Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of African Earth Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / ja f rearsc i

Physiographic discontinuity along the Levant-Margin hinge-beltof the Arabian Plate (Late Cenomanian, northern Israel)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2014.02.0131464-343X/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 8 6461369.E-mail addresses: ranf@post.bgu.ac.il (R. Frank), b.buchbinder@gsi.gov.il

(B. Buchbinder), chaim@bgu.ac.il (C. Benjamini).1 Tel.: +972 2 5314238.

Ran Frank a,⇑, Binyamin Buchbinder b,1, Chaim Benjamini a

a Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Ben–Gurion University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israelb Geological Survey of Israel, 30 Malkhe Yisrael St., Jerusalem 95501, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 8 September 2013Received in revised form 26 January 2014Accepted 26 February 2014Available online 12 March 2014

Keywords:Levant MarginHinge-beltMid-CretaceousNorthern IsraelMass transport

The paleo-depositional hinge-belt of the Levant is a zone of rapid proximal-to-distal carbonate faciestransitions that defined the western edge of the passive Mesozoic Levant Margin of the Arabian Plate.It was striking parallel to the present day Mediterranean coastline, from northern Sinai to northern Leb-anon, but in the mid-Cretaceous a ‘‘gap zone’’, in which the facies transitions are unclear, extended fromnorthern Israel to southern Mt. Lebanon. This study examines the paleo-physiography and sedimentaryevolution in this ‘‘gap zone’’ in the Late Cenomanian of northern Israel. The sedimentary evolution in thisregion is reflected by five genetic–stratigraphic units representing systems tracts, which were proximalin the Galilee region to the north and distal to the SSW in the Carmel region. During the early Late Ceno-manian a carbonate ramp sloped gently from the Galilee towards the Carmel region. Later in the Ceno-manian the Galilean part of the ramp was strongly uplifted and faulting enhanced the topography ofthis region. A steep SSW-facing slope was formed in the Galilee, subdivided into extensional basins tensto hundreds of meters in length. Carbonate sand filled these small basins and was mass-transported fur-ther downslope, forming sheeted calciturbidites to the south in the Carmel region. This depositionalphase terminated in sea-level fall and subaerial exposure. During the latest Cenomanian, faulting wasrenewed in the Galilee region, muddy carbonate was deposited on the slope and shelf, and debritesand slides were mass-transported downslope as far as the Carmel region. This depositional phase endedby a second episode of subaerial exposure that was followed by Early Turonian sea-level rise. The direc-tion of mass transport in this region and the trend of proximal-to-distal facies transitions, as well as thestrike of the Cenomanian faults, indicate that the depositional strike of the Levantine hinge-belt shifted inthis region toward the east, departing markedly from the general NNE–SSW Levantine trend.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The Mesozoic Levant Margin of the western Arabian Plate wasshaped by Late Permian, Middle to Late Triassic and Early Jurassicextensional faulting related to rifting (Garfunkel and Derin, 1984;Garfunkel, 1998). During the Mid-Jurassic to Late Cretaceous apassive margin tectonic regime prevailed in the Levant and thewestern side of the Levant Margin was bounded by the Levantinehinge-belt (Fig. 1A), a paleo-depositional zone of NNE–SSWstriking facies belts across which rapid E–W platform-to-basin fa-cies transitions occurred. Gardosh et al. (2011) recently showedthat the width of this transitional zone in the southern coastalplain of Israel is 10–20 km. This major tectono-sedimentary zone

governed facies transitions on the western edge of the LevantMargin during most of the Mesozoic (Gvirtzman and Klang,1972; Bein and Gvirtzman, 1977; Walley, 1998).

During the Albian–Cenomanian, sharp facies transitions fromproximal carbonates of the Judea Group to the east, into basinalmarls, chalks, and calciturbidites of the Talme-Yafe Group to thewest, occured across the Levant hinge-belt (Bein and Weiler,1976). Walley (1998) recognized two segments in the hinge-belt(Fig. 1A). A southern segment extended parallel to the path ofthe present day coastline from northern Sinai to the Carmel region(Gvirtzman and Klang, 1972; Bein and Weiler, 1976; Bein andGvirtzman, 1977; Sass and Bein, 1982; Ross, 1992; Bauer et al.,2003) and a northern segment extended along the present westernLebanon flexure sub-parallel to the central and northern Lebaneescoast. In between these segments the NNE–SSW striking faciesbelts typical of the Levantine hinge-belt, are absent in the sectornorth of the southern Carmel region that includes the Galilee andsouthern Mt. Lebanon. Mid-Cretaceous carbonates in this region

Fig. 1. (A) Location of the study area in the framework of the Levant Margin and the Arabian Plate. The paleo-depositional hinge-belt of the mid-Cretaceous Levant Margin ismarked red. (B) Map of the Galilee and Carmel regions with location of studied outcrops and measured sections of the Yanuch and Muhraqa formations. Dashed line marksthe traverse shown in Fig. 6. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40 23

(Freund, 1965; Kafri, 1972; Saint-Marc, 1974; Sass and Bein, 1982)were described as a broad, shallow-water carbonate platform tra-versed by narrow intra-platformal basins. For this region, Walley(1998) introduced the concept of a ‘‘gap’’ in the paleo-depositionaltrend of the hinge-belt, but no sedimentological and genetic strati-graphic studies have verified it. The goal of the present study is toreconstruct the paleo-physiography and the sedimentary andstructural evolution of this postulated gap zone in northern Israelduring the Late Cenomanian.

The Late Cenomanian succession of northern Israel is largelyrepresented by the Yanuch Formation in the Galilee region andthe Muhraqa Formation in the Carmel region (Fig. 1B). Theseformations are rich in grainstone (calcarenite) that form steeplydipping clinoformal bodies, horizontally-bedded grainstonesuccessions, and discordant internally deformed limestone mega-blocks. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the genesis and sedimen-tary evolution of the carbonate system in this region involved massmovements of carbonate grains, accumulation of allodapic carbon-ates (sensu Meischner, 1964), and faulting. Mass movement depos-its would mark the location and trend of the depositional slope andcould have formed in response to Cenomanian faulting affectingthe configuration of the Levant Margin paleo-depositional hinge-belt in this region.

In order to test this hypothesis, the Cenomanian depositionalpattern was reconstructed by defining the variety of mass-trans-port and autochthonous facies-types. Secondly, the genetic stratig-raphy and cyclic patterns were explored. Thirdly, the relationshipsbetween the genetic units were defined in the field, and the effectof Late Cenomanian faulting on the sedimentary system was deter-mined. Lastly, regional data were integrated in order to reconstructthe mid-Cretaceous paleo-physiography in this region.

2. Procedure and methods

2.1. Field sedimentology and microfacies of carbonate rocks

Fourteen stratigraphic sections in the Galilee and Carmel re-gions form the sedimentological database for this study (Fig. 1B).The stratigraphic sections were described in the field, measuredbed by bed, and sampled for thin-section and microfacies analysis.The Yanuch Formation of the Galilee region was sampled in out-crops in the Yanuch Valley (YN), Beit-Ha’Emek Valley (BK), Kishor(KS), Blaya (BL), Hamra Valley (HM), Pelech (PL) and near Mt.Gamal (GM) (Fig. 1). The Muhraqa Formation of the Carmel wassampled in roadcuts at Isfiyye (IS), in the Sefunim quarry (SF), OrenValley (ORN), Rakefet Valley (RK) and Megadim Valley (MG)(Fig. 1). The high quality of the outcrops facilitated detaileddocumentation of stratal geometries including identification ofsedimentary structures. The laboratory procedure included micro-scope-based identification of skeletal and non-skeletal grains fromabout 350 thin sections. Limestone classification followed Dunham(1962) and Embry and Klovan (1971). Microfacies terminologybroadly followed Tucker and Wright (1990) and Flügel (2004).Beds were classified by their sedimentological attributes into fa-cies-types, and ascribed to paleoenvironments following Read(1985) and Burchette and Wright (1992). The definition of faciestypes set the stage for the sequence stratigraphic analysis.

2.2. Sequence stratigraphy

The sequence stratigraphic analysis used in this study stressed‘‘model independent aspects’’ (Catuneanu et al., 2009) of the

24 R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

carbonate succession. Accordingly, the different types of sequencestratigraphic surfaces and the typical cyclic stratal pattern of theLate Cenomanian stratigraphic succession (based on Frank et al.,2010) were used to define ‘‘genetic units’’. These genetic units werecorrelated from section to section based on matching discontinu-ities and comparable cyclic patterns in adjoining sections, intro-ducing biostratigraphic control (Fig. 2).

2.3. Structural field analysis

Structural analysis was based on field observations in high-quality outcrops extending across tens to hundreds of metersat Kishor–Blaya area, Hamra Valley, Mt. Gamal area and theSefunim Valley (Fig. 1). Anomalous relationships between thegenetic stratigraphic units, stratigraphic discontinuities, andintraformational faults and folds were documented in detail onphotomosaics.

Fig. 2. Late Cenomanian lithostratigraphy in northern Israel. (A) Lithostratigraphic submarkers. Modified after Freund (1959) and Kafri (1972). (B) Lateral lithological interfinFormation near Kishor, western Galilee.

3. Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphic control

The Yanuch and Muhraqa formations consist of limestone andchalk ranging from grainstone to bedded mudstone. The strati-graphic position of these formations in relation to the overlyingand underlying lithostratigraphic units is shown in a modifiedlithostratigraphic scheme (Fig. 2) following Picard and Kashai(1958), Freund (1959), Kashai (1966), Freund and Raab (1969)and Kafri (1972).

Dating of the Yanuch and Muhraqa formations is constrained byammonite assemblages found in underlying and overlying forma-tions (Freund and Raab, 1969; Lewy and Raab, 1978), on the occur-rence of Cenomanian and Turonian rudist genera in the overlyingformation (Buchbinder et al., 2000), and on some additional bio-stratigraphic markers found in these rocks (Fig. 2). All evidencepoints to a Late Cenomanian age for the Yanuch Formation andLate Cenomanian to earliest Turonian age for the Muhraqa Forma-tion (Fig. 2). Relative ages within this broad Late Cenomanian time

-division of the Yanuch and Muhraqa formations with the main biostratigraphicgering between the clinoformal grainstone unit and the chalk unit of the Yanuch

R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40 25

span were established using vertical and lateral field relationshipsbetween the genetic stratigraphic units.

3.1. The Yanuch Formation

Thickness of the Yanuch Formation in the Galilee region rangesbetween 30 m at Pelech to more than 100 m at the nearby HamraValley (for locations see Fig. 1B). A regional erosional discontinuitylies at the base, truncating chert-bearing chalk and limestone ofthe Early to Mid-Cenomanian Deir-Hanna Formation. Another dis-continuity is located 2 m beneath the top of the Yanuch Formation(Fig. 2) below the lithological transition into the marls and lime-stones of the Turonian Yirka Formation.

Four subunits were identified in the Yanuch Formation; mostwere previously described by Freund (1959) and Kafri (1972).These subunits form the basis for a genetic–stratigraphic subdivi-sion as synthesized below. The lower limestone unit of the YanuchFormation is 10–60 m thick, truncating chert-bearing chalk andlimestone of the Early-Mid Cenomanian Deir-Hanna Formation.This unit consists of medium-bedded to massive limestone form-ing wackestone/grainstone cycles. The overlying clinoformal unitis composed of well-bedded grainstone, 30 to over 100 m thick,with steep clinoforms dipping 20–30�SW. The clinoform unit inter-fingers to the west with a chalk unit (Fig. 2B). Overlying the clino-formal and chalk units is the upper limestone unit (Pelech unit). Itis composed of well-bedded limestone, 5–35 m thick.

3.2. The Muhraqa Formation

The Muhraqa Formation of the Carmel region is 90–100 m thick(Fig. 2). It overlies a discontinuity surface truncating the Junediyyechalk of Early-Mid Cenomanian age (Kashai, 1966). Another dis-continuity is found few meters beneath the top of the MuhraqaFormation. It is an iron-oxide encrusted surface separating lime-stone with Cenomanian caprinid rudists and ammonites, fromoverlying limestone with Turonian hippuritid rudists (Kashai,1966; Buchbinder et al., 2000). The Muhraqa Formation is overlainby marl and chalk of the Daliyya Formation, containing Early Turo-nian ammonites (Freund and Raab, 1969).

In the Carmel, the Muhraqa Formation is composed of threelithological units (Fig. 2). The lower unit is 30 m thick, composedof fine-grained, occasionally laminated mudstone and wackestone.This unit passes sharply upwards to a 20–25 m thick succession ofwell-bedded grainstone. The upper unit is 30–35 m thick, com-posed of well-bedded wackestone or wackestone-marl couplets.

Table 1Sedimentary features of the mass-transport and autochthonous ramp facies-types in thefurther below.

Facies association Facies type Description

Mass-transportdeposits

Grain-flow Steep clinoformal grainstones. Clinobeds gCalciturbidites Well-bedded grainstone succession. Beds gDebrites Carbonate breccia. Grainy or muddy matrixSlides Discordant mega-blocks

Autochthonousramp deposits

Sub-aerialexposure

Irregular surfaces with decimeter-wide pitspisoliths, circumgranular cracks, and alveo

Shoreface Trough cross-bedded grainstone beds. SkelInterbedded with muddy limestone beds o

Mid- to outer-ramp

Well-bedded wackestone with some floatsgastropods, benthic forams. Pithonellid cal

Bioturbatedouter ramp

Bioturbated wackestone rich in bioerodedbenthic foraminiferans. Caprinid rudists, pitnodules, siliceous cements and phosphatic

Hypoxic outerramp

Laminated to well-bedded mudstone. Abunforams including heterohelicids, and platesspicules, phosphatic fish debris and glauco

4. Facies analysis

4.1. Description of facies types

The various facies types of the Yanuch and Muhraqa formationsare described in Table 1, and their stratigraphic positions withinrepresentative sections are in Fig. 3. The autochthonous rampfacies of the Late Cenomanian succession of northern Israel werealready discussed by Frank et al. (2010) but the allochthonousmass-transport sedimentary deposits, which are dominant in theYanuch and Muhraqa formations, are described and discussed herein much detail (Section 4.2).

4.2. The mass-transport facies types

4.2.1. Grain-movement on steep clinoformal slopes (FT-1)Observations: The Yanuch Formation consists of steep (up to

30�) and thick (30 to over 100 m thick) clinoformal successionscomposed of grainstone and rudstone of skeletal and non-skeletalcomposition (Figs. 3B and 4A). The grainstone clino-beds are thin-bedded or a few tens of centimeters thick, usually massive andoccasionally graded. The grainstone fabric is mostly mud-free butpoorly-washed textures may occur, forming packstones. The clino-formal succession contains disconformable lensoidal grainstonebodies (Fig. 4B), a few meters wide and up to 2 m thick. Thesebodies are thin-bedded or massive with truncational basal sur-faces. The stratigraphic position of the clinoformal successionwithin the Yanuch Formation, as seen at Kishor, is beneath cross-bedded shoreface grainstones of FT-6, and lateral to outer rampchalk of FT-9 (Fig. 2B).

Interpretation: The thick succession of clinoformal grainstonesformed on a steep slope that was located between the shorefaceand the toe-of-slope, where chalk predominated. Mud-free non-graded grainstone clino-beds thinner than 5 cm are consideredsubmarine grain flow deposits (cf. Lowe, 1976; Mulder and Alexan-der, 2001). Mud-free fabric in this steeply-inclined thin-beddedgrainstone suggests that dispersive pressure was the primary forcesupporting the grains, as dispersive pressure alone ordinarily doesnot support grain accumulations thicker than 5 cm (Lowe, 1976,1982). Under sub-aqueous conditions, slightly thicker massivegrainstone beds may also be attributed to grain-flow accumula-tions (Leeder, 1999). The steep inclinations of 20–30� supporttransportation of the carbonate grains by grain-flow on over-steepened carbonate slopes (cf. Kenter, 1990). However, clino-bedsmuch thicker than 5 cm may originate as sandy debrites (cf.

Yanuch and Muhraqa formations. The mass transport facies association is discussed

Code

raded or massive FT-1raded, massive, planar laminated or rippled FT-2

FT-3FT-4

. These surfaces are covered by thin reddish crusts containing pedogeniclar septal fabric. Penetrated by rhizoliths

FT-5

etal grains are of mollusks and green-algae; mud peloids are present.f FT-8 and 9

FT-6

tones. Rich in bioclasts of echinoderms, poriferan spicules, smallcispheres and planktonic forams are infrequent. Rudists are rare

FT-7

skeletal grains of echinoderms, poriferan spicules, small gastropods, andhonellid calcispheres and planktonic foraminiferans are infrequent. Chertgrains appear sporadically

FT-8

dant pelagic microfossils including pithonellid calcispheres, planktonicof pelagic crinoids. Less common are plates of echinids, poriferan

nitic grains

FT-9

Fig. 3. (A,B,C) Stratigraphic sections of the Yanuch Formation in the Galilee, representative of the autochthonous facies types (Yanuch and Pelech sections) and theallochtonous clinoformal slope facies (Mt. Gamal section). Numbers mark bioclastic and biotic components: (1) rudist fragments; (2) ostreid fragments; (3) solitary corals; (4)echinoderm fragments; (5) crinoid fragments; (6) pelagic crinoids; (7) gastropods; (8) mollusk debris; (9) bivalve fragments; (10) thin-shelled bivalves; (11) dasyclad algae;(12) red algae; (13) bryozoa; (14) sponge spicules; (15) pithonellid calcispheres; (16) planktonic foraminifera; (17) gavelinellids; (18) rotaliids; (19) miliolids; (20)textularids; (21) valvulinids; (22) Rhapydionina sp. (23) Pseudorhapydionina laurinensis; (24) Pseudolituonella sp.; (25) Chrysalidina gradata; (26) nezzazatids; (27) Cuneolinasp.; (28) ammonites (Early Turonian).

26 R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

Shanmugam, 1997). The numerous lensoidal grainstone bodiesthat transect the steep clinoformal successions represent feederchannels that were filled with coarse grained carbonate deposits.The channels probably formed due to over-steepening and failureof the coarse grained slope and their massive fill repesents sandydebrites.

4.2.2. Calciturbidites (FT-2)Observations: A succession of well-bedded grainstone and rud-

stone of bioclastic–lithoclastic composition occurs in the Muhraqa

Formation of the Sefunim Valley, western Carmel (Fig. 4C). Thissuccession is 25–30 m thick, sharply overlying fine-grained outerramp pelagites of the lower Muhraqa Formation (FT-9; Table 1).At the lower part of the succession the grainstone beds are infre-quently interbedded with thin beds of muddy pelagites. Thesecoarse-grained beds form typical decimeter-scale successions thatusually begin with sharp-based and coarse-grained massive orgraded grainstone and pass upward into finer-grained (mediumto fine sand) planar-laminated or slightly rippled grainstone(Fig. 4D).

Fig. 4. Mass-transport facies of the Yanuch and Muhraqa formations. (A) The Hamra clinoform grainstone succession with depositional dips to SW. (B) A 4 m wide channeltransecting the clinoformal succession at Hamra Valley western Galilee. (C) The well-bedded grainstone succession of the Oren Valley, western Carmel. (D) A calciturbiditesuccession, Oren Valley, western Carmel. (E) Breccia of the Sefunim Valley, western Carmel. Matrix is mostly coarse grained.

R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40 27

Interpretation: The grainstone beds of this well-bedded or lam-inated facies are associated with fine-grained pelagites. The car-bonate grains were first transported and were then deposited onfine-grained pelagic sea-floor of the outer-ramp or deeper basin,beneath the pelagic zone. The association of the grainstone bedswith fine-grained pelagites, the lack of hummocky cross-stratifica-tion or wave ripples, the great thickness of the succession and theassociation of the grainstones with a debrite breccias and slideblocks (discussed below) exclude the possibility that these

grainstone originated as tempestites. On the other hand, the bedtextures conform to the Bouma subdivision of turbidites (Bouma,1962). Basal and sharp-based coarse-grained graded or massivebeds were deposited from suspension and formed Ta Bouma units.Finer grained planar or slightly rippled-bedding were depositedout of the turbidity ‘tail’ and formed the Bouma Tb-Tc sub-divi-sions, representing traction or combined traction–suspensionsedimentation. Such coarse-grained, sharp-based calciturbiditescorrespond to the high-density turbidites of Lowe (1982), or to

28 R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

the concentrated density flows of Mulder and Alexander (2001)that originate in high-velocities on steep slopes.

4.2.3. Debrites (FT-3)Observations: A succession of carbonate breccias with blocks of

bioclastic–lithoclastic rudstone–floatstone composition occurs inthe Muhraqa Formation of the Sefunim Valley, western Carmel(Fig. 4E). The breccia body overlies the calciturbidite successionof FT-2. The blocks are randomly oriented or imbricated, rangingin diameter from tens of centimeters to 1.5 m. The matrix is com-posed of bioclastic grainstone with some preserved original grad-ing and muddy flame structures originating from muddy blocks.

Interpretation: The Sefunim breccia represents an episode ofdebris-flow deposition that was associated with the deposition ofcalciturbidites. The calciturbiditic origin of the matrix is indicatedby the preserved grading, and by the stratigraphic position of thebreccia above the calciturbidite succession (FT-2; described above).The origin of mud of the flame structures was from semi-lithifiedblocks. The large blocks originated from a proximal bioherm onthe mid-ramp (FT-7) and were deposited on the coarse-grainedcalciturbiditic substrate, while the flame structures were formedwhen a new calciturbiditic pile overloaded the semi-lithifiedblocks.

4.2.4. Large-scale slide block (FT-4)Observations: In the Sefunim outcrop of the western Carmel re-

gion two superposed mega-blocks, composed of well-beddedwackestones of FT-7, are tilted in opposite directions. The

Fig. 5. Relationships between well-bedded mega-blocks in the uppermost part of the Muupper and lower blocks; (B,C) Deformational features in the lower block.

relationships between these blocks and features of internal defor-mation are shown in Fig. 5. The lower block is tilted SW, separatedby a faulted truncational surface from an underlying grainstonebody (calciturbidites of FT-2). The fault on the contact is listric,wanning upwards toward the bedded wackestones of the lowerblock. Internal deformation in the lower block is in the form of me-ter-long boudins and sheath folds. The upper mega-block is tiltedNE, separated from the lower block by a curved discontinuitymarked ‘SZ’ in Fig. 5.

Interpretation: The disconformable relationship between thelower SW-tiled mega-block and the upper NE-tilted mega-blockcan be resolved by sliding and rotation of the upper block alonga curved shear plane at the contact (marked ‘SZ’ in Fig. 5). The low-er block, in turn, slided across the grainy calciturbiditic substrate(FT-2) and the overloading generated listric faulting on the contact.Internal shear of the semi-lithified wackestones of the lower blockwas responsible for the formation of shear-folds and boudins alongshear zones. This entire system reflects downslope transport ofsemi-lithified mega-blocks from the mid ramp (FT-7) into the dee-per Carmel basin.

5. Sequence stratigraphy: subdivision into genetic units

The Late Cenomanian to Early Turonian succession of northernIsrael was subdivided into five genetic–stratigraphic unitsbounded by discontinuities (Fig. 6). Each unit represents a systemstract with proximal facies components in the Galilee region anddistal facies components in the Carmel region.

hraqa Formation, Sefunim Valley, western Carmel region. (A) Panoramic view on the

Fig. 6. Stratigraphic correlation across northern Israel (traverse shown in Fig. 1) showing a subdivision into five discontinuity-bounded units. Black triangles representshallowing-upward cycles of the cyclic unit. The clinoforms abut against the Yirka Fault. Ce SB3 and Ce SB4 are major sequence boundaries bounding the bedded Pelech unitand amalgamating towards the north and south. At the upper left, a chronostratigraphic diagram showing the depositional stacking pattern and discontinuities. Attribution ofthe genetic units to the Late Cenomanian time framework is discussed in Section 7.4.

R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40 29

5.1. Bounding surfaces

The Late Cenomanian succession of northern Israel is transectedby three subaerial unconformities corresponding to sequenceboundaries Ce SB-2, Ce SB-3 and Ce SB-4 of Frank et al. (2010).Their stratigraphic position with respect to the genetic–strati-graphic units is shown in Fig. 6 and their macro- and microfacialcharacteristics are described in Table 1 (FT-5). Ce SB-2 is a Mid-Cenomanian truncation surface at the base of the Yanuch andMuhraqa formations, representing a biostratigraphic hiatus (Lip-son-Benitah et al., 1997). Ce SB-3 underlies the muddy Pelech unit(discussed below) while Ce SB-4 truncates it. These sequenceboundaries amalgamate both proximally to the north and distallyto the south (Fig. 6). In the distal Carmel region, a single disconti-nuity with a ferruginous crust occurs within the upper part of theMuhraqa Formation (Frank et al., 2010). In contrast to the iron-mineralized surfaces of Ce SB-2 and Ce SB-3 in the Galilee, this sur-face lacks evidence for subaerial cementation or pedogenesis and isthus considered a submarine omission surface, similar to those re-ported by Heck et al. (2007) and Immenhauser et al. (2000).

Additional discontinuities in the Late Cenomanian successioncorrespond to a maximum flooding interval and a downlap surface.The maximum flooding interval consists of laminated pelagites at

the lower part of the section (MFI-2; Fig. 6). The downlap surfacemarks the base of the clinoformal slope facies (FT-1) and the calcit-urbiditic facies (FT-2) of the Galilee and Carmel.

5.2. Genetic–stratigraphic units (systems tracts)

5.2.1. The transgressive bioturbated unitA unit of bioturbated outer-ramp limestone (FT-8; Fig. 3A), 10–

50 m thick, lies at the base of the Late Cenomanian succession. It istransgressive over the truncational sequence boundary Ce SB-2(Fig. 6) and terminates with laminated maximum flooding pelagite(FT-9). This unit represents a broad S-SW facing carbonate rampthat extended across northern Israel in the early part of the LateCenomanian. The ramp had a proximal part in the Galilee regionthat passed into basinal pelagites toward the Carmel region. Thissystems tract was discussed in detail by Frank et al. (2010) andis not discussed further in this paper.

5.2.2. The aggradational cyclic unitThe cyclic part of the Yanuch Formation is composed of four

shallowing-upward cycles (Figs. 3A and 6). It overlies the maxi-mum-flooding interval terminating the bioturbated unit and istopped by a downlap surface at the transition to the overlying

Fig. 7. Relationship of the Yirka Fault with Late Cenomanian genetic units. Thecyclic unit is present on both sides of the fault. The clinoforms are found only to thesouth of the Yirka Fault, above the cyclic unit.

30 R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

grainstone unit. At the base of the cyclic unit the benthic foraminif-era Cisalveolina fallax was found, with a first occurrence in the lat-est Cenomanian (Saint-Marc, 1972). Each of the four cyclescommences with bioturbated or laminated muddy outer-rampwackestone (FT-8 or FT-9) and terminates with massive or cross-laminated shoreface grainstones (FT-6) that truncate the underly-ing wackestones. All cycles thin and gradually wedge-out in thearea between Mt. Gamal and Shagor Valley (Fig. 1), and pass tothe south toward the Carmel into fine-grained pelagites (FT-9).

The cyclic unit represents deposition on a gently slopping rampthat was proximal in the Galilee and distal in the Carmel at thesouth. The gradual transition of the Galilean cycles into pelagitestoward the Carmel reflects the low-angle profile of the ramp. Sed-imentation on the ramp was aggradational as indicated by the par-allel wedging-out of all cycles at the same location between Mt.Gamal and Shagor Valley. The aggradational pattern and the stra-tigtaphic position above the maximum flooding of the bioturbatedunit indicate that the ramp was aggrading during relative high-stand of sea-level.

5.2.3. The progradational grainstone unitThe grainstone unit (Figs. 3B and 6) includes the clinoformal

slope facies of the Yanuch Formation in the Galilee region (FT-1)and the calciturbidite facies of the Muhraqa Formation in the Car-mel region (FT-2). Both units are at the lower part of the Yanuchand Muhraqa successions, passing laterally into outer-ramp pelag-ites, and bounded by a basal downlap surface and by a sequenceboundary at the top (Ce SB-3).

The grainstone unit represents slope-to-basin system with asteep S-SW facing slope in the proximal Galilee region, and calcit-urbidites in the distal Carmel region. The clinoformal slope wasprogradational, capped by a major subaerial disconformity (CeSB-3). This indicates that the slope was prograding in the courseof sea-level fall that was terminating in subaerial exposure, andthat the clinoforms belong to the falling stage system tract.Down-stepping geometries typical of forced regressions failed todevelop, most probably due to the steepness (25–35�) of thecoarse-grained slope (sand- and gravel-sized) that was evidentlymechanically unstable (slope channels) and could not supportadditional shoreface accumulations (cf. Hunt and Tucker, 1992).

5.2.4. The sequence of the bedded Pelech unitThe bedded Pelech unit, exposed near the village of Pelech, wes-

tern Galilee, forms the uppermost part of the Yanuch and Muhraqaformations (Fig. 3C). In the Galilee it is composed of well-beddedwackestones of the mid-outer ramp facies (FT-7) that forms awedge-shaped body, 5–35 m thick. The bedded Pelech unit isbounded by subaerial erosional unconformities (Ce SB-3 and 4).The base transgressively onlaps the progradational clinoformalslope of the grainstone unit, while the top is transgressively over-lain by pelagites of the Turonian marly unit. In the western Carmel,the bedded Pelech unit emerges in a similar stratigraphic position,above the grainstone unit and below the Turonian marly unit, butas slide mega-blocks (FT-4).

The bedded Pelech unit is bounded by subaerial unconformities,thus representing a complete sequence (Fig. 6). The facies indicatesa steep muddy slope in the Galilee from which allochthonous slideblocks were emplaced into the Carmel basin.

5.2.5. The transgressive marly unitThe marly unit is transgressive over Ce SB-4 and above the com-

posite disconformity truncating both the bedded Pelech unit andthe cyclic unit (Fig. 6). In the Galilee this unit commences withshoreface grainstones of the uppermost Yanuch Formation (FT-6)that deepen upward into outer-ramp marly pelagites of the EarlyTuronian Yirka Formation (FT-9). Facies and geometry of the marly

unit (Fig. 3 and 6) was discussed in detail by Frank et al. (2010)(Turonian transgressive unit) and is not further discussed here.

6. Structural field analysis: late cenomanian faulting in theGalilee region

The relationships between the genetic–stratigraphic units pro-vide evidence supporting Late Cenomanian faulting in the Galileeregion. We here describe field evidence from high-quality large-scale outcrops (tens to hundreds of meters long), followed by localstructural–depositional interpretations and models.

6.1. The Yirka Fault of the Galilee region

The Yirka Fault transects the western Galilee from east to west(Fig. 1B). It has a marked morphological expression and is one of aregional system of faults with movements considerably youngerthan Cretaceous (Freund, 1970). The distribution of the Late Ceno-manian genetic stratigraphic units of the Yanuch Formation is re-lated to this fault (Fig. 6 and 7). The clinoformal grainstone unitis found south of the Yirka Fault only, and in places in direct con-tact with the fault plane. North of the Yirka Fault, clinoformalgrainstones are absent and the cyclic unit predominates. For thesereasons, the present day Yirka Fault apparently coincided with anearlier, Late Cenomanian fault. This fault controlled the facies dis-tribution and paleo-physiography in the Galilee at that time.

6.2. Cenomanian faulting at Kishor–Blaya area

Observations: The relationships between the genetic–strati-graphic units in the Yanuch Formation at Kishor area are shownin Fig. 8. At Kishor, the clinoformal grainstone unit is in direct con-tact with the Yirka Fault and directly overlies the cyclic unit. Theclinoforms dip 22–25�SW while the underlying beds of the cyclicunit are tilted in the opposite direction 12�NE. The clinoformal unitextends from Kishor southwards to the Blaya region. It thickensrapidly farther southwards from Blaya across few hundreds of me-ters, and in the Hamra Valley it is more than 100 m thick.

Interpretation: The contact of the 35–40 m succession of theclinoformal grainstone unit with the Yirka Fault suggests

R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40 31

downfaulting of the Kishor–Blaya hanging-wall. Tilting of thehanging-wall toward the Yirka Fault plane is indicated by the NEtilted beds at the base of the clinoformal succession. Abrupt thick-ening of the clinoformal grainstones from 35 to 40 m at Blaya tomore than 100 m at Hamra (Fig. 6) indicates further subsidence,triggered by movement on an additional Cenomanian fault thatwas also striking approximately E–W. In the course of these move-ments, carbonate grains were swept off the footwall-shelf towardthe south, filling the accommodation space above the Kishor–Blayahanging-wall. The cumulative thickness of the clinoformal succes-sion from Kishor to Hamra is indicative of a minimal water depthof about 140 m south of the Yirka Fault. In summary, field evidencefrom Kishor indicate Late Cenomanian normal faulting, rotation ofthe hanging-wall block, and accumulation of clinoformal grain-stone deposits on the hanging-wall (Fig. 8C).

6.3. Cenomanian faulting at Hamra Valley

Observations: The geometric relationships between the genetic–stratigraphic units exposed in the Yanuch Formation at Hamra

Fig. 8. Relationships between genetic units of the Yanuch Formation at Kishor. (A) The clcyclic unit is tilted 12�NE, opposite to the clinoformal unit above. (C) The Kishor clinoforeaching a maximum thickness in the Hamra Valley.

valley are shown in Fig. 9. At Hamra Valley the bedded Pelech unitis folded into a Cenomanian syncline (Hamra syncline; Freund,1965) which is covered by the horizontally bedded Turonian marlyunit. The beds of the Hamra syncline become gradually less in-clined toward the stratigraphic top (Fig. 9B and C). There is a sharpvertical boundary between the Hamra syncline to the east and theclinoformal grainstone unit to the west, with the synclinal bedsalso overlapping the clinoforms. Farther to the west, the clinoform-al succession and the overlapping beds of the Hamra syncline aredown-faulted, with the down-faulted block tilted toward the faultplane. This entire system is overlain by the Turonian marly unit,neither folded nor faulted.

Interpretation: The sharp vertical boundary between the Hamrasyncline and the clinoformal grainstone unit to the west (marked‘2’ in Fig. 9) represents a syndepositional fault scar. This faultbounded the Hamra syncline in the west and carbonate grainsaccumulated on the downfaulted block. An additional normal fault(marked ‘5’ in Fig. 9) developed latter, affecting both the clinoform-al grainstone unit and the bedded Pelech unit. The upward de-crease in bed inclination in the Hamra syncline (marked ‘1’ in

inoformal grainstone unit dips 22–25�SW and directly overly the cyclic unit. (B) Therms extends southwards to the Blaya area and thicken considerably farther south,

Fig. 9. Relationships between genetic units of the Yanuch Formation at Hamra Valley. See text for details. (A) Western part of the Hamra cross-section; (B) The Hamrasyncline; (C) The Hamra cross-section with structural and sedimentary components.

32 R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

Fig. 9) indicates that it is a syndepositional growth syncline. Itcould have formed as a ‘hanging-wall syncline’ above a compositelistric detachment plane (marked ‘7’ in Fig. 9) with a steep curvedpart (‘ramp’) underlying the syncline (c.f. Ellis and McClay, 1988).Deceleration of the rate of syndepositional folding led to overlap-ping of muddy synclinal deposits on the clinoformal grainstonesin the west (marked ‘4’ in Fig. 9). The subaerial unconformities (se-quence boundaries Ce SB-3 and 4) bounding the synclinal beddedPelech unit indicate that faulting was associated with two episodesof sea-level fall. In summary, field evidence from Hamra Valleyindicate Late Cenomanian synclinal folding, two phases of normal

faulting, accumulation of the clinoformal grainstone unit abovehanging-walls, and two episodes of subaerial exposure.

6.4. Cenomanian faulting at Mt. Gamal region

Observations: The geometric relationships between the genetic–stratigraphic units in the Mt. Gamal outcrop are shown in Fig. 10.In the Mt. Gamal area the clinoformal grainstone unit is subdividedinto two parts with different inclination, which are separated bydiscontinuity Ds5. The lower part (marked ‘B’ in Fig. 10) is 10 mthick, dipping 10–15�E-NE, and the upper part (marked ‘C’ in

R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40 33

Fig. 10) is 20 m thick, dipping 30–35�W-SW. Farther westwards,beds of the cyclic unit are exposed in three blocks (marked ‘D’,‘E’, ‘F’ in Fig. 10) separated by discontinuities marked Ds2–Ds4.Block ‘D’ is strongly tilted 30�NE. The entire succession is truncatedby discontinuity Ds6 and overlain by horizontally bedded pelagitesof the Turonian marly unit (Yirka Formation FT-9).

Interpretation: The structural evolution of the Mt. Gamal out-crop was in five stages (Fig. 11). In stage 1, a block of the cyclic unitglided along a listric plane (Ds1 and Ds3) and was tilted NE form-ing a reverse fault in the west. Carbonate grains acummulatedabove the hanging-wall. Overloading of the hanging-wall block re-sulted in movement on a secondary normal fault (Ds4). In stage 2,continued block movement along the listric detachment resultedin further rotation and tilting to the E-NE. Carbonate grains acum-mulated above the hanging-wall forming the upper clinoformalset, dipping W-SW, with its base marked Ds5. In stage 3, furtherblock rotation tilted the upper surface of the clino-succession by10�NE. In stage 4, subaerial exposure affected the entire system

Fig. 10. (A,B,C) Relationships between genetic units in th

and Ds6 (Ce SB-4) was generated. The originally loose and porous,coarse grained carbonate deposits became lithified by meteoric ce-ments and a positive topographic relief was formed. In the finalstage 5, sea-level rise resulted in deposition of the Turonian marlyunit above the subaerial disconformity Ds6. In summary, field evi-dence from Mt. Gamal area indicate three phases of faulting andblock rotation, responded by deposition of carbonate grains abovea hanging-wall, and Late Cenomanian sea-level fall and sub-aerialexposure.

7. Discussion

7.1. The Late Cenomanian structural–depositional pattern in northernIsrael

The depositional–structural models presented for Kishor–Blaya,Hamra, and Mt. Gamal indicate that Late Cenomanian faulting

e Yanuch Formation near Mt. Gamal. Details in text.

Fig. 11. Evolution of Mt. Gamal cross-section. Stage 1: Block tilting followed byclinoformal grainstone accumulation. Stage 2: block tilting followed by clinoformalgrainstone accumulation. Stage 3: block tilting. Stage 4: sub-aerial exposure. Stage5: Turonian sea-level rise and deposition of the marly unit.

34 R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

controlled the geometry and distribution of the clinoformal grain-stone unit and the bedded Pelech unit. The local models are inte-grated into a comprehensive model showing the depositional andstructural pattern in the Galilee region during Late Cenomaniantimes (Fig. 12). South of the Yirka Fault a steep coarse grained car-bonate slope was formed, dipping S-SW. The slope was subdividedby faults into a series of rotational blocks forming small (tens tofew hundreds of meters long) extentional basins (intra-slope ba-sins) filled by coarse-grained carbonate sediment. The Kishor–Blaya intra-slope basin was bounded to the north by the Yirka Faultand to the south by the flank of a syndepositional syncline. Thesyncline was bounded to the south by a normal fault, separatingit from the Hamra basin. The Hamra basin was similarly separated

by a normal fault from the Mt. Gamal basin to the south. This struc-turally composite slope system evolved from a proximal north to-wards a distal SSW to SW, as indicated by the depositional dip ofthe clinoformal grainstone unit and by the strike of Cenomanianfaults and fault-associated tilted blocks in the Galilee (Table 2).

There is an uncertainty regarding whether the Cenomanianfaults were deep-rooted, or shallow listric, on an unstable slope.The physical association of the clinoformal grainstone unit withthe deep-rooted Yirka Fault (Fig. 7), known to be active again inthe Neogene (Freund, 1970), suggests that this main fault wasdeep-rooted also in the Late Cenomanian. On the other hand,deep-rooted faulting is not required in the other localities to thesouth (Hamra, Mt. Gamal), and the deformation observed can beequally attributed to secondary shallow listric faulting producedby slope instabilities.

Evidently, grain mass-transport down the paleo-slope of theGalilee region was via numerous meter-wide channels (e.g. FT-1;Fig. 4B). However, the mechanism of long-distance transport fromthe Galilean slope into the Carmel basin is unclear as there are onlya few outcrops between Mt. Gamal and the Carmel depositionalsite. Two depositional models are invoked (Fig. 13). The first modelis of Bahama-type non-coalescing sub-parallel straight channelstransecting the slope (cf. Schlager and Chermak, 1979; Mullinsand Cook, 1986). In this model, significant bypass of carbonategrains is not expected; there should be an allochthonous grainyapron on the toe of the Galilean slope, and pelagites are expectedin the Carmel region. A second model is of slope channels coalesc-ing into a single feeder channel or canyon (e.g., Payros et al., 2007;Payros and Pujalte, 2008). The distance of few tens of kilometersbetween the slope and the calciturbiditic body conforms betterto this model. According to this scenario the numerous channelsobserved on the Galilean slope would coalesce into a single feederchannel somewhere south of the Shagor Valley (SG in Fig. 1). Thegrains were transported a few tens of kilometers basinwards, form-ing a submarine fan or lobe represented by the calciturbiditic bodyof the western Carmel region (FT-2).

7.2. Sedimentary evolution

The sedimentary evolution of the Late Cenomanian ‘slope-to-basin’ system of northern Israel, as controlled by faulting and epi-sodes of sea-level fall, is summarized schematically in Fig. 14. Thetransition of the cyclic unit upwards into the clinoformal grain-stone unit reflects transformation by faulting of a gently-slopingramp into a steep slope. The ramp was steepened in its proximalreaches due to movements on the Yirka Fault and on additionalfaults, and the block movements generated a structurally-compos-ite steep slope in the Galilee region (Fig. 14A and B). Concomi-tantly, a continuous process of base-level fall (Fig. 14C and D)triggered winnowing and abrasion of the Galilean shelf, and loosecarbonate sand was produced. Base-level fall culminated in sub-aerial exposure of the shelf and part of the slope. The ensuingsea-level rise resulted in onlap of outer-to-mid ramp deposits ofthe bedded Pelech unit (FT-7) over the exposed Galilean slopeand shelf. Extensional faulting and associated synclinal foldingcontinued also during this transgressive stage. A second episodeof sea-level fall (Fig. 14E) again culminated in subaerial exposureof the shelf and slope (Ce SB4). The semi-lithified debrites (FT-3)and slides (FT-4) of the Carmel region are attributed to this lateepisode of sea-level fall.

7.3. Sea-level change vs. tectonic uplift in the Galilee

The history of sea-level change in this region is reflected by thesequence boundaries and the cycles of the cyclic unit. Comparisonof the local pattern with the global pattern of relative sea-level

Fig. 12. The structure of the Late Cenomanian shelf-edge of the Galilee region. The Cenomanian Yirka Fault separated the shelf in the north from a coarse grained clinoformalslope at the south. Additional faults sub-divide the slope into small extensional basins. The intraslope basins are filled by coarse grained sediment.

Table 2The strike of depositional and structural elements in the Yanuch Formation, Galilee.

Depositional/structural feature Strike Reference

Kishor clinoforms NW–SE Fig. 7Blaya clinoforms NW–SE to NNW–SSEHamra clinoforms NW–SEMt. Gamal clinoforms NW–SE to N–SShagor clinoforms NW–SEYirka fault E–W to NW–SEHamra fault NW–SE (110–290�) Fig. 9 – fault marked ‘5’Mt. Gamal fault1 �E–W (95–275�) Fig. 10 – fault marked Ds2Mt. Gamal fault2 �E–W (95–275�) Fig. 10 – fault marked Ds4Tilted cyclic unit, Kishor �NW–SE Fig. 8Tilted cyclic unit, Mt. Gamal �NW–SE Fig. 10 – block marked ‘D’

Fig. 13. (A,B) Two alternative reconstructions of the Galilee–Carmel depositional system. See text for discussion.

R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40 35

Fig. 14. Schematic presentation of the sedimentary evolution of the Late Cenomanian shelf-slope-basin system of northern Israel (stages A–F) in the context of faulting andsea-level change.

36 R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

change may be used to distinguish local tectonic movements fromsea-level fluctuations. In this context, the local sea-level curve ofthe Galilee (Fig. 15) consists of two parts. The early part belongs

to the lower Late Cenomanian succession. It consists of four shal-lowing-upward cycles of the cyclic unit reflecting minor sea-levelfluctuations. The later part consists of two sequence boundaries

R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40 37

at the upper part of the Late Cenomanian succession. The first se-quence boundary (Ce SB3) is at the top of the clinoformal grain-stone unit and the second is at the top of the bedded Pelech unit(Ce SB4). They represent major episodes of base-level fall termi-nated by sub-aerial exposure.

The local pattern of sea-level change appears to track the pat-tern of relative sea-level change recorded worldwide. High-resolu-tion cyclic stratigraphy in the Sinai (Gertsch et al., 2008), thewestern Interior Basin (Sageman, 1996) and the Tarfaya basin ofSW Morocco (Kuhnt et al., 2009) shows four to five shallowing-up-ward cycles in the lower part of the Late Cenomanian succession, inthe Calycoceras guerangeri ammonite zone. As in the Galilee, thesecycles reflect relatively minor sea-level falls that do not terminatein subaerial exposure.

The latter part of the Galilean curve, with two major sequenceboundaries (Ce SB-3 and 4), may conform to the two latest Ceno-manian sequence boundaries recognized worldwide by Gale et al.(2002, 2008). The earlier global sequence boundary reflects sea-le-vel fall at the beginning of the time interval represented by theMetoicoceras geslinianum ammonite zone, while the later relatesto a hiatus and sea-level fall during the time period representedby the Neocardioceras juddii ammonite zone. The latter global se-quence boundary is generally less pronounced, and in some loca-tions even missing (e.g. Robaszynski et al., 1998; Schulze et al.,2003; Galeotti et al., 2009). On the other hand, both sequenceboundaries in the Galilee have strong expression of sub-aerialexposure, suggesting that the magnitude of Latest Cenomaniansea-level falls was augmented by fault-induced uplift of the Gali-lean shelf and slope.

7.4. Late Cenomanian paleo-physiography of the central LevantMargin

The depositional strike in northern Israel was oriented nearlyE–W in the Late Cenomanian, as indicated by the measurablecomponents summarized in Table 2: the E–W to NW–SE strike ofthe shelf-margin Yirka Fault, the nearly E–W strike of the otherCenomanian faults, the nearly NW–SE strike of fault-associatedtilted blocks (at Hamra and Mt. Gamal outcrops), and the mostly

Fig. 15. The Late Cenomanian sea-level pattern in the Galilee region, compared to global

SW-directed depositional dip of the clinoforms of the grainstoneunit (Fig. 7). Particularly, the proximal-to-distal facies transitionsreflected in each of the Late Cenomanian genetic units of this re-gion evolved with a principal N–S directional component fromproximal in the Galilee region to distal in the Carmel region(Figs. 13B and 14). Frank et al. (2010) presented a general modelfor the Cenomanian–Turonian of northern Israel showing E–Wstriking gently-sloping carbonate ramps facing to the SSW overan extended period. The depositional strike in northern Israelwas therefore nearly normal to the NNE–SSW striking mid-Creta-ceous hinge-belt of the Levant Margin. The approximately E–Wdepositional strike prevailing in this region during the Cenomanianand Turonian was maintained during the Late Cenomanian, but thedepositional profile was highly accentuated by faulting that in-creased the bathymetric gradient between the elevated Galilee re-gion and the subsiding Carmel region. Therefore, the depositionalprofile shown here for the Late Cenomanian was uniquly steep-sloped. As a result, the depositional nature was more dynamic,controlled by mass-transport of calciturbidites, debrites, and slidemega-blocks.

Other tectono-depositional features reported from the mid-Cre-taceous Levant Margin are sub-parallel with the E–W trendingdepositional strike shown here for northern Israel (Fig. 16). Walley(1998) suggested that the region including the Galilee and south-ern Mt. Lebanon represents a Mesozoic structural gap in the pa-leo-depositional trend of the Levantine hinge-belt that reflectsthe influence of the SW–NE oriented structural province of thesouthern Palmyrids of Syria. In their generalized paleo-geographicreconstruction for the Late Albian–Turonian interval, Ferry et al.(2007) suggested an E-NE-directed subsiding basin that includesthe Galilee region and the southern Lebanon region. Homberget al. (2010) described a system of Early Cretaceous normal faultsin Lebanon, striking WSW–ENE to WNW–ESE, a direction sub-par-allel to that of the shelf-margin Yirka Fault of the Galilee. Karcz(1965) showed that the Early Cretaceous fluvial sandstone succes-sion of northern Israel and Lebanon (termed Hatira Formation inIsrael and ‘Grés de base’ in Lebanon) forms a lens-shaped body,50–300 m thick, with a depocenter located to the east and south-east of Beirut. The isopach pattern of this depositional body

patterns. A.P. Basin – Anglo-Paris Basin. Ammonite zonation after Ogg et al. (2004).

Fig. 16. (A–E) Superposition of depositional and structural models for the Cretaceous of the central Levant Margin, showing the paleo-physiography in the region includingnorthern Israel and part of Lebanon. The depositional strike of the Levant Margin hinge-belt in this region had a prominent E–W component. This directional trend is sub-penpendicular to the NNE–SSW striking Levantine hinge-belt.

38 R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

suggests that Early Cretaceous fluvial silisiclastics accumulated in asubsiding basin that extended far to the east into Lebanon andnorthern Israel. These sub-parallel tectono-sedimentary trendsdeparture significantly, over an extended period, from the NNE-SSW depositional strike of the Levant Margin hinge-belt. They indi-cate that the depositional strike in the region including northernIsrael and south Mt. Lebanon shifted to the east, and that long-termtectonic activity in the Cretaceous shaped the paleo-physiographyof this region.

8. Summary and conclusions

The Mesozoic Levantine hinge-belt was a NNE–SSE striking pa-leo-depositional zone of rapid E-to-W proximal-to-distal faciestransitions that bounded the western edge of the Levant Marginfrom northern Sinai Peninsula to northern Lebanon. Previous stud-ies postulated an apparent gap in this paleo-depositional trend, innorthern Israel and south Mt. Lebanon. This study examines thishypothesis by exploring the paleo-physiography and depositional

R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40 39

evolution in this ‘gap’ region in the Late Cenomanian of northernIsrael.

The Late Cenomanian succession of northern Israel consists offive discontinuity-bounded units, each representing a depositionalsystem which was proximal in the Galilee region in the north anddistal in the Carmel region to the south. The relationships betweenthese genetic units are to a large extent, the product of Late Ceno-manian faulting.

Early in the Late Cenomanian, a gently-inclined carbonate rampextended from the proximal Galilee region to the distal Carmel re-gion. The depositional profile then changed profoundly. Blockmovements on shelf-margin faults led to extreme steepening ofthe ramp profile in the Galilee region, and a steep slope was formed.

The steep slope of the Galilee region was subdivided by subsidi-ary faults into a series of extensional basins (half grabens, tens to afew hundreds of meters in length) that were filled by carbonategrains. Grains bypassing these basins were transported downslopeand deposited as calciturbidites in the Carmel basin.

The pattern of Late Cenomanian sea-level change in the Galileeis strikingly similar to the global pattern. Deposition during the C.guerangeri ammonite zone of the early part of the Late Cenomanianwas highly cyclic both locally and globally. The two global latestCenomanian sequence boundaries of the M. geslinianum and N. jud-dii ammonite zones are represented in the Galilee by two major se-quence boundaries (Ce SB-3 and 4). Evidence of subaerial exposureon the global sequence boundaries are missing or not clear and thelatter global sequence boundary is in some locations even missing.On the other hand, evidence of subaerial exposure (pedogenesis,paleo-karst) are common on the Galilean surfaces, reflecting tec-tonic uplift of this region.

The Late Cenomanian depositional strike in northern Israel wasoriented E–W. This direction reflects a significant departure of thedepositional strike from the NNE–SSW strike of the Levant Marginhing-belt. Similar directional trends were recorded from other sed-imentary and structural systems of the Cretaceous in the centralLevant Margin. We conclude that Cretaceous tectonic activity onthe central Levant Margin of the Arabian Plate changed the deposi-tional strike of the hinge-belt in northern Israel and south Mt. Leb-abon to E–W.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Geological Survey of Israel andgrants from the Earth Sciences Administration, Israel Ministry ofNational Infrastructures. The Authors wish to thank two anony-mous reviewers for their constructive reviews. The commentsand suggestions of O. Bialik were highly appreciable and helpful.

References

Bauer, J., Kuss, J., Steuber, T., 2003. Sequence architecture and carbonate platformconfiguration (Late Cenomanian–Santonian), Sinai, Egypt. Sedimentology 50,387–414.

Bein, A., Gvirtzman, G., 1977. A Mesozoic fossil edge of the Arabian plate along theLevant coastline and its bearing on the evolution of the eastern Mediterranean.In: Biju-Duval, B., Montadert, L. (Eds.), Structural History of the MediterraneanBasins. Technip, Paris, pp. 95–110.

Bein, A., Weiler, Y., 1976. The Cretaceous Talme Yafe Formation: a contour currentshaped sedimentary prism of calcareous detritus at the continental margin ofthe Arabian Craton. Sedimentology 23, 511–532.

Bouma, A.H., 1962. Sedimentology of Some Flysch Deposits: A Graphic Approach toFacies Interpretation. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Buchbinder, B., Benjamini, C., Lipson-Benitah, S., 2000. Sequence development ofLate Cenomanian–Turonian carbonate ramps, platforms and basins in Israel.Cretac. Res. 21, 813–843.

Burchette, T.P., Wright, V.P., 1992. Carbonate ramp depositional systems. Sed. Geol.8, 67–115.

Catuneanu, O., Abreu, V., Bhattacharya, J.P., Blum, M.D., Dalrymple, R.W., Eriksson,P.G., Fielding, C.R., Fisher, W.L., Galloway, W.E., Gibling, M.R., Giles, K.A.,Holbrook, J.M., Jordan, R., Kendall, C.G.St.C., Macurda, B., Martinsen, O.J., Miall,

A.D., Neal, J.E., Nummedal, D., Pomar, L., Posamentier, H.W., Pratt, B.R., Sarg, J.F.,Shanley, K.W., Steel, R.J., Strasser, A., Tucker, M.E., Winker, C., 2009. Towards thestandardization of sequence stratigraphy. Earth Sci. Rev. 92, 1–33.

Dunham, R.J., 1962. Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositionaltexture. In: Ham, W.E. (Ed.), Classification of Carbonate Rocks. AAPG Memoir 1,pp. 108–121.

Ellis, P.G., McClay, K.R., 1988. Listric extentional fault system – results of analoguemodel experiments. Basin Res. 1, 55–70.

Embry, A.F., Klovan, J.E., 1971. A Late Devonian reef tract on northeastern BanksIsland, Northwest Territories. Bull. Can. Petrol. Geol. 19, 730–781.

Ferry, S., Merran, Y., Grosheny, D., Mroueh, M., 2007. The Cretaceous of Lebanon inthe Middle East (Levant) context. Noteb. Geol. 2, 38–42.

Flügel, E., 2004. Microfacies of Carbonate Rocks: Analysis, Interpretation andApplication. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Frank, R., Buchbinder, B., Benjamini, C., 2010. The mid-Cretaceous carbonate systemof northern Israel: facies evolution, tectono-sedimentary configuration andglobal control on the central Levant Margin of the Arabian Plate. In: Homberg,C., Bachmann, M. (Eds.), Evolution of the Levant Margin and Western ArabiaPlatform since the Mesozoic. Geological Society, London Special Publication341, pp. 133–169.

Freund, R., 1959. On the stratigraphy and tectonics of the Upper Cretaceous inWestern Galilee. Bull. Res. Coun. Israel 8G, 43–49.

Freund, R., 1965. Upper Cretaceous reefs in northern Israel. Israel J. Earth Sci. 14,108–121.

Freund, R., 1970. Geometry of faulting in the Galilee. Israel J. Earth Sci. 19, 117–140.Freund, R., Raab, M., 1969. Lower Turonian Ammonites from Israel. Palaeontol. Soc.

Lond. Spec. Publ. 4, 1–83.Gale, A.S., Hardenbol, J., Hathway, B., Kennedy, W.J., Young, J.R., Phansalkar, V., 2002.

Global correlation of Cenomanian (Upper Cretaceous) sequences: evidence ofMilankovitch control on sea-level. Geology 30, 291–294.

Gale, A.S., Voigt, S., Sageman, B.B., Kennedy, W.J., 2008. Eustatic sea-level record forthe Cenomanian (Late Cretaceous) – extension to the Western Interior Basin.Geology 36, 859–862.

Galeotti, S., Rusciadelli, G., Sprovieri, M., Lanci, L., Gaudio, A., Pekar, S., 2009. Sea-level control on facies architecture in the Cenomanian–Coniacian Apulianmargin (Western Tethys): a record of glacio-eustatic fluctuations during theCretaceous greenhouse? Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 276, 196–205.

Gardosh, M., Weimer, P., Flexer, A., 2011. The sequence stratigraphy of Mesozoicsuccessions in the Levant Margin, southwestern Israel: a model for theevolution of southern Tethys margins. AAPG Bull. 95, 1763–1793.

Garfunkel, Z., 1998. Constraints on the origin and history of the EasternMediterranean basin. Tectonophysics 298, 5–35.

Garfunkel, Z., Derin, B., 1984. Permian-early Mesozoic tectonism and continentalmargin formation in Israel and its implications for the history of the EasternMediterranean. In: Dixon, J.E., Robertson, A.H.F. (Eds.), The Geological Evolutionof the Eastern Mediterranean. Geological Society, London, Special Publications17, pp. 187–201.

Gertsch, B., Keller, G., Adatte, T., Berner, Z., Tantawy, A.A., Kassab, A.S., El-Sabbagh,A.M., Mort, H.P., Stueben, D., 2008. Cenomanian–Turonian transition in shallowwater sequences of the Sinai, Egypt. Int. J. Earth Sci. 99, 165–182.

Gvirtzman, G., Klang, A., 1972. A Structural and Depositional Hinge-Line along theCoastal Plain of Israel, Evidenced by Magnetotellurics. Geological Survey ofIsrael, Bulletin 55.

Heck, P.R., Frank, M., Anselmetti, F.S., Kubik, P.W., 2007. Origin and age ofsubmarine ferromanganese hardgrounds from the Marion Plateau, offshoreNE Australia. In: Anselmetti, F.S., Isern, A.R., Blum, P., Betzler, C. (Eds.),Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results 194, pp. 1–22.

Homberg, C., Barrier, E., Mroueh, M., Muller, C., Hamdan, W., Higazi, F., 2010.Tectonic evolution of the central Levant domain (Lebanon) since Mesozoictimes. In: Homberg, C., Bachmann, M. (Eds.), Evolution of the Levant Margin andWestern Arabia Platform since the Mesozoic. Geological Society, London SpecialPublications 341, pp. 245–268.

Hunt, D., Tucker, M.E., 1992. Stranded parasequences and the forced regressivewedge systems tract: deposition during base-level fall. Sed. Geol. 81, 1–9.

Immenhauser, A., Creusen, A., Esteban, M., Vonhof, H.B., 2000. Recognition andinterpretation of polygenic discontinuity surfaces in the Middle CretaceousShu’aiba, Nahr Umr, and Natih Formations of Northern Oman. GeoArabia 5,299–322.

Kafri, U., 1972. Lithostratigraphy and environments of deposition, Judea Group,western and central Galilee, Israel. Bull. Geol. Surv. Israel 54, 1–56.

Karcz, Y., 1965. Lower Cretaceous fluviatites in the Levant. Nature 207, 1145–1146.Kashai, E., 1966. The Geology of the Eastern and Southwestern Carmel. Ph.D.

Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 114p (English Abstract).Kenter, J.A.M., 1990. Carbonate platform flanks: slope angle and sediment fabric.

Sedimentology 72, 777–794.Kuhnt, W., Holbourn, A., Gale, A., Chellai, E.H., Kennedy, W.J., 2009. Cenomanian

sequence stratigraphy and sea-level fluctuations in the Tarfaya Basin (SWMorocco). Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 121, 1695–1710.

Leeder, M., 1999. Sedimentology and Sedimentary Basins: from Turbulence toTectonics. Blackwell Science.

Lewy, Z., Raab, M., 1978. Mid-Cretaceous stratigraphy of the Middle East. Ann. Mus.Natl. Hist. Nat. 4, 1–21.

Lipson-Benitah, S., Almogi-Labin, A., Sass, E., 1997. Cenomanian biostratigraphy andpalaeoenvironments in the northwest Carmel region, northern Israel. Cretac.Res. 18, 469–491.

40 R. Frank et al. / Journal of African Earth Sciences 95 (2014) 22–40

Lowe, D.R., 1976. Grain flow and grain flow deposits. J. Sediment. Res. 46, 188–199.Lowe, D.R., 1982. Sediment gravity flows II. Depositional models with special

reference to the deposits of high-density turbidity currents. J. Sediment. Petrol.52, 279–297.

Meischner, K.D., 1964. Allodapische kalke, turbidite in riff-nahen sedimentations-becken. In: Bouma, A.H., Brouwer, A. (Eds.), Turbidites. Developments inSedimentology, vol. 3, pp. 156–191.

Mulder, T., Alexander, J., 2001. The physical character of subaqueous sedimentarydensity flows and their deposits. Sedimentology 48, 269–299.

Mullins, H.T., Cook, H.E., 1986. Carbonate apron models: alternatives to thesubmarine fan model for paleoenvironmental analysis and hydrocarbonexploration. Sed. Geol. 48, 37–79.

Ogg, J.G., Agterberg, F.P., Gradstein, F.M., 2004. The Cretaceous period. In: Gradstein,F.M., Ogg, J., Smith, A. (Eds.), A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp. 344–383.

Payros, A., Pujalte, V., 2008. Calciclastic submarine fans: an integrated overview.Earth Sci. Rev. 86, 203–246.

Payros, A., Pujalte, V., Orue-Etxebarria, X., 2007. A point-sourced calciclasicsubmarine fan complex (Eocene Anotz Formation, western Pyrenees): faciesarchitecture, evolution and controlling factors. Sedimentology 54, 137–168.

Picard, L., Kashai, E., 1958. On the lithostratigraphy and tectonics of the Carmel. Bull.Res. Coun. Israel 7G, 1–19.

Read, J.F., 1985. Carbonate platform facies models. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 69,1–21.

Robaszynski, F., Gale, A.S., Juignet, P., Amédro, F., Hardenbol, J., 1998. Sequencestratigraphy in the Upper Cretaceous series of the Anglo-Paris basin:exemplified by the Cenomanian stage. In: Graciansky, P.C., Hardenbol, J.,

Jacquin, T., Vail, P.R. (Eds.), Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy ofEuropean Basins. Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication 60, pp.363–386.

Ross, D.J., 1992. Sedimentology and depositional profile of a mid-Cretaceous shelfedge rudist reef complex, Nahal Ha’mearot, northwestern Israel. Sed. Geol. 69,161–172.

Sageman, B.B., 1996. Lowstand tempestites: depositional model for Cretaceousskeletal limestones, Western Interior Basin. Geology 24, 888–892.

Saint-Marc, P., 1972. Le Crètacè infèrieur et moyen du borde occidentale du JabalSannine (Liban). Note Mèm. Moyen-Orient 13, 217–226.

Saint-Marc, P., 1974. Étude stratigraphique et micropaléontologique de l’Albien, duCénomanien et du Turonien du Liban. Note Mèm. Moyen-Orient 13, 342.

Sass, E., Bein, A., 1982. The Cretaceous carbonate platform in Israel. Cretac. Res. 3,135–144.

Schlager, W., Chermak, A., 1979. Sediment facies of platform–basin transition,Tongue of the Ocean, Bahamas. In: Doyle, L.J., Pilkey, O.H. (Eds.), Geology ofContinental Slopes. Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication 27, pp.193–208.

Schulze, F., Lewy, Z., Kuss, J., Gharaibeh, A., 2003. Cenomanian–Turonian carbonateplatform deposits in west-central Jordan. Int. J. Earth Sci. 92, 641–660.

Shanmugam, G., 1997. The Bouma sequence and the turbidite mind set. Earth Sci.Rev. 42, 201–229.

Tucker, M.E., Wright, P., 1990. Carbonate Sedimentology. Blackwell, London.Walley, D.W., 1998. Some outstanding issues in the geology of Lebanon and their

importance in the tectonic evolution of the Levantine region. Tectonophysics298, 37–62.