www.elsevier.com/locate/sedgeo

Sedimentary Geology

Editorial

Cenozoic sedimentary basins of southern Turkey: an introductionB

1. Background and framework

Knowledge of the younger sedimentary basins of

southern Turkey has increased in recent years

through research undertaken by indigenous and

overseas geologists, and it has become clear that,

from the perspective of their crucial geotectonic

location, excellent exposure and increasing accessi-

bility, these basins merit further attention. The papers

presented here thus provide an opportunity both to

review the current state of stratigraphical and

sedimentological knowledge of this important area

within the Alpine–Himalayan orogenic belt (Fig. 1)

and also to outline possible solutions to some major

geological problems posed in this region. Several

outstanding issues for future investigation are also

highlighted.

0037-0738/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2004.03.013

B Most of the papers included in this volume were initially

presented at the 4th International Turkish Geology Symposium,

held at Cukurova University, Adana in September/October 2001.

We thank Dr. Ulvican Unlqgenc and his associates for their efforts

in organising this important conference. We also wish to thank the

following colleagues who devoted much time and effort to

reviewing and improving the manuscripts submitted for this special

issue: I. Cemen (Oklahoma, USA), A. Ciner (Ankara, Turkey), A.

Collins (Perth, Australia), J.D. Collinson (Keele, UK), B. Cronin

(Aberdeen, UK), S. Derman (Ankara, Turkey), Y. Dilek (Ohio,

USA), T. Dreyer (Bergen, Norway), S. Flint (Liverpool, UK), G.

George (Greenwich, UK), E. Gfkten (Ankara, Turkey), F. Hetzel

(Potsdam, Germany), I. Kazanci (Ankara, Turkey), T. Norman(An-

kara, Turkey), F Ocakoglu (Eskisehir, Turkey), M. Orszag-Sperber

(Paris, France), G.Postma (Utrecht, Netherlands), C. Puigdefabregas

(Barcelona, Spain), N. Satur (Stavanger, Norway), M. Stokes

(Plymouth, UK) and M. Wilson (Durham, UK).

The Cenozoic basins of southern Turkey formed

in a range of tectonic settings—compressional,

extensional and strike-slip (Fig. 2). Much recent

research elsewhere has focussed on sedimentary

basin development in well-constrained geotectonic

settings (e.g. rift or foreland basins) that can be

geophysically modelled. However, many ancient

basins are highly complex and cannot be adequately

modelled without substantial input from detailed field

studies that focus on the 3D geological development

of the basins through time. The basins of southern

Turkey are typically long-lived features that have

been influenced by a temporally varying range of

tectonic processes. Some basins have been subjected

to different processes (e.g. compression versus

extension) through time, or may even have been

affected by different tectonic forces operating simul-

taneously in different parts of the same basin system.

Such complex multi-dimensional systems are impor-

tant features of many tectonically active regions, for

example evolving collisional zones such as the

Mediterranean. As a result it is not yet possible to

rely solely on geophysical modelling techniques to

explain the genesis and evolution of such regions.

The case studies presented here provide much

relevant field data and their interpretations, based

on the sedimentary and deformation histories of such

basins, that are especially germane to the problems of

assessing the relative roles of tectonics versus

changes in eustatic sea-level (accommodation) and

in changing climatic conditions (influencing sediment

supply). Thus, these studies not only help to

elucidate the evolution of this complex collisional

173 (2005) 1–13

Fig. 1. General map of the Mediterranean region showing location of the principal Miocene basins. See Fig. 2 for a map of the main geological

features of southern Turkey and Fig. 4 for an enlarged map of the principal Neogene basins in Turkey discussed in this volume. Simplified from

Esteban (1996).

Fig. 2. Outline tectonic map of the Eastern Mediterranean including the main geological features of southern Turkey. From Robertson (2000).

Editorial2

Editorial 3

zone, but they also provide templates that are

applicable to similar settings elsewhere.

Below, we first provide a summary of the plate

tectonic evolution of southern Turkey, concentrating

on the Neogene sub-era, which witnessed the devel-

opment of most of the sedimentary basins discussed

here. We then introduce the individual studies

reported here, indicating (with the aid of supplemen-

tary information) how they enhance our understand-

ing of the evolving geotectonic setting of south-

central Turkey and how they provide useful examples

of the interaction of sedimentation with tectonics, sea-

level oscillations and climate change in comparable

collisional settings.

2. Regional plate tectonic development

Most of the basins discussed here are located within

or adjacent to the Taurus Mountains (Taurides) of

southern Turkey (Fig. 2). There is broad agreement

that the Taurus mountain-belt comprises one, or

several, continental fragments that rifted from the

Gondwanan (northern African) margin and were later

accreted to Eurasia as the intervening Tethys closed

(e.g. Dercourt et al., 1993). However, disagreement

persists about the time of rifting of the Tauride

fragments (Late Permian, Late Triassic, or mid Creta-

ceous: see Robertson et al., 1996 for discussion of

alternatives). Many workers now believe that a south-

ern Tethyan ocean opened in Mid–Late Triassic time

(Garfunkel, 1998; Robertson et al., 2003; see Fig. 3a).

The rifted Anatolian fragments were bordered to the

north by Mesozoic oceanic crust, known by Turkish

workers as the Northern Neotethys. There is ongoing

debate about the origin of this ocean, whether it formed

by spreading at a mid-ocean ridge or in a back-arc

basin (e.g. Robertson et al., 2004b). There are also

suggestions that only one rifted Mesozoic ocean basin

existed and that the present duplication of Mesozoic

ophiolites and related oceanic crustal remnants to the

north and south of the Tauride fragments may have

resulted from oblique ocean closure and terrane

accretion (Stampfli and Borel, 2002). However, most

geologists working in southern Turkey have concluded

that the Tauride continental fragments were flanked by

Mesozoic ocean crust, formed by sea-floor spreading,

both to the north and south (Sengor and Yilmaz, 1981;

Robertson, 2002). The geotectonic framework for the

Cenozoic basins discussed here was created by the

progressive, if episodic, closure of these two oceanic

basins (Fig. 3).

The ocean to the north of the Tauride crustal

fragments, variously known in different areas as the

Northern Neotethys or Inner Tauride Ocean, was

certainly closing in Late Cretaceous time. Several

authors envisage complete closure by the latest

Cretaceous, whereas others believe this did not

happen until Late Eocene time, with the emplacement

of continental margin and ophiolitic units (known as

the BeyYehir–Hoyran–Hadm Nappes). What is not

disputed is that the Northern branch of Neotethys, to

the north of the Taurides, was completely closed by

Oligocene time, followed by the development of post-

collisional sedimentary basins above a regional

unconformity.

The ocean lying south of the Tauride crustal

fragments, known by many workers as the Southern

Neotethys, was also closing in the Late Cretaceous.

The closure history of this ocean was influenced by

the irregular palaeomorphology of the North African

continental margin, compared to the shape and

location of the Tauride continental fragments. The

most important of these controlling palaeogeographic

features in the easternmost Mediterranean region are

the Arabian promontory in the east and the Isparta

Angle in the west. The Arabian promontory extends

from eastern Turkey through the Arabian Gulf to

Oman and jutted out northwards into the Southern

Neotethys during much of the Mesozoic era. In the

west, the Isparta Angle originated as a regional

embayment into the Tauride microcontinental units

that dates from the Triassic and probably separated the

Taurides into discrete eastern and western crustal

fragments. The geological development of the Isparta

Angle in latest Mesozoic–Early Tertiary time pro-

foundly influenced the character and evolution of

Neogene sedimentary basins in this area.

As the southern Neotethys ocean closed in the east,

ophiolites were first emplaced southwards onto the

leading edge of the Arabian continent in latest

Cretaceous time and diachronous collision ensued,

variously interpreted as occurring between the Eocene

and the Middle Miocene (Fig. 3c). Further west,

however, the Southern Neotethys still remains partly

open, forming the modern Eastern Mediterranean Sea,

Fig. 3. Plate tectonic sketches showing the simplified tectonic evolution of southern Turkey. (a) Late Triassic; (b) Late Cretaceous; (c) Late

Eocene. See text for discussion of alternatives. Modified from Robertson (2002).

Editorial4

which thus can be considered to occupy an incipient

continental collision setting.

As a consequence of this history, the Neogene

sedimentary basins within and bordering the Taurus

mountain chain record evolution within a range of

tectonic settings. In the north the setting is post-

collisional from Late Eocene time onwards and the

basins in this region evolved in extensional- or strike-

slip-controlled regimes. Settings to the south of the

Taurus Mountains range from post-collisional strike-

slip in Eastern Turkey to incipient collision (e.g.

south of Cyprus), to actively extensional in areas

further west (e.g. Aegean Sea). However, in assessing

the geological history of the basins within this broad

region the effects of eustatic sea-level fluctuations,

climatic change and inherited topography must be

considered alongside contemporaneous plate tectonic

controls.

Editorial 5

3. Regional context and history of individual basins

In this section we introduce the findings from each

of the case histories presented in this set of papers,

beginning with the oldest basin, located in the eastern

part of south-central Turkey, then proceeding to

broadly younger, more westerly basins (Fig. 4). We

outline the geological context of each basin and

indicate how its depositional character and evolution

contributes to a better understanding of this complex

region and of the generic processes associated with

collisional settings here and elsewhere.

3.1. Basins on the Northern flank of the Taurus

Mountains

Clark and Robertson (this issue) explore the

processes affecting the northern margin of the Tauride

continental unit during latest Cretaceous to Late

Eocene time, as documented in the UlukiYla Basin

Fig. 4. Outline map of Turkey showing distribution of the main Ne

(Fig. 4). The authors concentrate on the sedimentary

evidence for the latest stages of closure of a Neo-

tethyan ocean lying to the north of the Tauride

microcontinent. Ophiolites and ophiolitic melange

were emplaced southwards in latest Cretaceous time

and were then transgressed by Maastrichtian–Early

Palaeocene shallow-water sediments, followed by

deeper water clastic turbidites of Middle Palaeocene

to Early Eocene age. Basic lavas were extruded during

Early to Mid Eocene time, whereas nummulitic

limestones and localised coral reefs developed after

volcanism ceased. The termination of the marine phase

in this basin was marked by deposition of gypsum near

the depocentre, followed by a regional unconformity.

The UlukiYla Basin is interpreted as the result of

extension (or transtension) coupled with basic volcan-

ism and its history was terminated by Late Eocene

compression that affected the entire northern margin of

the central Taurides. From their review of the adjacent

latest Cretaceous–Palaeogene basins of central Anato-

ogene basins and the specific areas described in this volume.

Editorial6

lia, Clark and Robertson conclude that these share

broadly similar tectono-stratigraphic and evolutionary

patterns with the UlukiYla Basin. They also consider

that all these basins formed in an overall transtensional

(to extensional) setting following cessation of regional

subduction of Tethyan oceanic crust but prior to

forceful collision and the onset of orogenic uplift

(i.e. during a phase of reorganisation of continental

fragments and bsoft collisionQ).Most of the Neogene sediments that succeed the

Late Cretaceous and Palaeogene sequences of the

UlukiYla Basin accumulated within intermontane

basins and preserve a remarkable record of the uplift

of the Taurus Mountains, although accurate dating of

these sediments has so far proved elusive. Jaffey and

Robertson (this issue) discuss the closely related

Aktoprak Basin, EcemiY Basin and Karsanti Basin,

within and to the north of the central Taurus

Mountains (Fig. 4). During the Oligocene–Early

Miocene interval, these basins accumulated substan-

tial thicknesses of coarse sediments, deposited by

braided rivers draining the rising Taurus chain.

However, surface uplift was limited to the extent that

a brief marine incursion into the Karsanti Basin was

possible during Early Oligocene time. This entire area

was affected by a short-lived Mid-Miocene pulse of

regional compression that may relate to final collision

of the Eurasian and Arabian plates in eastern Turkey.

As a consequence, Late Miocene deposition largely

took place in large inward-draining lakes. From their

petrographic and geochemical studies, Jaffey and

Robertson have documented the unroofing history of

the Taurus Mountains. An important conclusion of

this work is that strong surface uplift on a regional

scale did not take place until the Plio-Quaternary,

when the present pattern of drainage to the Medi-

terranean Sea became established. However, the

regional geology is complicated by the occurrence

of the important NNE–SSW trending, left-lateral

EcemiY Fault Zone. The history of this fault zone

remains controversial but it is likely that the deposi-

tion of Oligocene–Miocene coarse clastic and lacus-

trine sediments within the EcemiY Basin was

influenced by movements on this fault zone. Strike-

slip gave way to mainly extension/transtension in the

Plio-Quaternary, when the alluvial fans that dominate

the modern topography were shed from mountain-size

fault scarps. Some left-lateral strike slip continued into

the younger Quaternary, offsetting such alluvial fans.

Depositional processes also were modified by glaci-

ation of the surrounding Taurus Mountains. Overall,

the EcemiY Fault Zone appears to record diachronous

continental collision and btectonic escapeQ from the

tightening suture zone further to the southeast.

3.2. Basins on the Southeastern flank of the Taurus

Mountains

The largest and best known of these Neogene

troughs is the Adana Basin (Fig. 4), which contains a

wide range of siliciclastic deposits of fluvial, coastal,

submarine slope and deep marine deposits, together

with fringing shallow marine carbonates (Fig. 5). The

succession in this basin begins with late Oligocene

non-marine to lacustrine siliciclastic sediments that

were contiguous with the Karsanti Basin to the north.

Although marine transgression commenced in earliest

Miocene time, the main development of a marginal

carbonate platform and coralgal reef bodies occurred

in the early Burdigalian–Langhian interval (Williams

et al., 1995; Gorur, 1994). This was followed by rapid,

tectonically controlled subsidence during the early

Langhian–Serravallian interval, leading to accumula-

tion of more than 3 km thickness of both coarse and

fine-grained, deep marine clastics in the northern part

of the basin. Regression and tectonic reorganization

commenced in the late Serravallian and culminated in

localised accumulation of Messinian evaporites (Yal-

cin and Gorur, 1984; Williams et al., 1995; YetisS et al.,1995). The Miocene Adana Basin has counterparts

further east in the Misis Basin (Gokcen et al., 1988),

the KahramanmaraY Basin and the Lice Basin in SE

Turkey, extending as far as Iran. The Miocene basins

overlying the Arabian foreland in SE Turkey (e.g.

Lice Basin) are interpreted as foreland basins related

to southward thrusting of the Taurus allochthon over

the Arabian continental margin. However, the tectonic

setting of the Adana Basin adjacent to the Mediterra-

nean Sea differs, showing evidence of extensional

subsidence in Langhian–Serravallian time. The con-

trolling factor could be broll-backQ of a N-dipping

subduction zone located further south in the Misis

Mountains, and today exposed along the Mediterra-

nean coast (Robertson et al., 2004a).

In this volume, Satur et al. (this issue) dissect the

fill of a canyon-like feature that acted as a major

Fig. 5. Stratigraphic columns summarising the overall sedimentary successions and tectono-stratigraphic events identified in the main Neogene

basins in southern Turkey (modified from Robertson, 2000). See Fig. 4 for location of these basins and see the individual papers in this volume

for additional literature sources.

Editorial 7

feeder system, conveying coarse clastic sediments

from the Tauride massif southwards into the deep

Adana Basin (Fig. 4) during the Middle Miocene. The

authors record in detail the scale, geometry, internal

architecture and varied sediments found within this

canyon system, its relation to the adjacent submarine

fan and the nature of the depositional processes

operating within it. A hierarchy of sand-body scale,

geometry and other characteristics has been identified

and quantified within the canyon-fill and contributes

to computer-assisted numerical modelling that, in

turn, facilitates the generation of reproducible, generic

3D models. These then can be employed generically

to predict the internal sedimentary architecture of

similar sandbodies in the subsurface or in less well-

exposed areas.

Editorial8

3.3. Basins on Tauride continental crust

The histories of all the basins discussed in this set

of papers are dominated by tectonic processes, with

the exception of the Mut–Ermenek Basin in the

central Taurus region (Fig. 4). Tectonic influences

are less evident in this basin system because it was

sited on continental crust in the midst of the former

Taurus microcontinent and thus remained relatively

stable during Miocene time, although this area has

been uplifted by more than a kilometre since the early

Pliocene. The Mut Basin was effectively a northward

embayment of the Mediterranean Sea and its margins

were largely determined by antecedent topography. As

a consequence, deposition in this marine embayment

was mainly controlled by eustatic sea-level change,

although localized extensional faulting has also

played a part in the basin history. Relative sea-level

curves constructed from observations in this basin are

thus likely to be representative of the eustatic

variations experienced across this entire region.

Comparison of these curves with the relative sea-

level curves obtained from adjacent, more tectonically

influenced, basins thus provides an important means

of quantifying the relative influence of eustasism and

tectonism in the evolution of these basins.

Safak et al. (this issue) employ microfossil

biostratigraphy, sedimentology and field observations

to describe and interpret the Mid-Cenozoic stratig-

raphy and evolution of the hitherto poorly known Mut

Basin (Fig. 4). Sediments of Early Oligocene to

earliest Miocene age are non-marine and predomi-

nantly lacustrine (Fig. 5) but also include alluvial fan,

coastal plain and lagoonal deposits. These accumu-

lated in and around a large intramontane lake, created

within a NE–SW aligned half-graben. Localised

reactivation of basement faults during the early

Burdigalian led to the accumulation of fluvial redbeds

and coastal deposits in deep palaeotopographic

depressions, prior to widespread marine transgression

across the entire Mut Basin in mid to late Burdigalian

times (Fig. 5). The sea continued to advance north-

wards in stages, apparently reaching a maximum

extent in mid-Serravallian time when thick reef

carbonates were widely developed on marginal plat-

forms and ramps around this basin. However,

deposition of calcareous muds prevailed in the deeper,

more central parts of this E–W trending trough.

Eustatic sea-level fluctuations are evidenced within

the mid-Miocene deposits by spectacular clinoformal

geometries in the basin-margin sediments and periodic

progradational influxes of river-supplied siliciclastics.

Xafak et al. also utilise a series of regional palaoegeo-

graphic maps to demonstrate the similarity of Mut

basin evolution to that seen in the adjacent Ermenek,

EcemiY–Aktoprak and Karsanti–northern Adana

basins (see Fig. 5). The basins developed in the

eastern part of the Isparta Angle (such as Manavgat,

see below) also display closely comparable histories.

Such close comparisons attest to the regional character

of the controls influencing these diverse basins.

Two further accounts apply sequence stratigraphic

principles to successive parts of the Mut Basin

succession. Eris et al. (this issue) provide a detailed

account of the origin, evolution and filling of a major

palaeo-valley and drainage system that developed in

the central part of the Mut Basin during the Early

Miocene. An initial entrenchment phase, succeeding

long-lived lacustrine deposition, is ascribed to the

interplay of local (fault-) tectonics and eustatic base-

level decrease. This was followed by deposition from

meandering rivers, and continuing block faulting led to

accumulation of thick, vertically stacked fluvial

deposits, expansion of the catchment area and

increased sediment input into the basin. Early Miocene

marine transgression ensued, inundating the palae-

ovalley and much of the surrounding land. By Mid-

Burdigalian time most of the Mut Basin was the site of

shallow-marine carbonate deposition, including cor-

algal reefs, while paralic facies were confined to

northern marginal areas. This transgression is attrib-

uted to a significant eustatic sea-level rise, accompa-

nying a reduction in regional subsidence rates.

Bassant et al. (this issue) record details of the

depositional architecture, biostratigraphy and

sequence stratigraphy of the carbonate-dominated

Late Burdigalian to Late Langhian successions of

the central and eastern Mut Basin (Fig. 4). In contrast

to the preceding period, local tectonic effects were

minimal and the character of the successions was

controlled by two high-amplitude sea-level cycles.

Study of three depositional transects of the Mut Basin

during this stratigraphic interval has revealed impor-

tant details of coeval facies distributions and the

factors influencing their development. A transect on

the northwestern margin of the basin demonstrates the

Editorial 9

landward retreat of siliciclastic facies during phases of

marine transgression, enabling coralgal reefs to

flourish before the next brief regression and resump-

tion of siliciclastic deposition. The second transect is

across an isolated carbonate platform that developed

during initial marine flooding but became drowned

during a rapid sea-level rise. Spectacular clinoform

geometries developed as this platform margin pro-

graded and successive phases of sea-level fall and

then rise triggered, first slumping, then platform

recovery. The third transect is across a narrow

palaeo-strait in the southeastern part of the Mut Basin

(Silifke area). This fault-defined strait was formed by

pre-Burdigalian extensional tectonics and subsequent

deposition was dominated by tidally influenced

carbonates, with local, narrow marginal platforms.

Detailed correlation of these three transects, using

new biostratigraphic information and high-resolution

sequence stratigraphy, have allowed the construction

of relative sea-level curves for each area, with

considerable predictive potential. The authors regard

this as a key reference area for Early Miocene reef and

platform architecture and for the elucidation of

problems in carbonate sequence stratigraphy.

The Ermenek sub-basin forms the westernmost

sector of the Mut Basin (Fig. 4) and the initial fill-

sequence there is documented by Ilgar and Nemec

(this issue). In the Early Miocene this basin was a

SE-trending lacustrine intramontane basin and the

succession has been analysed using a sequence

stratigraphic approach appropriate to lacustrine envi-

ronments. The vertical succession of facies is

attributed to tectonic controls and climate change,

whereas lateral facies changes also reflect local

sediment input (such as deltas and fan-deltas) and

antecedent topography. Climatic change is seen as a

key control of lake volume and sediment supply. The

authors ascribe significant differences in the sequence

stratigraphy of marine versus non-marine (lacustrine)

basins, as demonstrated by this study, to differences

in the fundamental controls on sedimentation, and

especially the effects of climate change.

3.4. Basins on the Southwestern flank of the Taurus

Mountains

A further group of papers is concerned with the

Neogene sedimentary history of the Isparta Angle

(Fig. 4), the subject of considerable previous research

(Robertson et al., 2003). Here, Neogene successions

unconformably overlie the Antalya Complex. Meso-

zoic continental margin and oceanic units, including

ophiolites and ophiolitic melange, initially deformed

in latest Cretaceous time and finally emplaced over

the Mesozoic Tauride carbonate platform in the Late

Palaeocene–Early Eocene (Fig. 3b). Palaeomagnetic

studies show that both limbs of the Isparta Angle were

rotated inwards, mainly during pre-mid Miocene time

in the west and prior to the Pliocene in the east.

Thus the Isparta Angle was much more open to the

Southern Neotethys during the Mesozoic. The carbo-

nate platforms to the east and west probably formed

separate continental fragments that rifted from Gond-

wana in the Triassic to open the Southern Tethys

ocean. Fault zones related to this rifting were

repeatedly re-activated and these have influenced

Neogene sedimentation within the Isparta Angle.

Proceeding from west to east within the Isparta

Angle there are four main Cenozoic basins, the Lycian

Basin, the Aksu Basin, the KfprqBasin (also known asthe Kfprq Cay Basin) and the Manavgat Basin (Fig. 4).

The Lycian Basin trends sub-parallel to the orogenic

front of the Lycian Nappes to the northwest. The

elongate Aksu and Kfprq basins are N–S trending in

the heart of the Isparta Angle, while the Manavgat

Basin, on the eastern shore of Antalya Gulf, runs

southeastwards, parallel to the Mediterranean coast.

Flecker et al. (this issue) have compiled published

information from the various Neogene facies exposed

within each of the four basins and have used this to

plot facies patterns on six palaeogeographical maps,

restored to their pre-Late Miocene settings. These

maps enable various possible controls on deposition

to be identified and assessed. Tectonics appear to

have been the most influential control on depositional

history, although eustatic sea-level change, climatic

change, antecedent topography and autocyclic pro-

cesses all have played a role. Moreover, different

tectonic factors evidently affected different parts of

the basin system at different times. Thus, during the

Early Miocene the westerly Lycian Basin and the

adjacent Aksu Basin underwent flexural subsidence

ascribed to final, southward emplacement of the

Lycian Nappes. East of the Isparta Angle, southward

emplacement of thrust sheets ended in Late Eocene

time but west of the Isparta Angle major thrusting

Editorial10

continued into the Early Miocene. Within the

present-day core of the Isparta Angle the N–S-

trending Aksu and Kfprq basins developed as half-

grabens, bounded by master extensional faults on the

eastern side of each basin. During the Middle

Miocene the easterly basins (Kfprq and Manavgat)

underwent subsidence that can be attributed to

geodynamic processes within the Mediterranean Sea

to the south, probably related to regional northward

subduction and slab retreat of a remnant of the

Southern Neotethys (Fig. 3c). The Mid-Miocene

deposition and subsidence was probably accompa-

nied by anti-clockwise rotation of the Bey Daglari

carbonate platform bordering the western margin of

the Isparta Angle. The Aksu Basin and, to a lesser

extent, the Kfprq Basin were affected by a Late

Miocene phase of compressional deformation that

locally continued into the Pliocene. Crustal extension

ensued in Plio-Quaternary time, accompanied by

rapid uplift of the adjacent Taurus Mountains. The

overall basin history thus reflects the unique setting

of the Isparta Angle at the intersection of the South

Aegean and Cyprus arcs (Fig. 2).

Deynoux et al. (this issue) provide important

details of the Miocene facies infilling the Kfprq Cay

Basin and document the rapid lateral and vertical

facies transitions associated with three major alluvial

fan and fan-delta systems that pass basinwards into

pelagic mudstones. The authors argue that Langhian–

Tortonian deposition in the Kfprq Cay basin was

largely controlled by episodic movements on the

Kirkkavak Fault, one of the major fractures defining

the eastern margin of this N–S trending half-graben.

The documented facies distributions also record the

effects of Late Tortonian thrusting and uplift of the

Aksu and Kfprq Cay Basins, ascribed to westward

displacement of the Anatolian Block.

KarabVyVkoglu et al. (this issue) record details of

the coralgal reefs and related sediments of Early–

Middle and Late Miocene age in the Aksu, Kfprq Cayand Manavgat basins and elucidate their palaeoenvir-

onmental significance. Patch reefs mainly occur in

two contrasting depositional settings: first, aggrada-

tional coastal alluvial fans/gravelly fan-delta; sec-

ondly, shelf carbonates. The earlier reefs are faunally

rich and diverse, whereas the later reefs occur only in

the Aksu Basin and display restricted fauna, domi-

nated by hermatypic corals. In general, reef growth

was controlled by complex interactions between basin

margin tectonics and eustatic sea-level fluctuations

that have determined the locus and nature of clastic

sediment inputs.

3.5. Aegean extensional region

Further west, in Aegean Turkey, there is a change in

tectonic regime. As noted earlier, the basins of southern

Turkey reveal evidence of extensional influences

during the Middle and Late Miocene that is most

plausibly explained by southwards retreat of a sub-

duction zone within the easternmostMediterranean Sea

(Fig. 3c). However, subduction was limited in this time

interval and there is no record of active arc volcanism in

this region. Further west, in the Aegean region, the

effects of southward subduction zone retreat are much

more evident, as confirmed by GPS studies (Reilinger

et al., 1997). The entire Aegean Sea, neighbouring

western Turkey and eastern Greece have all undergone

overall N–S crustal extension, at least during Plio-

Quaternary time (McKenzie, 1978; Le Pichon and

Angelier, 1979). In western Turkey, formation of basins

within an extensional regime can be discerned as far

back as the Early Miocene but the causes of this

extension and the controlling stress regime remain

controversial. Some consider that the N–S trending

Miocene grabens were replaced by E–W Plio-Quater-

nary grabens formed in a new tectonic regime (Sengor

et al., 1985; YVlmaz et al., 2000). Alternatively, it has

been argued that N–S extension gave rise to E–W

trending grabens that have been active continuously or

episodically since the Early Miocene (Seyitoglu et al.,

1992). Until now the arguments on both sides of this

controversy have hinged mainly on radiometric dating

and structural studies.

Purvis and Robertson (this issue) use facies

distributions and palaeocurrent evidence from the

prominent AlaYehir Graben (also known as the Gediz

Graben) that runs eastwards from the vicinity of Izmir

(Fig. 4) to show that deposition within this basin was

controlled by movements on E–W trending faults that

define a major half-graben, active from the Early

Miocene onwards. Small fan-deltas prograded north-

wards from the footwall zone of the southern master

fault into adjacent lakes during the Early Miocene,

followed by the development of westwards through-

drainage into the Aegean Sea. As extension proceeded

Editorial 11

this footwall was exhumed, giving rise to a spectac-

ular, presently low-angle, extensional detachment

fault. During the latest Miocene(?)–Pliocene time,

large alluvial fans prograded from the half-graben

footwall and these probably were climatically as well

as tectonically influenced. Quaternary alluvium partly

infills the half graben which remains tectonically

active. The depositional history of this basin is

interpreted in terms of two pulses of extension,

separated by a Mid to Late Miocene hiatus. According

to Purvis and Robertson the dominant control during

the first extensional phase was probably gravity

spreading/roll-back towards a south-Aegean subduc-

tion zone, whereas they attribute the second extension

pulse to westwards tectonic escape of Anatolia,

following final continental collision in eastern Turkey

and beyond.

The effects of Neogene crustal extension extended

widely throughout western Turkey (to the west of the

Isparta Angle), and gave rise to several large sedimen-

tary basins that remained poorly known until recently.

Alcicek et al. (this issue) describe one of these

enigmatic troughs, the Cameli Basin (Fig. 4), an

intramontane depression with an entirely terrestrial

fill. These sediments have now been dated by means of

small mammal and freshwater molluscan fossils.

Detailed facies analysis enables these authors to

distinguish three phases of crustal extension, of Early

Tortonian, Early–Middle Pliocene and Middle Plio-

cene age, that have strongly influenced sedimentation

in the Cameli Basin. The initial (Late Miocene) basin

evolved from an alluvial fan/fluvial setting into a

lacustrine system prior to the second extensional phase,

when normal faulting split the basin into two segments

and later into a series of smaller half-graben, charac-

terized by the waxing and waning of the Cameli lake.

The last phase of extension was of lesser magnitude but

was responsible for the most conspicuous changes in

basin palaeogeography and drainage patterns.

4. Conclusions

The studies presented in this volume demonstrate

the wide range of processes that have influenced

development of Cenozoic (mainly Neogene) basins in

southern Turkey. In the past, such basins have been

described and interpreted individually but it is now

apparent that many are kinematically linked within the

over-arching geotectonic framework of the evolving

African–Eurasian plate collision zone. Such linkage is

evident, for example, in the diachronous timing of both

the major phase of Early to Mid Miocene subsidence

recorded in these South Turkish basins and also the

(preceding) marine transgression (see Fig. 5). This

diachronaeity suggests that regional geodynamics

(most plausibly, oblique final Arabian–Anatolian

collision in SE Turkey) has been the principal control

on these events.

The analyses of basin evolution presented here thus

shed light on fundamental processes active during

collisional orogeny, and also emphasize the impor-

tance—and difficulty—of distinguishing the effects of

active tectonics from those induced by global-scale

changes in climate and sea-level.

Several of the studies also demonstrate the great

value of high-resolution biostratigraphy and the

importance of sequence stratigraphic techniques in

identifying causal factors in the evolution of such

basins. For instance, Bassant et al. have recorded

fluctuations in relative sea-level in the order of 100 m.

Eustatic variations of this magnitude are likely to be

present within the sedimentary record of adjacent

basins and may ultimately lead to re-evaluation of the

importance of the tectonic controls. One of the greatest

challenges for future work in this region is to refine the

biostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic resolution of

the basin-fill sequences, especially in the non-marine

successions, in order to achievemore accurate temporal

correlations and to facilitate more precise calculation of

the rates and styles of sediment accumulation, basin

subsidence and uplift. In turn, the regionally significant

database now emerging can be used to construct,

interrogate andmodify the geophysical and geotectonic

models proposed to account for the diverse controls

involved in basin evolution, both in this continental

collision zone and in similar settings elsewhere.

References

Alcicek, M.C., KazancV, N., Ozkul, M., 2004. Multiple rifting

phases and sedimentation patterns in the Cameli Basin, south-

western Anatolia, Turkey. Sediment. Geol. 173, 383–405. this

issue.

Bassant, P., Van Buchem, F.S.P., Strasser, A., Gorur, N., 2004. The

stratigraphic architecture and evolution of the Burdigalian

Editorial12

carbonate–siliciclastic sedimentary systems of the Mut Basin,

southern Turkey. Sediment. Geol. 173, 173–215. this issue.

Clark, M., Robertson, A.H.F., 2004. Uppermost Cretaceous—

Lower Tertiary UlukiYla Basin, south-central Turkey: sedimen-

tary evolution of part of a unified basin complex within an

evolving Neotethyan suture zone. Sediment. Geol. 173, 15–51.

this issue.

Dercourt, J., Ricou, L.E., Vrielynck, B. (Eds.), Atlas Tethys

Paleoenvironmental Maps. Beicip-Franlab, Paris. 1992.

Deynoux, M., Ciner, A., Monod, O., KarabVyVkoglu, M., Mana-

tschal, G., Tuzcu, S., 2004. Facies architecture and depositional

evolution of alluvial fan to fan-delta complexes in the tectoni-

cally active Miocene Koprucay Basin, Isparta Angle, Turkey.

Sediment. Geol. 173, 289–317. this issue.

EriY, K., Bassant, P., Ulgen, U.B., 2004. Tectono-stratigraphic

evolution of an Early Miocene incised valley-fill (Derincay

Formation), the Mut Basin, southern Turkey. Sediment. Geol.

173, 151–171. this issue.

Esteban, M., 1996. An overview of Miocene reefs from Medi-

terranean area: general trends and facies models. In: Fransen,

E.K., Esteban, M., Ward, W.C., Rouchy, J.-M. (Eds.), Models

for carbonate stratigraphy from Miocene reef complexes of the

Mediterranean regions. SEPM (Soc. Sediment. Geol.) Spec.

Publ., pp. 3–53.

Flecker, R., Poisson, A., Robertson, A.H.F., 2004. Facies and

palaeogeographic evidence for the Miocene evolution of the

Isparta Angle in its regional Eastern Mediterranean context.

Sediment. Geol. 173, 251–288. this issue.

Garfunkel, Z., 1998. Constraints on the origin and history of the

eastern Mediterranean basin. Tectonophysics 298, 5–37.

Gfkcen, S.L., Kelling, G., Gfkcen, N., Floyd, P.A., 1988.

Sedimentology of a Late Cenozoic collisional sequence: the

Misis Complex Adana, Southern Turkey. Sediment. Geol. 59,

205–235.

Gfrqr, N., 1994. Tectonic control in the development of a Lower

Miocene reef at a complex triple junction: depositional history

of the Karaisali Formation of the Adana Basin Turkey. Geol.

Mediterr. XXI, 49–67.

Ilgar, Nemec, W., 2004. Early Miocene lacustrine deposits and

sequence stratigraphy of the Ermenek Basin, Central Taurides,

Turkey. Sediment. Geol. 173, 217–249. this issue.

Jaffey, N., Robertson, A.H.F., 2004. Non-marine sedimentation

associated with Oligocene–Recent exhumation of the Central

Taurus Mountains, S. Turkey. Sediment. Geol. 173, 53–89. this

issue.

KarabVyVkoglu, M., Tuzcu, S., Ciner, A., Deynouz, M., Orcen, S.,

Hakyemez, A., Sediment. Geol., this Issue.

Le Pichon, X., Angelier, J., 1979. The hellenic arc and trench

system: a key to the neotectonic evolution of the eastern

Mediterranean area. Tectonophysics 60, 1–42.

McKenzie, D., 1978. Active tectonics of the Alpine–Himalayan

belt: the Aegean Sea and surrounding regions. J. R. Astron. Soc.

55, 217–254.

PurvVs, M., Robertson, A.H.F., 2004. Sedimentation of the Neo-

gene–Recent Alauƒehir (Gediz) continental graben system used

to test alternative tectonic models for western (Aegean) Turkey.

Sediment. Geol. 173, 347–382. this issue.

Reilinger, R.E., McClusky, S.C., Oral, M.B., King, R.W., Toksoz,

M.N., 1997. Global positioning system measurements in the

ArabiaAfricaEurasia plate collision zone. J. Geophys. Res. 102,

9983–9999.

Robertson, A.H.F., 2000. Mesozoic–Tertiary tectonic-sedimentary

evolution of a south Tethyan oceanic basin and its margins in

Southern Turkey. Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 173, 97–138.

Robertson, A.H.F., 2002. Overview of the genesis and emplacement

of mesozoic ophiolites in the Eastern Mediterranean Tethyan

region. Lithos 65, 1–67.

Robertson, A.H.F., Dixon, J.E., Brown, S., Collins, A., Morris, A.,

Pickett, E., Sharp, I., Ustafmer, T., 1996. Alternative models for

the Late Palaeozoic–Early Tertiary development of Tethys in the

eastern Mediterranean region. In: Morris, A., Tarling, D.H.

(Eds.), Palaeomagnetism and Tectonics of the Mediterranean

Region, Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. vol. 105, pp. 239–263.

Robertson, A.H.F., Poisson, A., AkincV, O., 2003. Developments in

research concerning Mesozoic–Tertiary Tethys and neotectonics

in the Isparta Angle. Geol. J. 38, 195–235.

Robertson, A.H.F., Unlugenc, U., Inan, N., Tasli, K., 2004a. The

Misis–Andirin complex: mid-tertiary subduction/accretion and

melange formation related to closure and collision of the South-

Tethys in S Turkey. J. Asian Earth Sci. 22, 413–453.

Robertson, A.H.F., Ustafmer, T., Pickett, E., Collins, A., Andrew,

T., Dixon, J.E., 2004b. Testing models of Late Palaeozoic–Early

Mesozoic orogeny in W Turkey: support for an evolving open-

Tethys model. J. Geol. Soc. (Lond) 161, 501–511.

Xafak, U., Kelling, G., Gokcen, N., Gurbuz, K., 2004. Mid-

Cenozoic succession and evolution of the Mut Basin, southern

Turkey and its regional significance. Sediment. Geol. 173,

121–150. this issue.

Satur, N., Kelling, G., Cronin, B., Hurst, A., Gurbuz, K., 2004.

Sedimentary architecture of a canyon-style fairway feeding a

deep-water clastic system, the Miocene Cingoz Formation,

southern Turkey: significance for reservoir characterisation and

modelling. Sediment. Geol. 173, 91–119. this issue.

Sengfr, A.M.C., Gfrqr, N., Sarfglq, F., 1985. Strike-slip faulting

and related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape. Soc.

Econ. Mineral. Paleont., Spec. Publ. 37, 227–264.

Sengfr, A.M.C., Yilmaz, Y., 1981. Tethyan evolution of Turkey: a

plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics 75, 81–241.

Seyitoglu, G., Scott, B.C., Rundle, C.C., 1992. Timing of Cenozoic

extensional tectonics in west Turkey. J. Geol. Soc., (Lond) 149,

533–538.

Stampfli, G.M., Borel, G.D., 2002. A plate tectonic model for the

palaeozoic and mesozoic constrained by dynamic plate bounda-

ries and restored synthetic oceanic isochrones. Earth Planet. Sci.

Lett. 169, 17–33.

Williams, G.D., Unlqgenc, U.C., Kelling, G., Demirkol, C., 1995.

Tectonic controls on stratigraphic evolution of the Adana Basin.

J. Geol. Soc. (Lond) 152, 873–882.

Yalcin, M.N., Gfrqr, N., 1984. Sedimentological evolution of the

Adana Basin. In: Tekeli, O., Gfncqoglq, M.C. (Eds.), Geology

of the Taurus Belt, Proc.. , pp. 165–172.

YetiY, C., Kelling, G., Gfkcen, N.S., Baroz, F., 1995. A revised

stratigraphic framework for the later Cenozoic sequences in the

Mediterranean region. Geol. Rundsch. 84, 794–812.

Editorial 13

YVlmaz, Y., Genc, S.C., Gqrer, F., Bozcu, M., YVlmaz, H., Karacik,

Z., Altunkaynak, I., Elmas, A., 2000. When did the Western

Anatolian grabens begin to develop. In: Bozkurt, E., Win-

chester, J.A., Piper, J.D.A. (Eds.), Tectonics and Magmatism in

Turkey and the Surrounding Area, Geol. Soc. London, Spec.

Publ., vol. 173, pp. 353–384.

Gilbert Kelling

School of Earth Sciences and Geography,

Keele University, Staffs. ST5 5BG, UK

E-mail address: g.kelling@esci.keele.ac.uk.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1782 583177;

fax: +44 1782 715261.

Alastair Robertson

School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh,

West Mains Rd., Edinburgh, EH9 3JW, UK

Frans Van Buchem

Institute Francais du Petrole, 1-4 Ave. de Bois-Preau,

92506 Rueil Malmaison, Cedex, France

1 March 2004