the Miocene cover of the Antalya Gulf. Later, Late Miocenefaulting fragmented the high surface and disrupted the drainage system. Uplift of the Taurus chain followed in thePliocene and Quaternary, and is responsible for the extensive karstic circulation seen today, which left asideremnants of the ancient morphology of the chain.

Key Words: fluviatile network, tracer pebbles, Miocene morphology, karst, Taurus, Turkey

Bat› Toroslar'da Miosen Yaflta Bir Akaçlama Sistemi

Özet: Köprü ve Manavgat havzalar›nda bulunan Alt Miyosen konglomeralar›n›n kaynak alan›n›n saptanmas›,çak›llar›n karakteristik litolojik özellikleri nedeni ile kolayd›r. Örne¤in, baz› çak›llar sadece Beyflehir bölgesindekiallokton birimlerden bilinen, Erken Triyas yaflta yeflil Hu¤lu volkanitlerinden, veya Alanya Masifi'nin SugözüNap›'nda tan›mlanan maviflistlerden oluflmufltur. Bu klastik malzemenin Miyosen'de Toroslar›n karbonat birimleriüzerinden akarsular ile nas›l 80 km tafl›nd›¤› önemli bir sorundur. Bu konuya ›fl›k tutabilecek bir gözlem, Toroslardagünümüz akaçlama sisteminin tam geliflmedi¤i ve genifl alanlarda akaçlaman›n fosil özellikler tafl›d›¤›d›r. Fosilakaçlama bilhassa Toroslar›n yüksek k›s›mlar›nda (1500–2200 m) korunmufltur. Bu yüzeylerde, yer yer derinlikleri400 metreye ulaflan, yan kollar› bulunan menderesli kuru vadiler yer al›r. Bu eski vadiler modern akaçlamasisteminden izole olmufl, Toros da¤ silsilesi yönüne dik, KD–GB gidiflli eski bir akaçlama sisteminin art›klar›n›oluflturur. Dolayl› veriler eski akaçlama sisteminin yafl›n›n Erken Miyosen oldu¤unu gösterir. Köprü ve Manavgathavzalar›ndan farkl› olarak Aksu Havzas› konglomeralar›ndaki maviflist çak›llar›n› KD–GB gidiflli bir akaçlamasistemi ile aç›klamak mümkün de¤ildir. Aksu Havzas›ndaki maviflist çak›llar›n›n varl›¤›, Alanya Masifi'nin AntalyaKörfezi Miyosen örtüsünün alt›ndan bat›ya do¤ru uzand›¤›na iflaret eder. Geç Miyosen'deki faylanma ile yüksekdüzlükler parçalanm›fl, ve KD–GB gidiflli akaçlama sistemi bozulmufltur. Toros da¤ silsilesinin Pliyosen veKuvaterner'de tekrar yükselmesi sonucunda bugünkü kapsaml› karstik akaçlanma geliflmeye bafllam›fl, ve eskiakaçlama sistemi ancak izole olarak baz› yüksek bölgelerde korunmufltur.

Anahtar Sözcükler: akaçlama sistemi, k›lavuz çak›llar, Miyosen morfolojisi, karst, Toroslar, Türkiye

Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences (Turkish J. Earth Sci.), Vol. 15, 2006, pp. 1-23. Copyright ©TÜB‹TAK

1

Page 2: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

Introduction

In southern Turkey, Miocene deposits generallyunconformably overlie pre-existing structures of LateCretaceous to Late Eocene age (Blumenthal 1951; Gutnicet al. 1979; Koçyi¤it et al. 2000; fienel 2002). Within thewestern Taurus range, this disposition implies that aperiod of exhumation and erosion occurred before theMiocene marine transgression, as shown by polymictconglomerates which are usually present at the base ofthe Miocene basins (Blumenthal 1951; Monod 1977,1979). These conglomerates are irregularly distributedfrom Adana to Antalya and reflect a rugged topography(Akay et al. 1985; Flecker et al. 1995; Ocako¤lu 2002).Clast composition suggests that the pebbles weregenerally derived from the surrounding mountains,typically made up of Mesozoic carbonates, or fromoverlying nappes, which often include ophiolitic rocks. Inmost cases, however, the exact origin of the Miocenepebbles cannot be assigned more precisely, owing to theubiquity of neritic carbonates and the widespreaddistribution of ophiolitic units in the Taurus range. Only afew particular lithologies can be recognisedunambiguously among the pebbles, and these crop out insuch restricted areas of the western Taurus that it ispossible to identify their origin with a good precision.Among them, the Precambrian diabases of BozburunDa¤, red Carboniferous sandstones of Dipoyraz Da¤,metamorphic limestones and blueschists of the AlanyaMassif and the green Hu¤lu volcanics (Trias) are excellentsource indicators (Figure 1). The problem is to find outhow these materials travelled across the Taurus chainearly in the Miocene. The aim of this paper is to point outancient morphological features still preserved in thewestern Taurus and, with the help of these markers, toreconstruct and date the river network which broughtdetrital material from the Miocene catchment areas downto the Antalya Basin.

Evidence for Fossil Morphological FeaturesPreserved in the High Western Taurus

The Present Drainage System

Superficial drainage in the western Taurus exhibits manyirregularities, showing that its evolution is far fromcomplete. A simplified topographical sketch (Figure 2)shows five major drainage basins, with two different baselevels: to the south, the Mediterranean receives water

from three major fluviatile basins (Köprüçay River,Manavgat River and Alaraçay River), whereas to thenorth – the other base level – at about 1000 m altitude,corresponds to an endoreic depression in central Anatolia,where the Beyflehir and Su¤la lakes are situated. Inaddition to these catchment areas, the drainage of a largesurface of the Taurus chain (HS in Figure 2) is not yetconnected to any organised surficial system. Due to thisdisposition, this high, isolated area is itself subdivided intoa number of closed depressions, and includes the twolargest poljes (Kembos Ova and Eynif Ova, cf. Louis1956) of the chain. The high surface is almost entirelycomprised of Mesozoic carbonates (Jurassic–Cretaceous)and exhibits an intense karstic morphology. Surprisingly,although no organised drainage exists in this part of theTaurus, many large, dry valleys are present on the highsurface (Figure 3). As shown below, we suggest thatthese fossil valleys are remnants of a former fluviatilenetwork situated upon a Miocene erosion surface.

The High Palaeosurface

The general topography of the high surface (HS) of theTaurus, at present between 1500 m and 2000 maltitude, is rather smooth, albeit intensively karstic (cf.Nazik 1992; Ekmekçi 2003), but is not a structuralsurface, as shown by the various underlying carbonateformations ranging in age from Late Trias to LateCretaceous. Limiting the high surface, very steep slopesgenerally result from regressive and differential erosionor younger faulting (Figure 3). To the south, the KarpuzRiver, the Alara River and the Manavgat River havecarved extremely steep gorges (over 1000 m deep)through Mesozoic carbonates, demonstrating the younguplift of the Taurus chain. The Manavgat River, inparticular, flows down through three deep gorges, andnear Üzümdere village a sharp bend at a right angle to theNW probably reflects a former capture (Figure 2). To thenortheast, the high karstic surface is limited by highcalcareous cliffs above Seydiflehir (Figure 3), whichprobably reflect an important fault line, as suggested byBirot & Dresch (1956). Last but not least, Miocene toRecent normal faulting has uplifted or lowered parts ofthe Taurus chain and has thus fragmented this surface,which rises to 2250 m in Burmahan Da¤, but disappearsat 1100 m under Pliocene sediments along Beyflehir Lake.Thus, owing to the importance of Pliocene–Quaternaryerosion and tectonics (cf. Koçyigit & Özacar 2003) only

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

2

Page 3: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

������

���������������� �� �� ����

� �

��

��

�� �

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

������

������������������������

������

���������������������

������ ������

������

������

���

������

���

���

������

���

������ �!����� �!����� �!��

������

������

������

��"#����"#����"#��

$�$�$�

������

�%&'�'����(�%&'�'����(�%&'�'����(

$�$�$�

$�$�$�

�)

* +

,������

����

�)

* +

,������

����

�)

* +

,������

����

#�-#.��#�-#.��#�-#.�����#���#���#

#�-#.��#�-#.��#�-#.��

������

���///***000��������������� ***������$$$111������ 222

�#����#����#���

��

�����

���

��

�����

���

��

�����

���

3&��4�3&��4�3&��4�

��" �!����" �!����" �!�����

���'��#'��#'��#���

��� ���������������

��"5#�

��"5#�

��"5#�

��'�

'"

��'�

'"

��'�

'"

6#�5��!6#�5��!6#�5��!��'�'"��'�'"��'�'"

��

������$

���

���

����$

���

��

������$

��

3"5��&'!3"5��&'!3"5��&'!

������������������

�7����%�7����%�7����%�8�8�8

�����"����8

�����"����8

�����"����8������

���

�����*� ����*� ����*� ��

0���7 ����!��#"5��#0���7 ����!��#"5��#0���7 ����!��#"5��#9'�4�:�!���;���:.���<9'�4�:�!���;���:.���<9'�4�:�!���;���:.���<

��5�!�����77#"��5�!�����77#"��5�!�����77#"9�(�6�#5�=#�'"<9�(�6�#5�=#�'"<9�(�6�#5�=#�'"<

���

*!��=#�#*!��=#�#*!��=#�#���

$'8!'�7#&&!#"�7�5.>��"$'8!'�7#&&!#"�7�5.>��"$'8!'�7#&&!#"�7�5.>��" �5.#��4#5��5'"�7�5.>��"�5.#��4#5��5'"�7�5.>��"�5.#��4#5��5'"�7�5.>��"

&!'#"=.�"5�7#&&!#"&!'#"=.�"5�7#&&!#"&!'#"=.�"5�7#&&!#"

�!������#5����7.�=�7#&&!#"�!������#5����7.�=�7#&&!#"�!������#5����7.�=�7#&&!#"

*�#=��&�����7#&&!#"*�#=��&�����7#&&!#"*�#=��&�����7#&&!#"������

��"'�5.�'"5��"'�5.�'"5��"'�5.�'"59��5#�/��=#�#<9��5#�/��=#�#<9��5#�/��=#�#<

�5.#��5.#��5.#���'!5"��'!5"��'!5"

$'8!'�7#&&!#"$'8!'�7#&&!#"$'8!'�7#&&!#"

���

#=#�5 #=#�5 #=#�5

5���#�5��#5���#�5��#5���#�5��#

#�4�8?�����";��"#��#�4�8?�����";��"#��#�4�8?�����";��"#���'5�=.5.���'"�7!�5�����'5�=.5.���'"�7!�5�����'5�=.5.���'"�7!�5����

#�-#.��;$�4��#�-#.��;$�4��#�-#.��;$�4����77#"�9/(���=#�#<��77#"�9/(���=#�#<��77#"�9/(���=#�#<

*�#;/��=#�#*�#;/��=#�#*�#;/��=#�#5.�'"5"5.�'"5"5.�'"5"

$'8!'���!=���="$'8!'���!=���="$'8!'���!=���="9����"<9����"<9����"<

�7.��!�5�=���=�"�7.��!�5�=���=�"�7.��!�5�=���=�"

*�#=��&����*�#=��&����*�#=��&����4��&�"#"4��&�"#"4��&�"#"

��������� ���

�!�����/�""���!�����/�""���!�����/�""���#5����7.�="�#5����7.�="�#5����7.�="

��@��':A%B�'��5��@��':A%B�'��5��@��':A%B�'��5>�5.�&!'#"=.�"5">�5.�&!'#"=.�"5">�5.�&!'#"=.�"5"7��&�&!#�#C5#�5���7��&�&!#�#C5#�5���7��&�&!#�#C5#�5���5.#��!�����/�""��D5.#��!�����/�""��D5.#��!�����/�""��D��4�5>���"�!�5#4���!�#�"��4�5>���"�!�5#4���!�#�"��4�5>���"�!�5#4���!�#�"

���7'%E���5'�&�4�5#"���7'%E���5'�&�4�5#"���7'%E���5'�&�4�5#"9�#�����!!���;���5�����<9�#�����!!���;���5�����<9�#�����!!���;���5�����<

�A7�BE��������5����A7�BE��������5����A7�BE��������5���9���:.���;�#�����!!���<9���:.���;�#�����!!���<9���:.���;�#�����!!���<��"'E��������5�����"'E��������5�����"'E��������5���9���5�����<9���5�����<9���5�����<

�#7#�!��=��:!��#��5#�#7#�!��=��:!��#��5#�#7#�!��=��:!��#��5#9'�4�:�!���<9'�4�:�!���<9'�4�:�!���<

������

� �������� �������� ���������'!5��'!5��'!5

��=������77#"��=������77#"��=������77#"9/�44!#�/��=#�#<9/�44!#�/��=#�#<9/�44!#�/��=#�#<

$�$�$�

������

������

F�G���HF�G���HF�G���H

FIG�F�HFIG�F�HFIG�F�HF�G�F�HF�G�F�HF�G�F�H FIG���HFIG���HFIG���H

FJG���HFJG���HFJG���H

FJG�F�HFJG�F�HFJG�F�H FJG�F�HFJG�F�HFJG�F�H

�#=5����#=5����#=5���9��:'�#�IF<9��:'�#�IF<9��:'�#�IF<

�#���E�#���E�#���E

�#7#%�#7#%�#7#%

FJG���HFJG���HFJG���H

���7'%���7'%���7'%

$�K��$�K��$�K��������������

$�K��$�K��$�K��*����*����*����

*��$1���*��$1���*��$1���

�'8!��'8!��'8!����#���#���#

��=�����=�����=�����'�'"��'�'"��'�'"

/#4�5#����#�����#�/#4�5#����#�����#�/#4�5#����#�����#�

������

555

���

������������������/�����/�����/�����

1#"5#��

1#"5#��

1#"5#����'�'"��'�'"��'�'"

�#�4�-#.���#�4�-#.���#�4�-#.��

/����:�5/����:�5/����:�5

/��������������

/��������������

/��������������

LLL

LLLM

MM

LLL

O. MONOD ET AL.

3

Figure 1. Sketch map of the Antalya Miocene basins showing distribution of the main conglomeratic bodies, with their sourcerocks and locations of derived pebbles.

Page 4: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

4

#�-#.�������##�-#.�������##�-#.�������#

���3N�$3 ���3N�$3 ���3N�$3

��N�$3 ��N�$3 ��N�$3

I�I�I�I�I�I�

IF�OIF�OIF�O

IPFQIPFQIPFQ

�F���F���F��

��OR��OR��OR

�F�P�F�P�F�P

�F�P�F�P�F�P

��R���R���R�

IR�JIR�JIR�J

�IRI�IRI�IRI

�QQR�QQR�QQR

IJIFIJIFIJIF IOQ�IOQ�IOQ�

�P���P���P��

������������

9I�F�<9I�F�<9I�F�<

9QO�<9QO�<9QO�<

9I���<9I���<9I���<

IO��IO��IO��

�P�Q�P�Q�P�Q

�F���F���F��

������������

�IF��IF��IF�

IQJJIQJJIQJJ���O���O���O

�F�P�F�P�F�P

��O���O���O�

�O���O���O��

IQR�IQR�IQR�

I���I���I���

���

��� ������ ������

*�!S#*�!S#*�!S#

�$��$��� ��6��$��$��� ��6��$��$��� ��6�9���4�����:#�"�"5#�<9���4�����:#�"�"5#�<9���4�����:#�"�"5#�<

#�-#.���&�"��#�-#.���&�"��#�-#.���&�"��

�'8!��&�"���'8!��&�"���'8!��&�"��

�A7�B� ��#��&�"���A7�B� ��#��&�"���A7�B� ��#��&�"��

///����:�5� ��#�����:�5� ��#�����:�5� ��#��&�"���&�"���&�"��

���7'%E�����4���7'%E�����4���7'%E�����4�!���� ��#��&�"��"�!���� ��#��&�"��"�!���� ��#��&�"��"

��0 ��6��������0 ��6��������0 ��6������@@@

/� ���� ������������/� ���� ������������/� ���� ������������@@@

������

������

������

3�=#&#!�*�""3�=#&#!�*�""3�=#&#!�*�""������������

��RR��RR��RR

IRJJIRJJIRJJ*����*����*����

���I���I���I

IQRPIQRPIQRP

IQR�IQR�IQR�

���I���I���I

6#��%!6#��%!6#��%!���

�!��

�� �

�!��

�� �

�!��

�� ����

###���

4�����:#4�����:#4�����:#�4���4#�4���4#�4���4#

�A7

�B�

��#�

�A7

�B�

��#�

�A7

�B�

��#�

�A7

�B�

��#�

�A7

�B�

��#�

�A7

�B�

��#�

�7����%��8�7����%��8�7����%��8

�%&'�'���8�%&'�'���8�%&'�'���8

,��"��

&�� ��#�

,��"��

&�� ��#�

,��"��

&�� ��#�

�#

�#

�#���

&�"&�"&�"

0�

0�

0����

��'8!�����#��'8!�����#��'8!�����#9I�Q�<9I�Q�<9I�Q�<

3&��4�3&��4�3&��4�

I��FI��FI��F

A�B���8A�B���8A�B���8

9II�I<9II�I<9II�I<

���������������

'���.��'���.��'���.���8�8�8

0��0��0��

/����:�5� ��#�/����:�5� ��#�/����:�5� ��#�

���7'%�

��#�

���7'%�

��#�

���7'%�

��#�

��"#����"#����"#��

+%B�4#�#+%B�4#�#+%B�4#�#

�#���E�#���E�#���E

/����:�5/����:�5/����:�5

/#4�5#����#����#�/#4�5#����#����#�/#4�5#����#����#�

���

���

���

���

���

���

Figure 2. Map of the catchment areas in the western Taurus; the white area (HS) in the centre has no surficial drainage towardsthe present rivers, but only through underground circulation in this highly karstic area. It contains remnants of apalaeosurface where most of the fossil morphological features are present.

Page 5: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

O. MONOD ET AL.

5

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

������

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

�7����%�7����%�7����%�8�8�8

�(����������(����������(���������

#�#&'=�#�#&'=�#�#&'=����

�P���P���P��

�F���F���F��

��PQ��PQ��PQ

�I���I���I��IJ��IJ��IJ��

������������

�I���I���I��

IF��IF��IF��IP�QIP�QIP�Q

I���I���I���

�IF��IF��IF�

IQR�IQR�IQR�

�F�P�F�P�F�P

I��RI��RI��R

IOQ�IOQ�IOQ�

II�OII�OII�O

IF��IF��IF��

IR�RIR�RIR�R

IQJJIQJJIQJJ

I�Q�I�Q�I�Q�

IF��IF��IF��

9IP��<9IP��<9IP��<�IRI�IRI�IRI

I�QFI�QFI�QF ��JF��JF��JF

�OQ��OQ��OQ�

�QQJ�QQJ�QQJ

9IP��<9IP��<9IP��<IJ�IIJ�IIJ�I

IF��IF��IF��

I��II��II��I

IO��IO��IO��

I���I���I���

���O���O���O

IQ�IIQ�IIQ�I

���I���I���I

IJ��IJ��IJ��IR��IR��IR��

�F�P�F�P�F�P

������������

�P���P���P��

IP��IP��IP��

IO��IO��IO��

IF��IF��IF��I���I���I���

I�J�I�J�I�J�

9I�F�<9I�F�<9I�F�<

I�PJI�PJI�PJ

IJIFIJIFIJIF

I���I���I���

IPIPIP������

IPOPIPOPIPOP

IPQ�IPQ�IPQ�

,#5��,#5��,#5��

�#7#%�#7#%�#7#%

��"#����"#����"#��

������������

������������I���I���I���

I���I���I���

IQ��IQ��IQ��

IJ��IJ��IJ��

�P�J�P�J�P�J

IP��IP��IP��

I�ROI�ROI�RO

I��FI��FI��F

I�OJI�OJI�OJI�RJI�RJI�RJ

IFIFIFIFIFIF

J��J��J��

J��J��J��

I�I�I�I�I�I�

IFR�IFR�IFR�

FIG�F�HFIG�F�HFIG�F�H

FIG�F�HFIG�F�HFIG�F�H

FJG���HFJG���HFJG���HFJG���HFJG���HFJG���H

F�G�

��H

F�G�

��H

F�G�

��H

IP�JIP�JIP�J

IOORIOORIOOR

I��JI��JI��J

IO�QIO�QIO�Q

I�ROI�ROI�RO

��F���F���F�

�P�I�P�I�P�I

���P���P���P

IJ��IJ��IJ���FF��FF��FF�

�P���P���P����OP��OP��OP

I��FI��FI��F

��O���O���O�

�I���I���I��

Q��Q��Q��

�I�F�I�F�I�F

I�I�I�I�I�I�I���I���I���

IJ��IJ��IJ��

��F���F���F�

IRJ�IRJ�IRJ�

��IJ��IJ��IJ

I���I���I���

���I���I���I

IF��IF��IF��

Q��Q��Q��

QO�QO�QO�

IF��IF��IF�� IJ��IJ��IJ��

IJ�JIJ�JIJ�J

I���I���I���

IQRPIQRPIQRP

IPFIPFIPFQQQI�PI�PI�PJJJ

P��P��P��

I�P�I�P�I�P� QIQQIQQIQ

R��R��R��

Q��Q��Q��

I�OII�OII�OI

I���I���I���

I�OII�OII�OI I��II��II��I

Q��Q��Q��

IF�OIF�OIF�OOFOFOF���

IOOOIOOOIOOOI�F�I�F�I�F�

�R��R��R�

IQR�IQR�IQR�IR��IR��IR��

IJ��IJ��IJ����QQ��QQ��QQ

IO��IO��IO��IQ��IQ��IQ��

I���I���I���

IO��IO��IO�� �F�P�F�P�F�P

IQ��IQ��IQ��

IP��IP��IP��

IR��IR��IR��

IO��IO��IO��

�FJI�FJI�FJI������������

IQ��IQ��IQ��

IRJJIRJJIRJJ

I���I���I���

IQ�OIQ�OIQ�O

3&��4�3&��4�3&��4�

I�I�I�I�I�I�

���

IP��IP��IP��

FJGF�HFJGF�HFJGF�H

���

I��JI��JI��J

$�K��$�K��$�K��

IF��IF��IF��

IP�JIP�JIP�J

�(�(�(�(�(�(

T(�T(�T(�(((

$($($(�(�(�(

+++(�(�(�(((

6(�6(�6(�(((

*(*(*(�(�(�( (((���

�(�(�(�(�(�(

3�(�3�(�3�(�(((

��(�

��(�

��(�

(((

���

�'8!��'8!��'8!����#���#���#

9I�Q�<9I�Q�<9I�Q�<

�F�I�F�I�F�I

IJ�OIJ�OIJ�O

��� � : ' � #� : ' � #� : ' � # ���

I���I���I���

�#���E�#���E�#���E

� �� �� � I����I����I����

I���I���I�����R���R���R�

#�-#.������#�9I#�-#.������#�9I#�-#.������#�9II�I<I�I<I�I<#�-#.��#�-#.��#�-#.��

$�$�$�

$�$�$�

$�$�$�

$�$�$�

$�$�$�

$�$�$�

�������7'%�7'%�7'%

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

***

���

I���I���I���

�#=5������#=5������#=5����������:'�#�J�����:'�#�J�����:'�#�J

���

�#=5�������#=5�������#=5�����������:'�#�J�����:'�#�J�����:'�#�J

�#=5�������#=5�������#=5�����������:'�#�J�����:'�#�J�����:'�#�J

���

I���I���I���

I�IQI�IQI�IQ

I���I���I���

������

���

'���.��'���.��'���.���8�8�8

///

���

���

///

N��!��N��!��N��!��

///������������:�:�:�5� �

5� �5� ����#�#�#�

���###

���&&&

���"""

������������

��� ���000

������

/�

/�

/������:�5

��:�5��:�5

����#�#�#�

,,,������"�"�"����

&&&���

������#�#�#�

������

000��� ���

�#!"'��(�#!"'��(�#!"'��(

+%B�4#�#+%B�4#�#+%B�4#�#

�#�4�"#.��#�4�"#.��#�4�"#.����

+�B�!B+�B�!B+�B�!B

������������

��� �!����(��� �!����(��� �!����(

(�((�((�( (�((�((�(

� �������� �������� �������

������

���

������

������

������

������

������

0���7 ���0���7 ���0���7 ���������

�#=5������#=5������#=5����������:'�#�J�����:'�#�J�����:'�#�J

3�=#&#!3�=#&#!3�=#&#!*�""*�""*�""

#=#�5��4#7�"�5" #=#�5��4#7�"�5" #=#�5��4#7�"�5"

.�:.�"'���=#.�:.�"'���=#.�:.�"'���=#

*!��=#�#����!"���4*!��=#�#����!"���4*!��=#�#����!"���4=��:!��#��5#"=��:!��#��5#"=��:!��#��5#"

���5������4#7�"�5"���5������4#7�"�5"���5������4#7�"�5"��>#�;/�44!#��>#�;/�44!#��>#�;/�44!#/��=#�#�4#7�"�5"/��=#�#�4#7�"�5"/��=#�#�4#7�"�5"

��#�"�#��4#4���5#���#�"�#��4#4���5#���#�"�#��4#4���5#�/��=#�#/��=#�#/��=#�#

���

���

7�!�#���!!#�"���47�!�#���!!#�"���47�!�#���!!#�"���47�""�&!#�=���!'#�=#"7�""�&!#�=���!'#�=#"7�""�&!#�=���!'#�=#"

�����!���'!5��9��5#�����!���'!5��9��5#�����!���'!5��9��5#/��=#�#������'�:#�</��=#�#������'�:#�</��=#�#������'�:#�<��4���'!5�"=��7�9:�#�<��4���'!5�"=��7�9:�#�<��4���'!5�"=��7�9:�#�<

7�#"#�5���!!#����7�#"#�5���!!#����7�#"#�5���!!#����5.#�/����:�5� ��#�5.#�/����:�5� ��#�5.#�/����:�5� ��#�

���

������

���

$'8!'�'��5��'5=��7$'8!'�'��5��'5=��7$'8!'�'��5��'5=��7��4�7��&�&!#�#C5#�5��4�7��&�&!#�#C5#�5��4�7��&�&!#�#C5#�54'���:��/��=#�#4'���:��/��=#�#4'���:��/��=#�#

$'8!'�7#&&!#"$'8!'�7#&&!#"$'8!'�7#&&!#"

IJ��IJ��IJ��

IO��IO��IO�� IF��IF��IF��

6#��%!�6#��%!�6#��%!�

�FF��FF��FF�

�P�Q�P�Q�P�QIR��IR��IR��

���������

II��II��II��

���(�(�(�

IIIIIIRFRFRF

�����= ���(�����= ���(�����= ���(

Figure 3. Reconstructed Early Miocene drainage network in the western Taurus. The main palaeovalleys are in blue:A.V.– Akseki Valley; D.V.– Derebucak Valley; H.V.– Hallaç Valley; In.V.– ‹ncebel Valley; P.V.– Piser Valley;S.V.– Sultançukuru Valley; So.V.– Sobova Valley; Ü.V.– Ürünlü Valley; Y.V.– Yarpuz Valley; Z.V.– ZimmetValley. Arrows indicate the present slope. Remaining parts of the high surface HS are in yellow. Normalfaults figured here are Late Miocene or younger, with fault scarps in light grey. Manavgat River gorge(purple) is younger (Plio–Quaternary).

Page 6: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

disconnected fragments of the high surface may now berecognised (HS in Figure 3).

The fragments outlined in Figure 3 were delineatedon 1/25000 topographical maps, partly directly andpartly with a digital elevation model (DEM); they aredefined as remnants of an upland morphology where nosignificant slopes are steeper than 25°. In most cases,these areas are sharply delimited by a conspicuous breakof slope due to Quaternary regressive erosion, as in theManavgat valley, or to the denudation of a former,steeply inclined structural slope, as south of Derebucakvillage. In most cases, however, the break of slopereflects younger faulting, as exemplified west of ‹bradi orsouth of Seydiflehir. Areas displaying impreciseboundaries when mapping the high surface are few. As aresult of this cartography (Figure 3), the high surfaceappears now as a disconnected puzzle of remnantmorphologic pieces of limited size and variable altitudeswhich were parts of a larger, evolved surface, includingnot only high points but also deep valleys, as shownbelow.

Streamless Hanging Valleys

Across several remnants of the high surface, a strikingfeature is the presence of large, streamless valleys, whichare well preserved in spite of the karst in the calcareousareas (cf. Nazik 1992). These valleys are conspicuous inthe field (Figure 4) as well as on satellite pictures, andsome are followed for a few kilometres by roads crossingthe Taurus range. A common characteristic of thesevalleys is their abrupt interruption at both ends, hangingfrom one to four hundred metres above the present-daydrainage. Another typical feature is the karsticmorphology of the hanging valleys, which are paved withadjacent dolines and sinkholes.

On 1/25000 topographic maps (Figure 5), thehanging valleys can be delineated with precision. Themain palaeovalleys may reach 1 to 1.5 km in width(Zimmet Valley), 250 to 400 m in depth (Hallaç Valley),and 10 km in length (the longest being Piser Valley).Most are oriented NE–SW (Figure 6), and some exhibitclear meander morphologies (Hallaç Valley) with well-preserved meander necks. A few tributaries may be notedon both sides (Figure 5), in spite of the very rough karsticlandscape. Interestingly, the tributaries are not deeplyincised into the high surface (150–200 m); thus, their

connection with the main fossil valleys occurs not on thevalley floor, but always on a valley shoulder about 200 to250 m higher (cf. Zimmet valley). This generaldisposition (Figures 6 & 7-Section I) implies that themeandering river network was initially created with aweak slope on the high surface, and was succeeded bytwo or more cycles of erosion with rapid karsticdevelopments following each fall of base level in the mainvalleys (cf. Ford & Williams 1989).

The dry valleys are typically V-shaped with rathersteep flanks (from 30° to 40°) in the deepest valleys,indicating a very rapid rate of incision within thecarbonates, but a limited time for lateral erosion toenlarge the width of the valley floors (cf. de Broekert &Sandiford 2005). The steeper slopes are foundpreferentially to the SW (Ürünlü Valley), whereas muchsmoother shapes are recorded in the NE (Sobova Valley,near Beyflehir). As a rule, the directions of thepalaeovalleys trend NE–SW and the tributaries, when notat right angles to the main valleys, suggest asouthwesterly direction of flow. Although completeprofiles cannot be drawn precisely, owing to theirdiscontinuous preservation, some of the palaeovalleyfragments are long enough to suggest that the originalslope was weak: for instance, the Hallaç Valley (8 km)and the Piser Valley (10 km) exhibit roughly the samealtitude at both ends. However imprecise, where severalsegments can be connected to one another, a realisticpicture of a 70-km-long palaeovalley emerges (Figure 7-Section II), with a source about 2000 m high to the NE,and a base level at 750 m altitude to the SW, asdemonstrated by the deltaic deposits near Kepez(Karab›y›ko¤lu et al. 2000). However, in most of thereconstructed profiles of the palaeovalleys, such a pictureis not obtained, and the river profiles show sharpdiscontinuities, or even slope reversals, that we interpretas reflecting later tectonic events (mainly faulting) whichdisrupted the original profile of the valleys.

Reconstruction of a Palaeodrainage System

Once recognised, the palaeovalleys appear as isolatedfragments scattered all over the high surface of theTaurus. In order to restore the shape of thepalaeodrainage network, we assume that all the fossilvalleys belong to a single drainage system, although thiscertainly is questionable. First, due to complete

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

6

Page 7: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

O. MONOD ET AL.

7

CİNL

İ PALA

EOVY

ALLE

Y

Belen DağıBelen Dağı

J-K

1250

1050

Eo

Eo

Eo

L

1250

km

Eo

HS

PİSE

R PALAEOVAL

LEY

HS

HS

1786

1877

1409

Cinli D.Cinli D.

1455

1340

J-K

J-K

J

J

J

K

Road toAkseki

J-K

J

K

PP

L

0

Road toBeyşehir

1

Figure 4. Aerial view north of Akseki showing the high surface (HS) incised by the Cinlipalaeovalley inclined southwestward, and the much deeper Piser palaeovalley. The sunis to the south. P– Permian isolated klippe from the Beyflehir-Hadim Nappes; Eo–Eocene limestone and flysch; J–K– Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous carbonates,displaying a highly karstic morphology; J– Middle Jurassic dolomite; L– Liassic shalesand sandstones. Location given in Figure 5.

denudation of the slopes and, in most cases, the absenceof valley fill, the age of each valley cannot be directlyknown. Second, the present shape of the valleys resultsfrom a succession of erosion cycles, which cannot beidentified individually. Third, the relative altitude of thedifferent fragments may have been changed by latertectonic events, as shown by slope reversals along theprofile of several valleys. Last but not least,Plio–Quaternary erosion has removed parts of the softerformations (Eocene flyschs, Palaeozoic and other

allochthonous units) which had overlain the Mesozoiccarbonates, so that the locations of the originalconfluences are now lost.

However, the size of the main fossil valleys suggestsa much larger catchment area than the present one, andtherefore implies that the fossil fragments weresomehow connected to one another, forming an extensivedrainage system throughout the Taurus chain. A tentativesketch is presented (Figure 3), in which the nearestconnections have been drawn, based on the orientations

Page 8: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

8

9�U'

�4�"

5��=

#@��

���

<9�

U'�4

�"5�

�=#@

����

�<

9�U'

�4�"

5��=

#@��

���

<

6#�

�%!�

6#�

�%!�

6#�

�%!�

T�!�

�T

�!��

T�!�

�'�

'=��

�'�

'=��

�'�

'=��

5����"#

��

5����"#

��

5����"#

��

5���

�5�!

��5�

���5

�!��

5���

�5�!

��

��

#���

��

#���

��

#���

5��#�-#.��5��#�-#.��5��#�-#.��

/�"

�5�

/�"

�5�

/�"

�5�

I�I�

I�I�

I�I�

I�I�

I�I�

I�I�

IP��

IP��

IP��

IOOP

IOOP

IOOP

IP�Q

IP�Q

IP�Q

��IJ

��IJ

��IJ

��QQ

��QQ

��QQ�F

F��F

F��F

F�

�P�Q

�P�Q

�P�Q

���F

���F

���F

IQJF

IQJF

IQJF

IRJJ

IRJJ

IRJJ

I���

I���

I���

���F

���F

���F

IFQR

IFQR

IFQR

I�R�

I�R�

I�R�

IFJ�

IFJ�

IFJ�

I���

I���

I���

IRF�

IRF�

IRF�

�IO�

�IO�

�IO�

I���

I���

I���

I���

I���

I���

����

����

����

I���

I���

I���

IP��

IP��

IP��

IR��

IR��

IR��

II��II��II��

II��

II��

II��

I���

I���

I���

I���

I���

I���

I���

I���

I���

���

���

���

���

���

���

�II�

�II�

�II����

III���������

�I����I����I���

IOO�

IOO�

IOO�

IF�P

IF�P

IF�P

I���

I���

I���

IR��

IR��

IR��

�!'

�!'

�!'

���(((

3���

"���

*�""

3���

"���

*�""

3���

"���

*�""

FIGF�H�� FIGF�H�� FIGF�H��VVV

FIGFJHF�V FIGFJHF�V FIGFJHF�V

FIGF�H�� FIGF�H�� FIGF�H��VVV

FFFIIIGGGFFFJJJHFHFHF���VVV

*3��

��*�

���0

����

��

*3��

��*�

���0

����

��

*3��

��*�

���0

����

��

/������

���:��

�5������

�����#�

/������

���:��

�5������

�����#�

/������

���:��

�5������

�����#�

FJG�

JHF�

VFJ

G�JH

F�V

FJG�

JHF�

V

FJGI

�H��

VFJ

GI�H

��V

FJGI

�H��

V

FFFIIIGGGPPP���HHH������VVV

///�����

�����:��

�5������

�����#

�������:

���5�����

� �����#

�������:

���5�����

� �����# ���

$����,���*����0��

����

$����,���*����0��

����

$����,���*����0��

����

$�:

.��'

���=

#@�$

�$

�:.�

�'��

�=#@

�$�

$�:

.��'

���=

#@�$

$�

$�

$�

$�

$�

$�

$�

$�

$�

$�

$�

$�

/��

��:�

5� ��

#�/

����

:�5�

��#�

/��

��:�

5� ��

#�:�

�:#"

:��:

#":�

�:#"

9*!��

;W'�

5#��

���<

9*!��

;W'�

5#��

���<

9*!��

;W'�

5#��

���<

5���

����

5���

����

5���

����

+%B

�4#

�#+

%B�

4#�#

+%B

�4#

�#

�#=5

����

���97

��5<

�����

��:'

�#�#

=5��

����

�97��

5<���

����

:'�#

�#=5

����

���97

��5<

�����

��:'

�#JJJ

�#=5

����

���97

��5<

����

��:'

�#�#

=5��

�����

97��

5<��

����

:'�#

�#=5

����

���97

��5<

����

��:'

�#JJJ

3&��

4�

3&��

4�

3&��

4�

63�

�3��*

���

�0��

����

63�

�3��*

���

�0��

����

63�

�3��*

���

�0��

����

T3/

/��

���*�

���0

����

��

T3/

/��

���*�

���0

����

��

T3/

/��

���*�

���0

����

��

���

����

�4"

���

����

�4"

���

����

�4"

���

���

P��

P��

P��

"5�#

��!#

""��

�!!#

�"@

"5�#

��!#

""��

�!!#

�"@

"5�#

��!#

""��

�!!#

�"@

� �

�E�

�8

� �

�E�

�8

� �

�E�

�8

��:'

�#�P

��:'

�#�P

��:'

�#�P

�I�

�I�

�I�P

�P�P�

���I

PI

PI

P��

���

���

����

���

, �

��4�

&�,

���

4�&�

, �

��4�

&�

6��!

�4�8

6��!

�4�8

6��!

�4�8

#!

#��

�:

#!#�

��:

#!

#��

�:���

��-

�.�7

��-

�.�7

��-

�.�7

�T��

�#5

�7�!

�#��

�!!#

��T

���

#5�7

�!�#

���!

!#�

�T��

�#5

�7�!

�#��

�!!#

��$

�!!�

E�7�

!�#�

��!!#

��$

�!!�

E�7�

!�#�

��!!#

��$

�!!�

E�7�

!�#�

��!!#

��6

��!��

7�!�

#���

!!#�

�6��

!��7�

!�#�

��!!#

��6

��!��

7�!�

#���

!!#�

�*�"

#��7

�!�#

���!

!#�

�*�"

#��7

�!�#

���!

!#�

�*�"

#��7

�!�#

���!

!#�

��4�

5��&

'5��

�#"

��4�

5��&

'5��

�#"

��4�

5��&

'5��

�#"

;;;�

;;;666

666

* ��

�= �

��8

*

���=

��

�8

* ��

�= �

��8

���=

�! ��

(��

�=�!

��(

���=

�! ��

(

�#��

����

(�#

����

��(

�#��

����

(

���"

�8��

��(

���"

�8��

��(

���"

�8��

��(

IJJP

IJJP

IJJP

IQR�

IQR�

IQR�

��4'

��(

��4'

��(

��4'

��(

I���

I���

I���

���

'�'�

�(�

��'�

'��(

���

'�'�

�(

$A�

5#&#

���(

$A�

5#&#

���(

$A�

5#&#

���(

IJRO

IJRO

IJRO

I���

I���

I���

����

���(

����

���(

����

���(

I�F�

I�F�

I�F�

���

Figu

re 5

.D

etai

led

map

of

the

topo

grap

hy o

f th

e Ta

urus

NW

of

Akse

ki s

how

ing

seve

ral h

angi

ng d

ry v

alle

ys (

light

gre

y) in

cise

d in

to a

hig

h ka

rstic

are

a of

the

Tau

rus

(HS)

. Ent

renc

hed

mea

nder

s in

the

Hal

laç

pala

eova

lley

and

a fe

w h

angi

ng t

ribu

tari

es a

re s

till r

ecog

nisa

ble.

The

pre

sent

dra

inag

e (M

anav

gat

Riv

er)

flow

s in

the

deep

est

gorg

e (d

ark

grey

) in

cise

d du

ring

the

Plio

–Qua

tern

ary.

A-B

, C-

Dpa

rt o

f se

ctio

ns I

& I

I in

Fig

ure

7.

Loca

tion

give

n in

Fig

ure

3.

Page 9: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

O. MONOD ET AL.

9

HALLAÇ

palaeovalley

ZİM

MET

palaeovalley

Masata

PİSER

palaeovalley

CİN

palaeovalley

HS

HS

Üzüm

dere

tributary

tributary

1956

1980

(1150)

(1080)

2099

2409

Cevizli

(1050) (600)

1786

SivriTepe

1532

HS

HS

HS

ManavgatRiver

(420

m)

16641520

tributary

SE

NW

6km

8km

3km

1877

İbradi

Belen

Dağı

HS:highsurface

Figu

re 6

.D

igita

l Ele

vatio

n M

odel

(D

EM)

pict

ure

of t

he T

auru

s se

en f

rom

the

sou

th,

show

ing

the

hang

ing

posi

tion

of s

ever

al d

ry v

alle

ys (

note

the

mea

nder

ing

Hal

laç

pala

eova

lley)

with

trib

utar

ies,

and

the

muc

h de

eper

gor

ge (

at Ü

züm

dere

) th

roug

h w

hich

the

Man

avga

t R

iver

is n

ow f

low

ing.

Sun

is t

o th

e w

est.

Lo

catio

n gi

ven

in F

igur

e 5.

Page 10: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

10

T3/

/�

�*�

��

�0

��

��

��

$�:

.��

'��

�=#

$�:

.��

'��

�=#

/�

��

��

�*�

��

�0

��

��

��

���

���

��,

��

�*�

��

�0

��

��

��

��

6�

�*�

��

�0

��

��

��

$�:

.��

'��

�=#

5��&

'5�

��5�

�&'5�

���

#�-#

.��

����

#�9I

I���

�<

�#�

&�"�

0��

�7�!

S#�9

I�F�

<

6

��

I���

*3��

*�

��

�0

��

��

��

��

���

3*�

��

�0

��

��

��

63�

�3

*�

��

�0

��

��

��

�#=5

���

/���"

���(

�P����

�#���

���

(�FF���

���"�

8����

(���F��

#!#

��

(IRJJ��

/����:�5�

��#�

$�

��

�,

*��

��

0�

��

��

I���

����

F���

���

I���

����

����

F���

I���

���

I���

���� �

��

*�

T

$�:

.��

'��

�=#

� $

�:.��

'��

�=#

$�:

.��

'��

�=#

��

/����:�5��

��#�

I���

�9�

�<

����

�#=5

����

��6

6

��>

#��

/��

=#�#�4

#!5��=

=��:!�

�#��

5#"

�+

+�

�+

*��

��

0�

��

��

*3��

*�

��

�0

��

��

��

��

*�T

*��

��

0�

��

��

��

*�

T

I���

����

F���

���

I���

����

����

F���

I���

���

I���

���� �

Figu

re 7

. Tw

o m

orph

olog

ical

pro

files

(he

ight

s x

2) a

cros

s th

e Ta

urus

cha

in (

loca

tion

and

A-B

C-D

,in

Figu

re 5

). G

eolo

gica

l str

uctu

res

are

not

deta

iled

with

in t

he M

ezos

oic

carb

onat

es.

Sect

ion

Iex

tend

s N

–S f

rom

Bey

flehi

r La

ke t

o Ak

seki

and

sho

ws

the

inci

sion

s of

the

mai

n pa

laeo

valle

ys (

in b

lue)

and

tho

se o

f th

e pr

esen

t ri

vers

(in

blac

k) in

to t

he h

igh

kars

tic s

urfa

ce.

The

high

sur

face

is d

efor

med

and

cul

min

ates

at

2450

m (

Man

as›r

Tep

e).

Sect

ion

IIfo

llow

s th

e co

urse

of

the

pala

eori

ver

(dar

k bl

ue li

ne)

whi

ch r

an f

rom

the

top

of

the

Yarp

uz p

alae

oval

ley

(185

0 m

) do

wn

to K

epez

(75

0 m

) w

here

lie

the

delta

ic T

epek

li co

nglo

mer

ates

at

the

base

of t

he M

anav

gat

Basi

n. T

he d

epth

of

inci

sion

of

the

pala

eova

lley

is r

elat

ivel

y un

iform

(30

0 to

400

m)

thro

ugho

ut t

he s

even

ty k

ilom

etre

s of

its

cou

rse,

but

youn

ger

faul

ting

has

disr

upte

d th

e fo

rmer

pro

file

in s

ever

al p

lace

s. T

he p

roje

cted

pro

file

of t

he M

anav

gat

Riv

er is

abo

ut 5

00 m

low

er t

han

the

foss

il va

lley,

henc

e dr

aini

ng a

hug

e ka

rstic

und

ergr

ound

cir

cula

tion

toda

y, n

earl

y 10

00-m

dee

p, t

hrou

gh t

he c

arbo

nate

s of

the

Tau

rus.

Das

hed

lines

indi

cate

whe

re t

he s

ofte

rfo

rmat

ions

of

the

Taur

us (

flysc

h an

d al

loch

thon

ous

units

) w

ere

erod

ed a

fter

the

Ear

ly M

ioce

ne. H

atch

ed a

rea:

Ant

alya

Nap

pes

(AN

) an

d Al

anya

Mas

sif

(AM

). I

ngr

ey w

ith b

lack

dot

s: E

ocen

e fly

sch.

Page 11: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

of the palaeovalleys, independently of their presentaltitude. The branching of the valleys remainshypothetical upstream, and several river courses areequally conceivable in places where their former trace hasbeen eroded. Whatever the case, the resulting networkshows a general drainage trend from NE to SW, withrivers cutting the calcareous ridges at right angles, withjunctions in the softer formations running parallel to thestructures, thus forming a bayonet-like pattern,resembling that of the Jura Mountains today.

Dating the Palaeotopography on the Taurus Heights

The age of the high palaeosurface into which the valleyswere incised is: (i) more recent than the youngest,underlying strata, of Late Eocene age; and (ii) older thanthe earliest Neogene deposits covering this surface. In theregions of Ermenek and Mut (Figure 15), althoughOligocene lacustrine carbonates have been dated locally,an Early Miocene age is attributed to the first extensivebrackish to marine deposits lying above the Mesozoicbasement (Ilgar & Nemec 2005; Erifl et al. 2005). Thisleaves a large span of time (from Early Oligocene to theearliest Miocene) for erosion to build the surface.

Concerning the palaeodrainage system, a minimumage could be estimated by dating the valley infills (cf. deBroekert & Sandiford 2005; Zilberman 1992).Sediments occupying palaeovalleys have allowed Erifl etal. (2005) in the Mut region, and Ocako¤lu (2002) northof Adana, to date a lower Miocene palaeotopography.However, the method is not applicable in this part of theTaurus chain, insofar as most of the palaeovalleys do notcontain any infill. Fortunately, a notable exceptionconcerns the conspicuous Miocene deposits situatedbelow the ‹ncebel Pass (2000 m) south of the DipoyrazDa¤ (In.V. on Figure 3). In this locality (Figure 8), thanksto a younger offset of the K›rkkavak Fault cuttingthrough the ‹ncebel palaeovalley, a 750-m-thick infill ofhorizontal, fluviatile conglomerates is clearly exposed(Deynoux et al. 2005). Interestingly, on the western sideof the ‹ncebel Pass, near Yaka village, these fluviatileconglomerates interfinger with shallow marine sedimentsof the Köprüçay Basin (Figure 3) which contain pelagicmicro- and nannofaunas of Langhian age (NN5) (Deynouxet al. 2005). Albeit indirectly, owing to the distance (9km) separating the fossiliferous locality from the fluviatiledeposits of the ‹ncebel Pass, this age strongly suggests

that the ‹ncebel palaeovalley was incised before, or atmost during, the early–Middle Miocene. As suggested bythe apparently coherent palaeodrainage pattern, theuniform morphologic shapes of the valleys and thebroadly similar altitudes of the valley floors in this part ofthe western Taurus, we infer that most of thepalaeovalleys should be of about the same age.

Latest Miocene and Younger Morphotectonic Events

The Messinian Crisis: No Evidence in the TaurusHeights

Could the incision of the palaeovalleys be related to theMessinian crisis? Messinian morphology usuallycorresponds to a regressive erosion process that is bestexpressed by deep canyons in the lower parts of thevalleys. This is probably the case in the lower Aksu Basin(Figure 13), where the incision of a narrow canyon filledby Lower to Middle Pliocene marine deposits has beenattributed to the Messinian by Poisson et al. (2003). Bycontrast, the palaeovalleys are situated in the highestparts of the western Taurus, far upstream from themarine basins, and their incision could not have beentriggered by the Messinian crisis, the effects of which arenot noticeable at such altitudes.

Hanging Valleys

The hanging of the large Miocene fossil valleys overtoday’s river network can be attributed to Mio–Plioceneand Quaternary uplift of the Taurus, followed in turn by:(i) karstification with the development of a largeunderground network (Ekmekçi 2003), and (ii)differential erosion and incision by superficial waters oftoday’s surficial river network. Surprisingly, however,many of the fossil tributaries are also in a hangingposition above the main palaeovalleys (Figure 5), andcould result either from glacial erosion during theQuaternary, or from an older step succession induced bythe drop of the water base-level in the karst.

Impacts of the Quaternary Glaciations? With theconspicuous exception of Dipoyraz Da¤ (2998 m), whereseveral recent glacial valleys and lateral moraines havebeen recorded (Monod 1977; fienel 2002), no significantremains of glacial imprint are present on the high surface.The obvious reasons are its insufficient mean altitude and,

O. MONOD ET AL.

11

Page 12: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

12

9��5

#�/

��=#

�#�5.

�'"5

<

9��5

#�/

��=#

�#�5.

�'"5

<

9��5

#�/

��=#

�#�5.

�'"5

<

����

�!�"5

��5�:

��7.

�=�=

��5�

=5

��

��

����

'!5�7

!��#

3�=#

&#!�*

�""�

9���

���

<>��

#!#"

"���

#!��

95��

=�<

�/��

=#�#

��!'�

��5�!

#�=�

�:!�

�#�

�5#"

�/��

=#�#

��!'�

��5�!

#�=�

�:!�

�#�

�5#"

�/��

=#�#

��!'�

��5�!

#�=�

�:!�

�#�

�5#"

9IF�

���

<

9>�4

5.@�I

���

<3��

�6��

���

�����*

����

����

0��

����

����

��

CC

9��;

X<

=��&

���5

#"���

���"

"�=

".�!

#"".

�!#"

".�!

#"��

��""

�=��

��""

�=��

��""

�=

�7

����

%�

�8�Q

QR��

Figu

re 8

.‹n

cebe

l Pas

s, v

iew

ed f

rom

the

eas

t, a

nd s

how

ing

the

750-

m-t

hick

flu

viat

ile c

ongl

omer

ate

infil

l of

the

‹nce

bel p

alae

oval

ley

rest

ing

on T

rias

sic

carb

onat

es. O

n th

e w

este

rn s

ide

of t

he p

ass,

nea

r Ya

ka v

illag

e, t

hese

con

glom

erat

es in

terf

inge

r w

ith m

arin

e de

posi

ts o

f La

nghi

an a

ge (

Dey

noux

et

al.2

005)

. Lo

catio

n on

Fig

ure

3.

Page 13: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

in the higher areas, the lack of large, high summits fromwhich ice could accumulate and flow. By contrast,immediately east of the present study area and in a verysimilar carbonate landscape, Arpat & Özgül (1972) andÇiner et al. (1999) have described widespread morainesat about 2000 m and several U-shaped valleys around theGeyik Da¤ (2875 m). Except for a very limited cirquewest of the Kembos Ova (Çeflgar Tepe 2288 m), noglacial morphology could be detected in the surveyedarea. It can thus be confidently ruled out that the smalltributaries winding on the high surface and hanging overthe main dry valleys resulted from Quaternary glacialerosion.

Abandoned Tributaries: Successive Karstic Stages? Thehanging tributaries most probably result from the drop ofthe underground network, as described in accounts ofheavily karstic areas (Ford & Williams 1989). Eachsuccessive uplift of the Taurus resulted in a suddenlowering of base level, which was rapidly reached throughkarstic dissolution, hence abandoning the formertributaries as soon as the main valleys were deep enough.The fossilised valleys and their hanging tributaries nowremain remarkably well preserved in the Mesozoiclimestones, in spite of the rugged karstic landscape of thehigh surface (Figure 4).

Tectonic Deformation of the High Surface

If the Early Miocene age of the river network describedabove is accepted, the reconstructed fossil morphologymay be used as a guide to infer the age of several tectonicfeatures which later disrupted the high surface and itsdrainage system. As a whole, the central part of the studyarea seems little affected, as shown by the coherentaltitudes of both ends of the hanging valleys (AV, PV, CV,HV on Figure 3), with a weak slope oriented to the SW.However, a continuous rise of the high surface (Figure 7-Section I), from Beyflehir Lake (1121 m) to Manas›r Tepe(2450 m) and a decrease east of Akseki (1500 m) mayreflect a blind, deep-seated thrust of Late Miocene age.

In contrast, the western and eastern borders of thesurveyed area are strongly affected by late Miocene andyounger faulting. To the west, the K›rkkavak Fault(Dumont & Kerey 1975) and several associated N–Strending faults have elevated several horsts above 2000m (Figure 3), foundered grabens or half grabens (Eynif

Ova, 950 m; Sarayc›k and Sar›alan Yayla, 1450 m), andinverted the profile of several palaeovalleys towards theNE (DV, ZV, and those west of Eynif Ova). The age ofthese faults is clearly post-early Tortonian (at Sar›alan),and pre-Pliocene (at Eynif Ova) (Deynoux et al. 2005). Onthe eastern side of the area, block faulting also occurredand is conspicuous south of Seydiflehir (Figures 3 & 14)with a normal offset exceeding 1000 m. The result wasthe raising of the dry valley floors to 1900 m, withsteeper westward slopes. The lacustrine Plio–Quaternarydeposits near Beyflehir seem unaffected, thusconstraining the age of these faults to the LateMiocene–Early Pliocene (cf. Koçyigit & Özacar 2003).

Miocene Palaeomorphology in the Western Taurus:New Evidence from Tracer Pebbles

A first study by Flecker (1995) showed that significantvariations in composition of the pebbles reflected theparent lithologies surrounding the Mioceneconglomerates. This is especially clear around themetamorphic Alanya Massif, which is surrounded byBurdigalian conglomerates containing abundantmetamorphic pebbles derived from the Massif. Anothercase of close relationship is found in the northern part ofthe Köprüçay Basin, where abundant pebbles of pre-Cambrian diabase and red Carboniferous sandstone maybe easily traced to their source rocks in the neighbouringDipoyraz Da¤ (Figure 1). Other lithologies, however, posemore problems, as no convenient source rocks areavailable in the neighbourhood. Such are the greentuffites of Hu¤lu, which are good tracers to reconstructand date the Miocene fluvial network above, and theAlanya blueschists which suggest a much larger extent forthe Alanya Massif during the Miocene than now.

Hu¤lu Pebbles in the Antalya Basin: Dating thePalaeoriver Network of the Western Taurus

Dark green tuffites of Late Triassic age, associated withdacitic lava flows form the bulk of the Hu¤lu unit in thewestern Taurus (Monod 1977; Gökdeniz 1981; Andrew& Robertson 2002). Among the various lithologiespresent in the green tuffites (Figure 9), some exhibitdistinctive facies which are readily recognizable. Especiallynoticeable are the facies that include small green chloritespeckles, 1 to 3 mm across, scattered in a finer chloriticmatrix containing small quartz and feldspar grains, and

O. MONOD ET AL.

13

Page 14: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

14

Figu

re 9

.H

u¤lu

tuf

fitic

peb

bles

(ci

rcle

d) i

n th

e Te

pekl

i D

ere

cong

lom

erat

e (B

urdi

galia

n) n

ear

Sevi

nç (

Man

avga

t Ba

sin,

see

Fig

ure

3).

The

othe

r pe

bble

s (n

ot c

ircl

ed)

incl

ude

peri

dotit

e (P

), r

adio

lari

te (

R)

and

carb

onat

es (

L). T

wo

thin

sec

tions

fro

m H

u¤lu

peb

bles

sho

w: 1

– Tu

ffite

with

gla

ssy

shar

ds w

ith “

Y”-b

ranc

hing

in a

gre

en c

hlor

itic

mat

rix

(AM

A50E

); 2

– Ty

pica

l tuf

fitic

fac

ies

with

chl

oriti

c sp

ecks

dis

pers

ed in

a f

inel

y qu

artz

ose

mat

rix

(AM

A50F

). S

cale

bar

: 0.

25 m

m.

Page 15: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

typical glassy shards with curved shapes and Y-shapedbranches. Other facies in the Hu¤lu unit include greenvolcaniclastic rocks and dacitic breccias. These siliceousfacies are hard enough to produce resistant, conspicuouspebbles which are found in great numbers in theconglomerates that lie either at the base of the ManavgatBasin (Tepekli Dere near Sevinç, Burdigalian) (Figure 9),or at the top of the Köprüçay Basin (Sar›alan Yayla, lowerTortonian) (Figure 3). The distance separating the sourcefrom their depositional area is over 80 km for the formerand about 50 km for the latter.

Thus the pre-Langhian age of the network suggestedby the ‹ncebel palaeovalley infill is compatible with that ofthe Hu¤lu tracer pebbles found in Burdigalianconglomerates of the Manavgat Basin (Karab›y›ko¤lu etal. 2000). However, at Sar›alan Yayla, east of the KöprüBasin, the age of the conglomerate containing the Hu¤lupebbles is clearly younger (early Tortonian; Babinot2002) and reflects the latest and highest Miocenetransgression which extended landwards as far as theKelsu locality near Beyflehir Lake, probably through thepre-existing ria of the ‹ncebel palaeovalley (Figure 11). Inany case, once eroded from their source area, alluvialpebbles can easily be reworked during another or severalother phases of erosion and transportation affecting theearlier deposits. This possibility leads us to select aBurdigalian age for the establishment of the Neogenepalaeo-network preserved on the western Taurusheights, in agreement with the presence of Hu¤lu pebblesin the ‹ncebel Pass infill and in the Tepekli Dereconglomerate.

Alanya Blueschists in the Aksu Basin: Nearby orDistant Sources?

In the lower part of the Miocene Aksu Basin, theoccurrence of metamorphic pebbles, including typicalblueschist with high pressure-low temperatureamphiboles, poses an intriguing problem as it cannot beinterpreted (“IMPOSSIBLE PATHWAY” on Figure 1) as aresult of transport by a palaeodrainage system asdescribed above. The presence of metamorphic pebbles inthe Aksu Basin was already noted along the Sinne Dere byAkay et al. (1985). In the course of a survey of theAntalya Neogene basins (Deynoux et al. 2005), rapidmapping of the area disclosed the presence of animbricated tectonic unit, 7-km long and 500-m thick atmost, near Tafldibi village (cgt in Figures 12 & 13). This

unit is composed of polymictic conglomerates of Middleto Late Miocene age, containing pebbles of metamorphicrocks, sandstone, limestone and spilite. About 20% of thepebbles consist of metamorphic rocks, which includewhite and dark marble, calc-schist, garnet-quartz micaschist and more importantly blueschist metabasite. Theprimary mineral assemblage in the blueschist metabasiteis garnet + crossite + clinozoisite + phengite + rutile.Garnet porphyroblasts, up to 2 mm across, are set in afine-grained matrix of sodic amphibole, clinozoisite andphengite. Crossite is rimmed by barroisite and garnet ispartly replaced by chlorite. Some of the calc-schistpebbles also contain sodic amphibole along with calcite,quartz and phengite. Lithologically and petrographicallythe blueschist metabasite, calc-schist and garnet-quartzmica schist pebbles are very similar to those from theSugözü nappe of the Alanya Massif (Okay & Özgül 1984).As there is no other unit of such blueschists in thewestern Taurides, the metamorphic pebbles in theMiocene conglomerates must have been derived from theAlanya Massif, 100 km to the southeast. The problem isthat, during the Miocene, it is impossible that anydrainage system could have existed between the Sugözünappe and the Aksu Basin, as they were separated at thattime by large marine expanses (namely, the Manavgat andKöprüçay basins). Moreover, the size of the rockfragments (up to half a metre) and their poor rounding

O. MONOD ET AL.

15

Figure 10. Blueschist pebble in the Aksu basin from Tafldibi unit(Serravallian–Tortonian), location on Figure 12. A typicalHP-LT Alanya facies containing large, rotated garnet (Gt)surrounded by phengite (Ph, clear), embedded in aschistose matrix of sodic blue amphibole needles(Glaucophane-barroisite) (Gln), and clinozoisite smallercrystals (Czo). (HES54.1). Scale bar: 0.25 mm.

Page 16: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

16

����/��

��

��

���

����

��

���9�

��<

���I

IQRP

I��J

�P��

IR�R

�IR��P��

�IRI

��JF

�QQR

�#"�# ,#5��

#�#&'=��

�#�=#�

FIG�F�H

FJG�F�H

#�-#.������##�-#.������##�-#.������#

��������*�

�A7�BE���

��#�

#�-#.���

��

FIG�F�Y

9IP����<

9IP����<

9IF����<

9������<

$�K��

3�6���*���

3&��4�

�A7�BE���

��#�

#"�����

�7����%��8

��

/

0�

0��

���

3�0

��

�#!"'��#7#�!�:����!���!"D�9���>#����5�����<���47��&�&!#�#C5#�5

��� �!������!"��4�=��:!��#��5#"9��>#�����5�����D�����#<D���47��&�&!#�#C5#�5

7��&�&!#���!��4�"#�>��"��5.#����5������".�!!�>;�����#�5���":�#""���

�!'���5�!#=��:!��#��5#"9���:.�������7��5<

".�!!�>;�����#=��:!��#��5#"9���:.�������7��5<

!��#"5��#�&�#==��"9���:.�������7��5<

���7'%E���5'�&�4�5#9���:.������4��'�:#�"<

0���7 �������#"5��#9'�4�:�!���;���:.���<

/��=#�#���4���'�:#������!���'!5"

��5#����5������5.�'"59���5.#���7��5������<

IJ�J

FJG

3�3T*���

���� �� ��6����(

�� �������(

�����������

�����������

�)* +,��������

�01� ���3��0��

9Q����<

Figure 11. Sketch map of probable Tortonian seaways into the western Taurus. One is in the north, through the ancient ria ofthe ‹ncebel palaeovalley and accounts for the Lower Tortonian marls in the Sarayc›k, Sar›alan and Kelsu localities.Another seaway may have been situated south of the Eynif Ova polje, but is not documented.

Page 17: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

O. MONOD ET AL.

17

������������ !��"�=��:!��#��5#"������ !��"�=��:!��#��5#"������ !��"�=��:!��#��5#"9=:5<�9=:5<�9=:5<�>�5.��#5����7.�=>�5.��#5����7.�=>�5.��#5����7.�=7#&&!#"�9�<7#&&!#"�9�<7#&&!#"�9�<

CCC

CCC CCC

CCCCCC

CCCCCCCCC CCC

CCC

CCCCCCCCC

CCCCCCCCC

CCCCCC

CCC

CCCCCCCCC

CCC

CCCCCC

CCC

CCC

###

�"���A��"���A��"���A�

��!&��5!����!&��5!����!&��5!��

0�5��A�0�5��A�0�5��A�

���7!���/�.���7!���/�.���7!���/�.(((

�����.�#5!#�����.�#5!#�����.�#5!#���

5��5��5�����

�5�5�5�!�!�!������

5��5��5���"7

��5�"7

��5�"7

��5���

#=#�5�?�"=�# #=#�5�?�"=�# #=#�5�?�"=�####

W'�5#������5#���=#W'�5#������5#���=#W'�5#������5#���=#

�����#�*!��=#�#�=��:!��#��5#"�����#�*!��=#�#�=��:!��#��5#"�����#�*!��=#�#�=��:!��#��5#"9=:<���4����!"�9�<9=:<���4����!"�9�<9=:<���4����!"�9�<

�77#��/��=#�#��##�"�9 �77#��/��=#�#��##�"�9 �77#��/��=#�#��##�"�9 <<<��4�=��&���5#�&�#==��"��4�=��&���5#�&�#==��"��4�=��&���5#�&�#==��"

�77#����=#�#�9#<�77#����=#�#�9#<�77#����=#�#�9#<!��#"5��#���&��=�5��!��#"5��#���&��=�5��!��#"5��#���&��=�5�����

"#�7#�5��#�"#�7#�5��#�"#�7#�5��#�999"""<<<

/#"�/#"�/#"�%��=�=��&���5#"����5.#%��=�=��&���5#"����5.#%��=�=��&���5#"����5.#��5�!�����77#"�9'�4���4#4��5�!�����77#"�9'�4���4#4��5�!�����77#"�9'�4���4#4<<<

5.�'"55.�'"55.�'"5

�'�'�'

=:�=:�=:�

=:5=:5=:5

P�QP�QP�Q

�P�P�POOO

I�JI�JI�JJJJ

I�FOI�FOI�FO

QJQJQJOOO

R�R�R����

I��FI��FI��F���������

OOFOOFOOF

FRIFRIFRI

FJFJFJGGGI�HI�HI�H

=:=:=:

���

J�J�J�

I�II�II�I

IQIIQIIQI

���������

�PP�PP�PP

��O��O��O

!��#!��#!��#

����������� �

�� ��� ��#

��#��#�

����#����#����#�#�#�#�#�#�#

��

���

��

���

��

��� ��#�

��#���#�

����-4�&��-4�&��-4�&�

�"7��5�"7��5�"7��5���

FIFIFIGGG

FJFJFJGGG

"""

"""

���

"#=5������:'�#�IF�97��5<"#=5������:'�#�IF�97��5<"#=5������:'�#�IF�97��5<

"""

������-4�&�-4�&�-4�&�'��5'��5'��5

���:�#��@�������#�/��=#����:�#��@�������#�/��=#����:�#��@�������#�/��=#�###

��� I����I����I�������

=:=:=:

�#�4�-#.���#�4�-#.���#�4�-#.��

����4�8�=��:!��#��5#"�9=:4����4�8�=��:!��#��5#"�9=:4����4�8�=��:!��#��5#"�9=:4<<<9/�44!#;�77#��/��=#�#<9/�44!#;�77#��/��=#�#<9/�44!#;�77#��/��=#�#<

�'�'�'

���

"""

"""

"""

"""FJFJFJGGGI�HI�HI�H

���

���

PRPRPR����������:�:�:

QJQJQJ���

=:=:=:444��

��

�����

��

���

��

��

����

�K�K�K

���

���

���

555'��#!'��#!'��#!�������:�:�:

���

CCCCCCCCCCCC

CCCCCCCCC

���=:=:=:

=:=:=:444

�'�'�' =:=:=:

=:=:=:555

=:=:=:���

###

"""

���

���

�������:�:�: ��#4�=��:!��#��5#"�9=:� ��#4�=��:!��#��5#"�9=:� ��#4�=��:!��#��5#"�9=:�<<<9��9��9���������5������5������5�����<<<

��"'���(��5'�&�4�5#"�9���"'���(��5'�&�4�5#"�9���"'���(��5'�&�4�5#"�9�'<'<'<��4�=��:!��#��5#"�9=:<��4�=��:!��#��5#"�9=:<��4�=��:!��#��5#"�9=:<

�!�����!�����!����/�""��/�""��/�""��

������555�!���!���!��

=:=:=:

Figure 12. Map of the southern part of the Aksu valley showing the tectonic position of the Tafldibi inlier containingmetamorphic pebbles (white circles) derived from the Alanya Massif. A-B: part of the section in Figure 13.

Page 18: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

18

�'�'�'

�"�

��A�

�"�

��A�

�"�

��A�

��"

'�

�"'

��"

'��

!!#�

��!!#

���

!!#�

��

����

$

���

��

����

$

���

��

����

$

���

*!��

=#�#

�5.�'

"5"

*!��

=#�#

�5.�'

"5"

*!��

=#�#

�5.�'

"5"

��

����

����

�**

��

��

����

����

�**

��

��

����

����

�**

��

��

��

��

����

����

����

I���

I���

I���

��� III ���

������

������

6:4

6:4

6:4

���

�4�8

���

�4�8

���

�4�8

����

5�-��

(��

��5�

-��(

����

5�-��

(

�'�'�'6

:�6

:�6

:��

��

��

/#"

"���

��/

#""�

����

/#"

"���

����=

����

���=

����

���=

����

���-4

�&�

���-4

�&�

���-4

�&�

����

����

����

I���

I���

I���

��� III ���

"""***

6:4

6:4

6:4

"""

���

: �

��:

���

: 5'

��#!

5'��

#!5'

��#!

���

���

Figu

re 1

3.Se

ctio

n of

the

Tafl

dibi

uni

t. E

xpla

natio

n as

for

Fig

ure

12.

Whi

te c

ircl

es –

met

amor

phic

peb

bles

(in

clud

ing

blue

schi

sts)

in

the

Tafld

ibi

cong

lom

erat

es (

cgt,

Mid

dle–

Late

Mio

cene

). L

ocat

ion

give

n in

Fig

ure

1.

Page 19: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

O. MONOD ET AL.

19

preclude lengthy transport. A westerly origin, from theHP-LT rocks of the Lycian nappes can be excluded, owingto the distance and the distinct facies with abundantcarpholite of the high-pressure units surrounding theMenderes Massif (Rimmelé et al. in press).

We must therefore conclude that, during the Miocene,the metamorphic Alanya Massif extended much fartherwestward, probably as far as Antalya, as shown in Figure1. This conclusion is further supported by two smallinliers (less than one kilometre long) of typicalmetamorphic rocks of the Alanya Massif situated in anintermediate position (two stars on Figure 1), that werealready noted on Akay’s map (1985). Erosion of theSugözü nappe took place first, as indicated by the greaterabundance of HP-LT pebbles in the lowest part of theTafldibi conglomerates, in agreement with the highertectonic position of the Alanya Massif atop the Antalyaunits. Subsequent erosion affected the underlying Antalyanappes and progressively produced the usual polymicticfacies of the Miocene conglomerates in whichmetamorphic pebbles become quite scarce.

Conclusions

Morphotectonic Evolution of the Western Taurusduring the Neogene

Although highly speculative in places, several steps maybe proposed in deciphering the morphotectonic evolutionof the western Taurus:

- During the Oligocene and earliest Miocene (Figure14A), erosion prevailed and partly levelled therecently (Late Eocene) structured Taurus chain,resulting in a somewhat irregular, but lowtopography, which was cut into either calcareous orsofter formations. Most of the tracer pebbles (Hu¤lutuffites) were transported and deposited at that time.As suggested by the meanders of several palaeovalleysflowing from NE to SW, the regional topographydisplayed a weak slope. This pattern also suggests theprobable absence of significant karstic circulation,which would have disrupted the river flows.

- Subsequent rise of the Taurus belt resulted in deepincision of the valleys (Figure 14B) which could,however, maintain their former shapes, henceproducing entrenched meanders through thecalcareous ridges, with hanging tributaries due to therapid onset of underground circulation in the karsticareas.

- During the Late Langhian, a rapid rise of sea level(Karab›y›koglu et al. 2000) induced a short-livedtransgression which allowed deltaic sedimentation atthe mouths of the rivers, as vividly exemplified by thethick accumulation of Langhian fluviatile to marineconglomerates in the Incebel Valley (Deynoux et al.2005).

- During the Middle and early Late Miocene, althoughno direct evidence is available, the drainage system ofthe Taurus was still continuously active, as suggestedby the abundance of polymict coarse detrital materialsshed into the Manavgat and Köprü basins during thatinterval (Karpuzçay formation, Karab›y›koglu et al.2000).

- Early in the Tortonian, a final transgression broughtshallow-marine influences far into the chain (Figure11) through a few narrow rias corresponding to themain palaeovalleys, as shown by the deltaicconglomerates and shallow-marine marls in theSar›alan, Sarayc›k, Kelsu and (possibly) Eynif Ovalocalities (Figure 3).

- Late in the Tortonian, the fluvial network of theTaurus was suddenly disrupted by major tectonicevents, which resulted in a series of normal andreverse faults in the western part of the chain (Figure3). Some of the faulted blocks were elevated, andrapid development of karstic circulation through thecarbonate rocks prevented further erosion of theformer fluviatile morphology, thus preserving thefossil valleys in the higher parts of the Taurus.

- In the nearby Aksu Basin, strong uplift during the LateMiocene is indicated by the complete erosion of theneighbouring metamorphic Alanya Massif, which wassituated atop the Antalya nappe pile, and the coevaldeposition of metamorphic pebbles in a shallow-marine environment. This uplift was probably inducedby a compressional event such as the Aksu Phase(Poisson et al. 2003), which is responsible for mostof the westward imbricated structures in the AksuBasin (Figure 13).

- During the Pliocene and Quaternary (Figure 14C),major uplift of the western Taurus as a wholesubjected the chain to intense erosion, renewingkarstic circulation in the carbonate rocks, removingpart of the softer terrains, and so destroying theancient fluviatile morphologies there. Plio–Quaternarycoarse detrital materials accumulated in the endoreic

Page 20: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

20

Figure 14. Three cartoons illustrating the morphologic evolution of the western Taurus from Oligocene to Present. (A) A flatmorphology in the western Taurus during the Oligocene and Early Miocene; (B) Uplifting and incision of deep valleys(in red) into the high surface (HS) during Lower–Middle Miocene; and (C) Present aspect of the Taurus chain withisolated remains of the High Surface and several fragments of the former drainage system (“hanging valleys”).

*�*�*�

$�$�$�

�#7#�#7#�#7#%

��

/����:�5/����:�5/����:�5

�#���E�#���E�#���E

$�

+%B�4#�#+%B�4#�#+%B�4#�#

�#7#%�#7#%�#7#%

*�#"#�5

�'8!��'8!��'8!����#���#���#

$'8!'

� �

$���!!�=.5.���'"�'��5"$���!!�=.5.���'"�'��5"$���!!�=.5.���'"�'��5"

�#���E�#���E�#���E

��

�#$�#��#���

/�4;�77#��/��=#�#���"(���5.#�/����:�5��"��

�!�����/�""����5�!�����77#"

E#�"#.��;$�4�����77#"

��@�$�:.��'���=#

�@�/��;*!��=#�#������!���'!5"

�#���E�#���E�#���E

$�$�$�

*�*�*�

��

�#7#%�#7#%�#7#%

��

��

.��:��:���!!#�"

/��

��:�

5

/��

��:�

5

/��

��:�

5

��#� ��#� ��#�

+�+�+�

+�+�+�

$���!!�=.5.���'"�'��5"$���!!�=.5.���'"�'��5"$���!!�=.5.���'"�'��5"

�/�/�/

�/�/�/

�/�/�/

$�

/#"�%��=�=��&���5#"

X;�X;�X;�

X;�X;�X;�

X;�X;�X;�

���%�&'�()*%!%�)���+',���)*%!%

�#��4#���:�����#�"

�-"�$�!!�E���!!#��-"�+�B�!B���!!#�

��S��'7!��5

$���!!�=.5.���'"�'��5"$���!!�=.5.���'"�'��5"$���!!�=.5.���'"�'��5"

���7'%���7'%���7'%

///

*�*�*�$�

�#�4�-#.���#�4�-#.���#�4�-#.��

�#7#�5#4'7!��5"

�).%+/����'%���)*%!%

4���5��&'5���

��=�"������4##7���!!#�"

0

/

�/

��

$�

�#7#�!��=��:!��#��5#9'�4�:�!���<

X;�X;�X;�

�-"�*�"#����!!#��-"����7'%���!!#�

�#$�#��#���

$�

+�+�+�

Page 21: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

O. MONOD ET AL.

21

basins (Beyflehir depression) but mostly seawards(Belkis conglomerates, Blumenthal 1951).

- On a larger scale, the fossil drainage identified here(Figure 15) embraces only part of a much wider areaof southern Turkey which was exposed during theNeogene, shedding materials mostly towards the

Mediterranean. Because it escaped the main Miocenedeformations, this area has preserved its originalpalaeogeographic framework. In addition to the areadiscussed above, between Beyflehir and Manavgat, arough DEM map (Figure 15) illustrates the probableextent of the Miocene aerial surface in the Taurus,

/'5/'5/'5

���������������

���#�#����#�#����#�#�

ZZZ

��5�!����5�!����5�!��

�!�����/�""��

�!�����/�""��

�!�����/�""��

/#4�5#����#��/#4�5#����#��/#4�5#����#���#��#��#�

�/�$�:.��'���=#�/�$�:.��'���=#�/�$�:.��'���=#97�#;/��=#�#<97�#;/��=#�#<97�#;/��=#�#<

��5�!����"����5�!����"����5�!����"��9�;�(�/��=#�#<9�;�(�/��=#�#<9�;�(�/��=#�#<

/'5��"��/'5��"��/'5��"��9�;/(�/��=#�#<9�;/(�/��=#�#<9�;/(�/��=#�#<

������������������"��������������������"��������������������"��9���;�����#��#�:#�#<9���;�����#��#�:#�#<9���;�����#��#�:#�#<

FI[FI[FI[

��� I�����I�����I�����

���

�"7��5��"7��5��"7��5� ���

///

�#�4�-#.���#�4�-#.���#�4�-#.��

��:'�#�F��:'�#�F��:'�#�F

���

F�GF�GF�G FFGFFGFFG FPGFPGFPG

FRGFRGFRG

FJGFJGFJGFJGFJGFJG

FRGFRGFRG

������ ///

��"'�5.�'"5��"'�5.�'"5��"'�5.�'"59��5#�/��=#�#<9��5#�/��=#�#<9��5#�/��=#�#<

*�#;/��=#�#�5.�'"5"*�#;/��=#�#�5.�'"5"*�#;/��=#�#�5.�'"5"9!�5#���=#�#<9!�5#���=#�#<9!�5#���=#�#<

/��=#�#/��=#�#/��=#�#�!'���5�!#�!'���5�!#�!'���5�!#�#5>����#5>����#5>���

Figure 15. Extent of the High Surface (in black) as shown by a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the western and central Taurus, andthe three surrounding Neogene basins (Antalya, Mut, Konya). In blue, situation of the fossil drainage network describedabove.

Page 22: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

thus showing where other ancient morphologicfeatures could be preserved. Delimitation of this vastarea is only approximate, and additional fossilfeatures have still to be identified and dated wherepossible, to refine the shape of the oldest morphologyof the Taurus chain.

Acknowledgements

O.M. is grateful to M. Karab›y›ko¤lu, M. Deynoux and A.Çiner for numerous hot discussions in the field on the

Miocene detrital materials, to M. Bakalowicz for fruitfulinformation on the karstic processes, to B. Vigier forproducing a DEM map of part of the Taurus, and N.Rouchon for the figures. W.T. Dean very kindly correctedthe English text. The authors acknowledge the TurkishAcademy of Sciences, the French Ministry of ForeignAffairs (MAE), ISTO-CNRS (Orléans) and MTA (Ankara)for financial support, exchanges and fieldwork facilities.The authors thank A. Koçyigit and K. Dirik for theiruseful suggestions. This work formed part of theTÜB‹TAK-CNRS joint project N° 5785.

MIOCENE PALAEOVALLEY NETWORK, WESTERN TAURUS

22

AKAY, E., UYSAL, S., POISSON, A., CRAVATTE, J. & MÜLLER, C. 1985.Stratigraphy of the Antalya Neogene Basin. Bulletin of theGeological Society of Turkey 28, 105–119.

ANDREW, T. & ROBERTSON, A.H.F. 2002. The Beyflehir-Hoyran-Hadimnappes: genesis and emplacement of Mesozoic marginal andoceanic units of the Northern Neotethys in southern Turkey.Journal of the Geological Society, London 159, 529–543.

ARPAT, E. & ÖZGÜL, N. 1972. Rock glaciers around Geyik Da¤, CentralTaurides. Mineral Research and Exploration Institute of Turkey(MTA) Bulletin 78, 28–32.

BABINOT, J.-F. 2002. Ostracodes miocènes de séries annexes aux bassinsde Köprüçay et de Manavgat, région d’Antalya (sud Turquie).Revue Paléobiologie, Genève 21, 735–757.

BIROT, P. & DRESCH, J. 1956. La Méditerrannée et le Moyen Orient, t. 2,526 p.

BLUMENTHAL, M. 1951. Recherches géologiques dans le TaurusOccidental dans l’arrière-pays d’Alanya. Mineral Research andExploration Institute of Turkey (MTA) Publications D5, 134 p.

ÇINER, A., DEYNOUX, M. & ÇÖREKÇ‹O⁄LU, E. 1999. Hummocky moraines inthe Namaras and Susam Valleys, Central Taurides, SW Turkey.Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 659–669.

DE BROEKERT, P. & SANDIFORD, M. 2005. Buried inset-valleys in theeastern Yilgarn Craton, western Australia: geomorphology, age,and allogenic control. The Journal of Geology 113, 471–493.

DEYNOUX, M., ÇINER, A., MONOD, O., KARAB›Y›KO⁄LU, M., MANATSCHAL, G. &TUZCU, S. 2005. Facies architecture and depositional evolution ofalluvial fan to fan-delta complexes in the tectonically activeMiocene Köprüçay Basin, Isparta Angle, Turkey. SedimentaryGeology 173, 315–343.

DUMONT, J.-F. & KEREY, E. 1975. K›rkkavak fay›: bat› Toroslar ileKöprüçay Baseni s›n›r›nda kuzey–güney du¤rultu at›ml› fay[K›rkkavak fault: A N–S-trending strike-slip fault at the contactbetween the western Taurides and Köprüçay Basin]. Bulletin ofthe Geological Society of Turkey 18, 59–62 [in Turkish withEnglish abstract].

EKMEKÇ‹, M. 2003. Review of Turkish karst with emphasis on tectonicand palaeogeographic controls. Acta Carsologica 32, 205–218.

ER‹fl, K., BASSANT, P. & ÜLGEN, U. 2005. Tectono-stratigraphic evolutionof an Early Miocene incised valley-fill in the Mut Basin, southernTurkey. Sedimentary Geology 173, 151–185.

FLECKER, R., ROBERTSON, A.H.F., POISSON, A. & MÜLLER, C. 1995. Faciesand tectonic significance of two contrasting Miocene basins insouth coastal Turkey. Terra Nova 7, 221–232.

FORD, D.C. & WILLIAMS, P.W. 1989. Karst Geomorphology andHydrology. Unwin Hyman, London, 583 p.

GÖKDENIZ, S. 1981. Recherches géologiques dans le Taurus occidentalentre Karaman et Ermenek. Les séries à Tuffites vertes triasiques.PhD Thesis, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, 202 p [unpublished].

GUTNIC, M., MONOD, O., POISSON, A. & DUMONT. J.-F. 1979, Géologie desTaurides occidentales. Mémoire Société géologique de France137, 1–112.

ILGAR, A. & NEMEC, W. 2005. Early Miocene lacustrine deposits andsequence stratigraphy of the Ermenek Basin, central Taurides,Turkey. Sedimentary Geology 173, 233–275.

KARABIYIKO⁄LU, M., ÇINER, A, MONOD, O., DEYNOUX, M., TUZCU, S. & ÖRÇEN,S., 2000. Tectonosedimentary evolution of the Miocene ManavgatBasin, Western Taurids, Turkey. In: BOZKURT, E., WINCHESTER, J.A.& PIPER, J.A.D. (eds.), Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey andthe Surrounding Area. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications 173, 475–498.

KOÇY‹⁄‹T, A. & ÖZACAR, A. 2003. Extensional neotectonic regime throughthe NE edge of the outer Isparta Angle, SW Turkey: new field andseismic data. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 12, 67–90.

KOÇY‹⁄‹T, A., ÜNAY, E. & SARAÇ, G. 2000. Episodic graben formation andextensional neotectonic regime in west Central Anatolia and theIsparta Angle: a case study in the Aksehir-Afyon Graben, Turkey.In: BOZKURT, E., WINCHESTER, J.A. & PIPER, J.A.D. (eds.), Tectonicsand Magmatism in Turkey and the Surrounding Area. GeologicalSociety, London, Special Publications 173, 405–421.

References

Page 23: A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey)A Miocene Palaeovalley Network in the Western Taurus (Turkey) OLIVIER MONOD1, CATHERINE KUZUCUO⁄LU2 & ARAL ‹. OKAY3

O. MONOD ET AL.

23

LOUIS, H. 1956. Die Enstehung der Poljen und ihre Stellung in derKarstabstragung, auf Grund von Beobachtungen im Taurus.Erdkunde Archiv für wissenschaftliche Geographie X, 33–53.

MONOD, O. 1977. Recherches géologiques dans le Taurus Occidental ausud de Beyflehir (Turquie). PhD thesis, Université Paris-Sud Orsay,442 p [unpublished].

MONOD, O. 1979. Carte géologique du Taurus Occidental au sud deBeysehir et Notice explicative. Editions du CNRS, Paris, 60 p.

NAZIK, L. 1992. Beyflehir Gölü Güneybat›s› ile Kembos Polyesi Aras›n›nKarst Jeomorfolojisi [Karst Geomorphology of the Area betweenKembos Polye and SW Beyflehir Lake]. PhD thesis, ‹stanbulÜniversitesi, 298 p [in Turkish with English abastract,unpublished].

OCAKO⁄LU, F. 2002. Palaeoenvironmental analysis of a Miocene basin inthe high Taurus (southern Turkey) and its palaeogeographical andstructural significance. Geological Magazine 139, 473–487.

OKAY, A.‹. & ÖZGÜL, N. 1984. HP/LT metamorphism and the structureof the Alanya Massif, southern Turkey: an allochthonouscomposite tectonic sheet. In: ROBERTSON, A.H.F. & DIXON, J.E.(eds.), The Geological Evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean.Geological Society, London, Special Publications 14, 429–439

POISSON, A., WERNLI, R., SAGULAR, E.K. & TEM‹Z, H. 2003. New dataconcerning the age of the Aksu Thrust in the south of the AksuValley, Isparta Angle (SW Turkey): consequences for the AntalyaBasin and the Eastern Mediterranean. Geological Journal 38,311–327.

RIMMELÉ, G., OBERHÄNSLI, R., CANDAN, O., GOFFÉ, B. & JOLIVET, L. (in press)The wide distribution of the HP-LT rocks in the Lycian belt (WTurkey): implications for the accretionary wedge geometry.

fiENEL, M. 2002. Geological Map of Turkey (1/500000), Konya Sheet.Mineral Research and Exploration Institute of Turkey (MTA)Publications, Ankara.

ZILBERMAN, E. 1992. Remnants of Miocene landscape in the central andnorthern Negev and their paleogeographical implications. IsraelGeological Survey Bulletin 83, 1–54.

Received 23 April 2005; revised typescript accepted 12 June 2005