Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences (Turkish J. Earth Sci.), Vol. 13, 2004, pp. 215-229. Copyright ©TÜB‹TAK

215

Autochthonous Upper Permian (Midian) Carbonatesin the Western Sakarya Composite Terrane, Geyve Area,

Turkey: Preliminary Data

NECAT‹ TURHAN1, CENG‹Z OKUYUCU1 & M. CEMAL GÖNCÜO⁄LU2

1 Department of Geological Research, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA),TR-06520 Ankara, Turkey

2 Department of Geological Engineering, Middle East Technical University,TR-06531 Ankara, Turkey (e-mail: mcgoncu@metu.edu.tr)

Abstract: Permian limestones occur widely within the clastic units of the “Karakaya Complex” and are interpretedas allochthonous bodies or olistoliths. In the Kadirler area to the south of Geyve, however, Upper Permian (Midian)quartz sandstones and carbonates with a rich foraminifer fauna disconformably overlie a crystalline basementcomplex. This basement complex comprises metaclastic rocks, recrystallised limestones, metacherts, andmetadiabases, and is intruded by granodiorites. The overlying basal conglomerates and quartzitic sandstones aredominated by pebbles from the basement complex and are followed upward by medium- to thick-beddeddolomites, dolomitic limestones and limestones.

The foraminiferal assemblage with Neoschwagerina haydeni Dutkevitch and Khabakov, Neoschwagerina ex. gr.ventricosa Skinner, Charliella rossae Alt›ner and Özkan-Alt›ner, Hemigordiopsis renzi Reichel, Yabeina sp.,Pseudokahlerina sp. and Kahlerina sp. in these carbonates is indicative of deposition in a shelf-lagoon during theMidian stage of the Late Permian.

This new finding constitutes further support for models that suggest a composite character for the SakaryaTerrane, and that the “Karakaya basin” in NW Anatolia opened above a Variscan-consolidated crustal basement andits Permian platform, whence the limestone olistoliths of the “Karakaya Complex” were mainly derived. Moreover,the Midian transgression and the foraminiferal assemblage in the studied successions are typical features of thenorthern Tauride-Anatolide Platform, indicating that the Sakarya Composite Terrane was attached to the latterprior to the opening of the ‹zmir-Ankara branch of Neotethys.

Key Words: Karakaya Complex, basement, autochthon, limestone, Upper Permian

Sakarya Kompozit Birli¤i Bat›s›nda (Geyve, Türkiye) Otokton Üst Permiyen(Midiyen) Karbonatlar›: Ön Bulgular

Özet: Permiyen yafll› kireçtafllar› “Karakaya Kompleksi”nin k›r›nt›l› birimleri içinde yayg›n olarak gözlenirler veallokton kütleler veya olistolitler olarak yorumlan›rlar. Ancak, Geyve’nin güneyinde, Kadirler yöresindeforaminiferce zengin kumtafllar› ve kireçtafllar› metamorfik bir temel üzerinde uyumsuz olarak yer almaktad›r.Metamorfik temel; metak›r›nt›l› kayalar, rekristalize kireçtafllar›, metaçörtler ve metadiyabazlardan oluflur ve birgranodiyorit kütlesi taraf›ndan kesilmifltir. Bu temel üzerinde yer alan taban konglomeras› ve kuvarsitik kumtafllar›metamorfik temelden türeme çak›llar içerir ve üste do¤ru orta-kal›n tabakal› dolomitler, dolomitik kireçtafllar› vekireçtafllar›na geçifllidir.

Karbonat kayalar›n›n kapsad›¤› foraminifer toplulu¤u (Neoschwagerina haydeni Dutkevitch and Khabakov,Neoschwagerina ex. gr. ventricosa Skinner, Charliella rossae Alt›ner and Özkan-Alt›ner, Hemigordiopsis renziReichel, Yabeina sp., Pseudokahlerina sp. ve Kahlerina sp.), bu birimin Midiyen s›ras›nda s›¤ denizel bir ortamda(flelf lagünü) çökeldi¤ini gösterir.

Bu bulgu, “Sakarya Tektonik Birli¤inin” kompozit nitelikte oldu¤u, Karakaya baseni'nin Permiyen platformkarbonatlar› ile örtülü bir Varisken k›tasal kabuk parças› üzerinde aç›ld›¤› ve içinde yer alan kireçtafl› olistolitlerininbu platformdan kaynakland›¤› hususundaki görüflleri desteklemektedir. ‹ncelenen alandaki belirgin Midiyentransgresyonu ve foraminifer toplulu¤u Toroslar›n kuzey kesimi ile özdefl nitelikte olup, Sakarya ve Torid-Anatolidtektonik birliklerinin Neotetis’in ‹zmir-Ankara kolu aç›lana de¤in bitiflik olduklar›na iflaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Karakaya Kompleksi, otokton, temel, kireçtafl›, Üst Permiyen

Introduction

One of the most debated issues concerning the geologyof NW Turkey is the geological evolution of the KarakayaComplex in NW Anatolia. The term “Karakaya” wasinitially introduced by Bingöl (1968) as the “KarakayaSeries”, for a slightly metamorphic succession atKarakaya Hill to the south of Beyobas› Village in theEdremit area, NW Anatolia. Since then, the name hasbeen applied by different authors to a wide range ofrock units in different parts of northwestern andnorthern Anatolia (Figure 1a). Tekeli (1981) proposedthat this partly metamorphic and extremely tectonisedassemblage represents the remnants of the LatePalaeozoic–Early Mesozoic Palaeotethys of fiengör(1979) (for a brief review see Okay et al. 1996; Okay &Göncüo¤lu 2002).

The controversy regarding the overall geodynamicevolution also includes the crystalline “basement rocks” ofthe Karakaya Complex, their palaeogeographic location,age and contact relations with the Permo–Triassic non-to-slightly metamorphic sedimentary and volcanic rocks.Tekeli (1981)’s original suggestion was that the“metamorphics at the base” were “coeval with theKarakaya mélange and, hence, of Late Palaeozoic–Early

Mesozoic age”. With some differences in the timing of theevents, fiengör et al. (1984), Göncüo¤lu et al. (1987),Okay et al. (1991) and, Y›lmaz et al. (1995) have notedthat the basement rocks are characterised by a Variscan-consolidated crystalline complex (Sakarya basement) andits Upper Palaeozoic carbonate cover. The latterrepresents the northern margin of the GondwananTauride-Anatolide unit, upon which the Triassic Karakayaclastic rocks formed in a marginal basin, above thesouthward-subducting Palaeotethyan oceanic lithosphere(Figure 2a). Okay et al. (1996) and Leven & Okay (1996)proposed a completely different scenario, in which theSakarya basement was attached to the Laurasian marginnext to the ‹stanbul Unit. All the Triassic Karakaya units(Nilüfer: Early–Middle Triassic fore-arc, Çal: island arc ormature seamount with Permo–Triassic carbonateplatform, Hodul and Orhanlar: Middle–Late Triassicaccretionary complexes, Denizgören: Triassic ophiolites)were formed during the closure of the Palaeotethys. ThePermian carbonates (including the Ezine Unit) werederived from a Tauride-Anatolide-type continental sliver,which was rifted from the latter by back-arc spreading(Figure 2b) resulting in the opening of the ‹zmir-Ankarabranch of Neotethys.

AUTOCHTHONOUS MIDIAN CARBONATES IN THE WESTERN SAKARYA COMPOSITE TERRANE

216

contactnormalfault

reversefault

foliation

Kayýplar

Kadirler

Cumalý

(Aragat)

Göçük D.Muttalip

Karaoluk T.

Asarkaya T.Karþýköy

Bahaiye

(Esenköy)

Pazarkaya T.

Çinetaþý T.

Koca D.

Sindir

D.

Ka

ba

klý D

.

a

EXPLANATIONS

post-Triassic cover

recrystallized limestone andpillow basalts

Derbent Limestone

arkosic sandstones

Canbazkaya Formation

granodiorite

black recrystallized limestones

micaschists, metacherts,metarhyolites (undifferentiated)

pre

-Per

mia

nU

.P

erm

ian

0 500 1000 m

U.

Per

mia

n-

Tri

assi

c

NB

Yukarýyayla

bedding

Figure 3a

Figure 3b

A

ÝZMÝR

ÝSTANBUL

BLACK SEA

ANKARA

N

Study Area(Figure 1b)

Sakarya Composite Terrane

Alýplar

0 100 km

Figure 1. (a) Distribution of the Sakarya Composite Terrane in NW Anatolia and (b) the geological map of the study area with and the locations of

the studied sections.

N. TURHAN ET AL.

217

V

V

V

V V

V

V

V

V

V V

V

Den

izgö

ren

ophi

olite

Early Triassic

KarakayaRift

Pindos Ýzmir-Ankara Rift

Okay et al. 1991

a

V

VV V V

bMoesia

StranjaZone

Ýstanbul Zone

Sakarya Zone

P A L E O - T E T H Y S

(future NeotethyanVardar ocean)

Volcanic arc

Nilüfer Unit

Okay et al. 1996ANATOLIDE - TAURIDE BLOCK

V

L. Permian

back-arc rifting

Okay 2000

fÇal Unit

Orhanlar GreywackeNilüfer oceanic plateau

(a) Mid Triassic

S NLaurasian margin

e

Altýner et al. 2000?

DEPOSITIONALAREA OF

UPPER PERMIANBLOCKS OF

KARAKAYA UNITS

BOLKAR DAÐI

NORTHERN BIOFACIESBELT

SOUTHERN BIOFACIESBELT

ALADAÐGEYÝK DAÐIANTALYA orALANYA ?

BEYÞEHÝR -AKSEKÝ -

HADIM HIGH BASEMENT OF FUTURESAKARYA CONTINENT

NorthSouth

ORDOVICIAN DEVONIAN CARBONIFEROUS UPPER PERMIANLOWER PERMIAN

(Hercynian Orogen)

??

?

Permian ?PRE-

LATE PERMIAN

EURASIA

Çanðaldað arcor equivalent

subduction�jamming�

carbonate platforms onGondwanan continental slivers

site of new subduction zone

Late Permian

Early TriasicKarakaya Complex

MODEL 2

rifting

(i.e., Chios, Karaburun)

ophiolite formation ophiolite formationKarakaya Complex

GONDWANA

N S

MODEL 1

Pickett & Robertson 1996

c

d

Göncüoðlu et al. 2000a

rifting along KBB deposition of continental clastics

uplift

opening of KarakayaBasin s.s.Early Triassic

closure of Paleotethys

Hercynian consolidated basement

Tauride-Anatolide Platformdeposition of the platform carbonatesFuture Sakarya Microcontinent

PaleotethysLate Permian

Figure 2. Cartoons of previously suggested geodynamic models for the evolution of the Karakayaunits. For the details concerning the cartoons, see text.

Pickett & Robertson (1996)’s model involves theclosure of the Palaeotethys by south and northwardsubduction (Figure 2c). They considered the KarakayaComplex as a Palaeotethyan accretionary complex withTriassic ophiolites (Denizgören Ophiolite), seamounts(Nilüfer Unit), trench sequences (Ortaoba Unit) abyssal-plain deposits (Kalabak Unit) and Permian carbonateplatforms on Gondwanan continental slivers with intra-platform rifts (Çal Unit).

Göncüo¤lu et al. (1997, 2000c) pointed out that thepre-Liassic “Karakaya Complex” within the Alpine Sakaryaunit in northern Turkey actually includes remnants ofVariscan basement, a Triassic rift-complex formed aboveits Permian cover, as well as thrust slices of thePalaeotethyan orogenic complex (Figure 2d). It was alsoinvolved in the Alpine orogenic cycle by formation of aLiassic–Lower Cretaceous carbonate platform andaffected by Alpine deformation due to the closure ofNeotethyan oceanic branches (Intra-Pontide and ‹zmir-Ankara oceans) at the end of Cretaceous; hence it shouldbe considered a “composite terrane” (Sakarya CompositeTerrane, Göncüo¤lu et al. 1997).

Alt›ner et al. (2000), in their Late Permianreconstruction, adopted a part of Okay et al. (1996)’smodel and separated the Tauride-Anatolide carbonateplatform from the Sakarya basement by a suspect basin(Figure 2e). However, they confirmed the rift characterof the Karakaya basin (e.g., Alt›ner & Koçyi¤it 1993) andthe derivation of Permian limestone blocks from thenorthern part of the Tauride-Anatolide platform(Northern Facies Belt, Alt›ner et al. 2000). Okay (2000)proposed a new model suggesting that Palaeotethys wasconsumed by northward subduction beneath theLaurasian margin, giving way to the formation ofMiddle–Late Triassic accretionary complexes (Çal andOrhanlar units). In this model, the Nilüfer Unit representsa huge oceanic plateau (Figure 2f), and the Hodul Unitformed as a clastic wedge above the subduction-accretionary complexes and was sourced from theEurasian Variscan basement. This model provides nodefinitive answer regarding the source area of thePermian carbonate blocks, but does not exclude theirderivation from the north (e.g., northern margin ofeastern Palaeotethys in Afghanistan, etc.).

As clearly seen in this brief review of differenthypotheses, one of the critical questions regarding thegeological evolution is whether there is “evidence for aGondwana continental basement, which must have

underlain the Permo–Carboniferous limestones in theSakarya Zone” as clearly formulated by Okay (2000).

In this study, we will first briefly summarise theprevious data on the basement rocks of the Karakaya unitand their relations with Permian limestones. Field andpalaeontological data from the Geyve area will then bepresented and the evolution of the “Karakaya Complex”discussed.

Review of Previous Interpretations

According to the original description of Bingöl (1968),the Karakaya unit includes in its type locality quartzites,feldspathic sandstone, metaspilite and metamorphosedspilitic basalts that disconformably overlie the crystallinerocks of the “Kazdag Massif” on the Biga Peninsula. Thename “Karakaya Formation” was applied by Bingöl et al.(1973) to include the “detrital unit with Permianolistoliths” and the “spilites with Permian olistoliths”.

On the Yeniflehir-Geyve ridge, Saner (1977) describeda metamorphic basement with mica schists, which showsgradational contacts to the overlying metasandstones(Canbazkaya Formation). They are followed by thick-bedded sandstones and grade into recrystallisedlimestones (Derbent Limestone). The transitional zone ischaracterised by an alternation of fossiliferous marls andlimestones. The fossil list given for this transition zone, aswell as for the overlying limestones, suggests an intervalcovering Murgabian–Midian (re-evaluation of the presentauthors) stages of the Late Permian.

Based on their field observations in Bergama-Kozakarea, Akyürek & Soysal (1983) suggested the name“Halila¤a Group” for a part of the “Karakaya Formation”,which is tectonically underlain by the Upper Permianclastic rocks and carbonates of the Çamoba Formation. Ithas no stratigraphic contacts with the KarakayaFormation and its equivalents. However, blocks of theÇamoba-type limestones are abundant in the slightlymetamorphic clastic rocks of the Lower Triassic K›n›kFormation of the Halila¤a Group.

The basement of the Karakaya unit in the same areawas assigned by Kaya et al. (1986) to the “low gradegreenschist facies metamorphic unit” or “Madrada¤Formation”, upon which the uppermost Middle to UpperTriassic D›flkaya Formation rests unconformably. TheD›flkaya Formation then had been attributed to the“Hodul Unit” and the Madrada¤ Formation to the “NilüferUnit” by Okay et al. (1991).

AUTOCHTHONOUS MIDIAN CARBONATES IN THE WESTERN SAKARYA COMPOSITE TERRANE

218

In a series of studies, Okay and his co-workers (Okayet al. 1991, 1996; Okay & Siyako 1993; Okay & Mostler1994; Leven & Okay 1996) proposed a new structuralclassification for the main tectono-stratigraphic units inNW Anatolia (Gelibolu, Ezine, Ayvac›k-Karabiga andSakarya zones). Of these, only the Ezine and Sakaryazones are characterised by the presence of Karakaya-typeUpper Palaeozoic–Lower Mesozoic rocks and their pre-Karakaya basement.

In the Karada¤ Unit of the Ezine Zone, the pre-Karakaya basement is characterised by slightlymetamorphic Permo–Carboniferous clastic rocks thatgrade into massive recrystallised limestones of LatePermian age. They are followed by syn-orogenic clasticrocks of latest Permian to Early Triassic age and finallytectonically overlain by the Palaeotethyan DenizgörenOphiolite (Okay et al. 1991; later shown to be emplacedin Aptian, Okay et al. 1996). The Çaml›ca mica schist unit,another pre-Karakaya tectonic unit within this zone, isrepresented by medium-grade metaclastic rocks with feweclogitic metabasite and marble interlayers.

In the pre–Jurassic basement of the Sakarya Zone,Okay and his co-workers proposed the presence of threemain tectono-stratigraphic units that were juxtaposedduring the Late Triassic: (a) the pre-Karakaya unitsincluding the Kalabak Formation and the Çaml›kMetagranodiorite; (b) the Kazda¤ Group; and (c) theKarakaya Complex. The Kalabak Formation consists ofphyllites, quartzofeldspathic schists and a-few-meters-thick scarce marble and green metabasite horizons(Okay et al. 1991). The phyllites were intruded by theÇaml›k Metagranodiorite, which yielded a mean singlezircon Pb/Pb age of 399 ± 13 Ma. The type locality ofthe Çaml›k Metagranodiorite in the vicinity of Çaml›kVillage (N of Havran) is one of the few localities wherethere is a consensus concerning a disconformablestratigraphic contact with the pre-Karakaya units andthe overlying “Karakaya Complex” (Hodul Unit, Okay etal. 1991; Çal Unit, Pickett & Robertson 1996). Furtherareas with disconformable contacts between the pre-Karakaya basement and Karakaya-type Upper Triassicsediments (units A, B and E) are given in Alt›ner et al.(2000).

To summarise, apart from the studies of Saner(1977, 1978), Göncüo¤lu et al. (1987) and Y. Y›lmazand his co-workers (e.g., Y›lmaz 1990; Y›lmaz et al.1995; Genç & Y›lmaz 1995), there is almost a consensus

concerning the allochthonous character of the Permianlimestones within the Karakaya unit. In the study of Saner(1977), the Upper Permian clastic rocks and thelimestones are mentioned to be transitional with theunderlying crystalline rocks. Göncüo¤lu et al. (1987)reported for the first time Lower Permian limestones,disconformably overlying the crystalline basement, whichin turn are overlain by Karakaya-type clastic rocks. Inseveral studies, Y. Y›lmaz and his co-workers brieflynoticed that the pre–Carboniferous crystalline basementof the Sakarya unit is disconformably overlain byCarboniferous–Permian clastic rocks and limestones,which were eroded and incorporated into the Triassicassemblages (Kendirli and Abadiye formations of Genç &Y›lmaz 1995) by rifting of the Sakarya basement duringthe Early Triassic. Unfortunately, they neither providedetailed stratigraphic sections nor palaeontologicalevidence to support this very critical view.

Geological Framework

The study area is located on the eastern part of the E–W-trending Yeniflehir-Geyve ridge to the south of Geyve(Figure 1) in NW Anatolia. Towards the north, the ridgeis bounded by the Geyve Basin, the Karamurat andKaraçay faults of the southern strand of the NorthAnatolian Fault Zone (Koçyi¤it 1988), and the Tarakl›-Orhaneli Tertiary Basin (Saner 1978) to the south. Onboth margins of the ridge, an Upper Cretaceous–LowerTertiary succession (Gölpazar› Group) unconformablyoverlies a complex consisting of metamorphic rocks andgranitoids, Permian limestones, Karakaya-typesedimentary and volcano-sedimentary successions andtheir Liassic cover (Saner 1977). The Jurassic limestoneswere not encountered in the study area, and theCampanian–Maastrichtian pelagic limestones of theVezirhan Formation of the Gölpazar› Group are in directcontact with the pre–Liassic rock units (Figure 1b).

The rock units in this area belong to the SakaryaComposite Terrane (Figure 1a) of Göncüo¤lu et al.(1997). The pre-Liassic rocks encountered in the studyarea are informally grouped as the pre–Permiancrystalline basement, the Canbazkaya and DerbentLimestone formations of Permian age, and the tectonicpackages of the Karakaya units, including the informal“arkosic sandstone unit” and the “pillow basalt-limestoneassociation” (Figure 3a, b).

N. TURHAN ET AL.

219

Pre-Permian Crystalline Basement

The pre-Permian crystalline basement crops out to theSE and NW of the study area (Figure 1b) and consists ofmetamorphic rocks, recrystallised limestones andintrusive felsic igneous rocks. The unit is highlytectonised, so that no continuous successions can beobserved. Tectonic slices with relatively preservedinternal parts include metasedimentary successions with

slates, phyllites, metasandstones, black quartz schists,muscovite-biotite schists and black limestones,alternating with felsic metatuffs and metarhyolites. Theslates and phyllites are grey to brown and arecharacterised by very fine-grained muscovite + albite +graphite as the main metamorphic paragenesis.Metasandstones are characterised by clasts of quartzand less abundant feldspar. The matrix is replaced byfine-grained sericite and biotite. Black quartz schists

AUTOCHTHONOUS MIDIAN CARBONATES IN THE WESTERN SAKARYA COMPOSITE TERRANE

220

SE NW

unco

nfo

rmit

y

(a) southwest of Çinetaþý Tepe

C13a

C13b

C13cC13d

C13e

Grey limestone

Dark greydolomitic limestone

MetagaranitePink mudstone

(Late Cretaceous-Paleocen)

Not to scale

slopedebris

(b) northwest of Kadirler Village

dis

confo

rmit

y

C13a

C13b

C13cC13d

C13e

grey limestone

dark greydolomitic limestone

yellow quartzsandstone

metagranitepink mudstone

metamorphic rocks

slopedebris

(Late Cretaceous-Palaeocene)

unco

nfo

rmit

y

black dolomiticlimestone

T3-16grey limestone

dolomiticlimestone

yellowish grey sandstoneand conglomerates

metagranitepink mudstonemetamorphic rocks(Late Cretaceous-Palaeocene)

S N

1718

1920

2122

23242526

2728

Not to scale

dis

confo

rmit

ycontactmetamorphic zone

contactmetamorphic zone

Figure 3. Measured cross-sections of Upper Permian successions, in the SW of Çinetaflı tepe (a) and NW of Kadirler village (b).

N. TURHAN ET AL.

221

occur as disrupted bands up to 2 m thick, and comprisevery fine-grained and strained quartz-grains and opaqueminerals. They include elongated ghosts of radiolarians,indicating a radiolarian chert origin. Muscovite-biotiteschists are characterised by lepidoblastic biotite andmuscovite, and also completely altered porphyroblastsof chloritoid and garnet. Limestones within thebasement are mainly observed along the forest track tothe south of Asarkaya Tepe (Figure 1b). They are black,fine- to medium-bedded, and occur as 3–5-m-thickbands, which alternate with the surrounding metapelitesand metacherts. Microscopically, these limestones aremade up of fine-grained calcite and are rich inradiolarians. Petrographically, the limestonecorresponds to the SFB 1 to 3 of the Wilson’s (1975)Standard Facies Belts (SBF) classification, indicative of adeep shelf margin or basin margin according to Wilson’s(1975) wide belts.

Metamorphosed felsic rocks within this succession areeither interbedded with the metasediments or displaycross-cutting relations. Both types are foliated andcharacterised by preserved phenocrysts of corrodedquartz and feldspar, such that a rhyolitic protolith ispresumed. The metamorphic succession is cut by metre-scale, weakly foliated diabase dikes. The diabase dikescomprise mainly relict clinopyroxene, plagioclase andopaque minerals. The metamorphic mineral assemblage ischlorite+albite, and there is no indication of blueschist-facies metamorphism in the study area as mentioned byMTA (1978).

SE and NW of the study area (Figures 1b & 3),granitoids with well-preserved primary contacts with themetamorphic succession are exposed. The granitoid tothe N of Kadirler is the larger body and extends fromKay›plar village to Asarkaya Tepe. The granitoid bodyaround Çinetafl› Tepe occurs as discontinuous stocks andis highly mylonitic.

Macroscopically, the granitoid is holocrystalline-porphyritic, moderately altered and medium grained. Onthe basis of its modal composition, it is a granodioritewith plagioclase, K-feldspar, brown biotite, pale-greenhornblende and clinopyroxene as the main mafic phases.An unusual feature is the presence of pinitized cordierite,typically enclosed in biotite phenocrysts. At the contact ofthe granodiorite with the slates and phyllites, a variablythick contact metamorphic zone with spotted schists ispresent.

Metasedimentary basement rocks have already beendescribed by various authors in NW Anatolia (e.g.,Kalabak formation in Edremit and Havran, Okay et al.1991; Yaz›l› metamorphite in the ‹negöl area, Genç1993). However, the studied metaclastic succession withbands of black chert and limestone are quite similar to themetasedimentary rocks of the Karada¤ Unit in the Ezinearea (authors’ own observations and Okay et al. 1991).Regarding its stratigraphic relation with the overlyingPermian rocks (Göncüo¤lu et al. 1987), a pre-EarlyPermian age has been tentatively assigned to thebasement rocks. A very similar rock-association (Hal›c›Group) is present in the Konya area (Özcan et al. 1988;Göncüo¤lu et al. 2000b). The Hal›c› Group in the Konyaarea is Visean in age and has been interpreted as aVariscan back-arc development along the margin of theTauride-Anatolide platform.

Permian Rocks

The Upper Permian rocks which have been studied indetail are represented by the Canbazkaya Formation andDerbent Limestone (Figure 4). The formation nameswere initially proposed by Saner (1977) and Eroskay(1965), respectively.

The Canbazkaya Formation disconformably rests onthe crystalline rocks of the pre–Lower Permian basement.The contact relations are well exposed along the smallvalley to the north of Kadirler and to the southwest ofÇinetafl› Tepe (Figures 1 & 3). At the former locality, theCanbazkaya Formation starts with a discontinuousyellowish-grey conglomerate. The pebbles range in sizefrom 0.5 to 4 cm, and include moderately rounded rockfragments of mylonitic granodiorite, metarhyolite, pelitichornfels (contact metamorphic slate), muscovite schist,metachert, as well as clasts of strained quartz, muscovite,plagioclase, tourmaline and zircon. The clayey matrix isreplaced by very fine-grained sericite. This unit gradesinto thick-bedded to massive yellowish-grey quartziticsandstones and quartzite. The upper part of the quartziticsandstones is grey and carbonate-cemented. A two-m-thick band of black, medium-to-thick-bedded, sandydolomite with undetermined algae represents thetransitional zone toward the overlying Derbent Limestone(Figure 4). The sandstones of the Canbazkaya Formationdo not contain any fossils.

The Derbent Limestone in both of the studiedlocations (Figures 5 & b) starts with an alternation ofblack sandy dolomites and carbonate-cemented quartzsandstones and grades into a 40-m-thick carbonatesuccession. The lower half of the succession is made up ofmedium- to thick-bedded grey limestones. Theselimestones are characterised by bioclastic grainstone andwackestone with Hemigordius, Hemigordiopsis,fusulinids and ostracods. The following eight metersinclude black and massive dolomites and dolomiticlimestones that grade into grey, thick-bedded limestones.The dolomitic middle part is represented by bioclasticgrainstone and wackestone with fusulinid and smallforaminifera. The thick-bedded limestones in the upperpart are bioclastic grainstone with Hemigordius,Hemigordiopsis and fusulinids. The fossil content of theDerbent Limestone is given in Figures 5a and b.

The foraminiferal assemblage covers the Murgabianand Midian stages of the Upper Permian as a whole.However, Neoschwagerina haydeni Dutkevitch andKhabakov, Neoschwagerina ex. gr. ventricosa Skinner,Charliella rossae Alt›ner and Özkan-Alt›ner,Hemigordiopsis renzi Reichel, Yabeina sp.,Pseudokahlerina sp. and Kahlerina sp. are indicative ofthe Midian.

A similar assemblage was described by Alt›ner et al.(2000) from the Northern Taurides and ascribed to adistinct “Northern Facies Belt”. The characteristicforaminiferal taxa of the Midian stage of the NorthernBiofacies Belts are as follows: Yabeina, Sumatrinalongissima, Sumatrina annae, Sumatrina fusiformis,Afghanella sumatrinaeformis, Neoschwagerinaventricosa, Kahlerina and Dunbarula (Alt›ner et al. 2000).

AUTOCHTHONOUS MIDIAN CARBONATES IN THE WESTERN SAKARYA COMPOSITE TERRANE

222

medium-bedded, black recrystallized limestonewith radiolaria

angular unconformity

yellowish grey sandstoneblack dolomitic limestone with algae

medium-thick bedded grey limestone

massive, occasionally brecciatedblack dolomitic limestone

medium-thick bedded grey limestone

angular unconformity

pink mudstone

granodiorite

Upper Palaeozoic

Upper Permian(Midian)

Upper Cretaceous-Palaeocene

Not to scale

conglomerate with granodiorite and

yellowish grey slate, metatuff,dark grey metachert, graphite schist,quartz-mica schist

metamorphic pebbles

Figure 4. Generalised columnar section of the Upper Permian successions on thein Yeniflehir-Geyve ridge.

N. TURHAN ET AL.

223

Chro

no-

stra

tigra

phy

Form

atio

n

Sam

ple

s

Lithology Microfacies and MicrofossilsM

ID

IA

N

DE

RB

EN

TL

IM

ES

TO

NE

0

5 m

T3-16

T3-17

T3-19

T3-20

T3-21

T3-22

T3-23

T3-24

T3-18

T3-25

T3-26

T3-27

T3-28

bioclastic wackestone(Globivalvulina graeca HemigordiusPachyphloia Eotuberitina LangellaNankinella Pseudovermiporella

, spp.,sp., sp., sp.,

sp., sp.)

bioclastic grainstone(Eotuberitina ClimacamminaLangella Geinitzina Globivalvulina

sp., sp.,sp., sp., sp.

Tuberitina sp.,)

bioclastic wackestone(Geinitzina Hemigordius Mizziasp., sp., sp.)

bioclastic grainstone(Yabeina Afghanella PseudokahlerinaKahlerina Schubertella LangellaGeinitzina Dagmarita Globivalvulina

sp., sp., sp.,sp., sp., sp.,sp., sp., sp.)

bioclastic grainstone(Neoschwagerina ventricasaPseudokahlerina discoidalis, Neoendothyra reicheliCharliella rossae Globivalvulina graeca YabeinaVerbeekina Langella DagmaritaGlobivalvulina Pseudovermiporella

ex. gr. ,aff. ,?, , sp.,

sp., sp., sp.,sp., sp.)

bioclastic grainstone(Neoschwagerina Verbeekina DunbarulaRectostipulina

spp., sp., sp.,sp., )Globivalvulina Schubertellasp., sp.

bioclastic grainstone(Globivalvulina vonderschitti,Langella Dagmarita Ungdarella

ex. gr.sp., sp., sp.

Verbeekina sp.,)

bioclastic grainstone(Neoschwagerina haydeni,

Globivalvulina sp.)Yabeina Afghanella

Verbeekina Pseudofusulinasp., sp.,

sp., sp.,

bioclastic grainstone(Neoschwagerina Yabeina Lepidolinasp., sp., ? sp. )

bioclastic wackestone(Globivalvulina graeca Globivalvulina vonderschmitti,Earlandia Dagmarita Permocalculus

,sp., sp., sp.)

bioclastic wackestone( Pseudokahlerina

Geinitzina Globivalvulinasp.,

sp., sp.Neoschwagerina

Verbeekinasp.,

sp., )

bioclastic grainstone(Neoschwagerina Verbeekina Yabeinasp., sp., sp.,Dagmarita Geinitzinasp., sp.)

bioclastic grainstone(Neoendothyra reicheli

EotuberitinaPachyphloia Geinitzina HemigordiusEarlandia Globivalvulina TetrataxisPseudovermiporella

ex. gr. ,sp.,

sp., sp., sp.,sp., sp., sp.,

sp.)

NeoschwagerinaDunbarula Dagmarita

sp.,sp., sp.,

Figure 5. Petrography and fossil contents of the studied Upper Permian successions, in NW of Kadirler village and SW of

Çinetaflı tepe.

The overall petrographic evaluation of the DerbentLimestone in both studied sections indicates that depositionof the carbonates corresponds to the SFB 7-8 of Wilson’s(1975) SFB classification and indicative of a shelf lagoon(with open circulation), and shelf and tidal flats (withrestricted circulation) of Wilson’s (1975) wide belts.

The successive transition from conglomeratic facies tosandstones, sandy dolomites and limestones is indicativeof transgressive deposition in a shallow-marineenvironment. The similarity between ages of the massivelimestones mentioned in this study and the fossil content(Dagmarita chanakchiensis Reitlinger, Neoendothyrareicheli Reitlinger, Neoschwagerina sp., Yabeina sp.,Verbeekina sp., Afghanella sp.) of the transitional zonebetween the Canbazkaya and Derbent formationsreported by Saner (1977) are indicative of in situdeposition of the Derbent Limestones and the underlyingclastic rocks of the Canbazkaya Formation. Accordingly,the possibility of interpreting the studied limestones asallochthonous blocks is excluded.

Karakaya Units

Arkosic Sandstone Unit

In the northwestern part of the study area along aNE–SW-trending zone (Figure 1b), an internallydisrupted unit with predominant arkoses and arkosicsandstones crops out. The arkosic sandstones includebands and lenses of feldspathic siltstone, volcanic-volcaniclastic successions, conglomerates and very scarcebands of radiolarian cherts (Göncüo¤lu et al. 2004). Theunit is bounded toward the south by a normal fault; hencethe primary relation of the unit with the pre-Permianbasement or the autochthonous Permian cover is notclear. To the south of Pazarkaya and Karaoluk hills(Figure 1b), the unit is overthrust by the “pillow basalt-limestone unit”. As a whole, the unit is extremelydisrupted such that the internal stratigraphy and theprimary relations of the more-or-less comprehensivelithological packages cannot be identified. Theselithological packages include several tens-of-metres-thickdebris-flow conglomerates as well as thin-bedded, grey topink, cherty, micritic limestones associated with basalticlava flows. This unit corresponds to the Avdanc›kformation of Genç et al. (1986) or to the Kendirliformation of Koçyi¤it et al. (1991, in Alt›ner & Koçyi¤it1993). Considering the rock types and their structural

relationships, this unit may correspond to the Hodul Unitof Okay et al. (1991).

The Pillow Basalt-Limestone Association

The pillow basalt-limestone association crops out as aseparate thrust slice to the north of the study areacovering the Pazarkaya, Karaoluk and Asarkaya hills, andas klippen around Çinetafl› Tepe (Figure 1b). The unitrests on the arkosic sandstone unit with a tectoniccontact. The clastic rocks at the contact are extremelybrecciated and are stained by Fe-oxides. The characteristicfeature of this unit is the interfingering of recrystallised,white, algal-pisolitic shallow-marine limestones and pillowlavas, indicative of contemporaneous formation.

The pillow basalt-limestone association resembles theAbadiye formation of Genç et al. (1986), the Bahçecikformation of Koçyi¤it et al. (1991, in Alt›ner & Koçyi¤it1993) and the Ortaçaltepe limestone of Göncüo¤lu et al.(1996). Similar rock associations were considered byOkay et al. (1991) to be a part of the Çal Unit. A MiddleTriassic age was assigned to the limestones on the basisof their foraminifera and conodont contents (e.g., Genç etal. 1986).

Discussion

With few exceptions (e.g., Saner 1977), Upper Permianlimestones in the Karakaya Complex are consideredallochthonous bodies, either derived from a completelyeroded Permian carbonate cover of the pre–PermianSakarya basement (e.g., Y›lmaz et al. 1995), or from theTauride-Anatolide Platform (e.g., Okay et al. 1991), oralternatively from the northern margin of Palaeotethys(e.g., Leven & Okay 1996). Each of these suggestionsrequires a different geodynamic scenario for the formationof the Karakaya Complex. Moreover, the discrepancyresulted in completely different models regarding thelocation of Palaeotethys. The first group of modelssuggests that Palaeotethys was located between theSakarya microcontinent and the Laurasian margin, and thatthe Karakaya units represent remnants of a short-livedbasin opened within the Permian platform of the pre-Permian Sakarya basement above the southward-subducting Palaeotethys (e.g., Bingöl et al. 1973; fiengör etal. 1984; Okay et al. 1991). Based on the originalsuggestion of Stampfli (1978), the second group of modelsadvocates a southerly located Palaeotethys, located

AUTOCHTHONOUS MIDIAN CARBONATES IN THE WESTERN SAKARYA COMPOSITE TERRANE

224

N. TURHAN ET AL.

225

C13b

C13c

C13a

C13d

C13e

Chro

no-

stra

tigra

phy

Form

atio

n

Sam

ple

s

Lithology Microfacies and Microfossils

bioclastic grainstone(Neoschwagerina haydeni Dunbarula tumida

KahlerinaPseudokahlerina

, ,

sp.,sp.,

Neoendothyra reicheli Hemigordiopsis renzi,Baisalina pulchra, Reichelina

Hemigordius ,Pachyphloia

,sp.,

sp.sp.)

bioclastic grainstone(Neoschwagerina Neoendothyra DunbarulaGeinitzina Pachyphloia HemigordiusTetrataxis Climacammina Eotuberitina

sp., sp., sp.,sp., sp., sp.,sp., sp., sp.)

bioclastic grainstone(Neoschwagerina haydeni,

Rectostipulina quadrata, HemigordiusClimacammina Earlandia

Eotuberitina Geinitzina GlobivalvulinaLangella Tubiphytes

ex. gr. ,sp.,

sp., sp.,sp., sp., sp.,

sp., sp.

NeoschwagerinaKahlerinaBaisalina

sp.sp.,? sp.,

)

bioclastic grainstone(Charliella rossae Globivalvulina vonderschmitti,Globivalvulina graeca Hemigordius irregulariformis

GlobivalvulinaHemigordius Hemigordiopsis

AgathamminaStaffella

,,,sp.,

sp., sp.,sp.,

sp.,

)

Baisalina pulchra Frondina permicaGeinitzina

Climacammina PachyphloiaNankinella Tubiphytes obscurusPseudovermiporella PermocalculusUngdarella

, ,sp.,

sp., sp.,sp., ex. gr. ,

sp., sp.,sp.

bioclastic grainstone(Neoschwagerina ventricasa Dunbarula tumida

HemigordiopsisClimacammina Pachyphloia EotuberitinaGlobivalvulina Tetrataxis Mizzia

ex. gr. , ,

sp.,sp., sp., sp.,sp., sp., sp.)

Neoschwagerina Kahlerina PseudokahlerinaHemigordius , Agathammina

sp., sp., sp.,sp. sp.,

MI

DI

AN

DE

RB

EN

TL

IM

ES

TO

NE

0

5 m

Figure 6. Petrography and fossil contents of the studied Upper Permian successions, in SW of Çinetaflı tepe.

AUTOCHTHONOUS MIDIAN CARBONATES IN THE WESTERN SAKARYA COMPOSITE TERRANE

226

between the Sakarya microcontinent in the north and thePerigondwanian Tauride-Anatolide Platform in the south.The Karakaya units in this model (Karakaya Complex ofTekeli 1981) represent: (a) the remnants of thisPalaeotethys and were formed by its northwardintraoceanic subduction (Okay et al. 1996; Leven & Okay1996; Okay 2000; Stampfli 2000) or, (b) remnants of amarginal basin within the Sakarya basement (Kozur 1999),formed above the northward subducting Palaeotethys.

Our confirmation of in situ Upper Permian clasticrocks and carbonates disconformably overlying the pre-Permian basement in the Geyve area supports the firstgroup of models and the presence of an Upper Permiancarbonate platform above the Sakarya basement. TheUpper Permian disconformity described in this study isprobably related to the regional Midian transgression, atypical feature of the Tethyan realm (e.g., Leven & Okay1996). It is frequently observed along the northernmargin of the Tauride-Anatolide Platform (NorthernFacies Belt of Alt›ner et al. 2000) and within the Alpinenappes (in Lycian Nappes, Graciansky 1972) which werederived from this margin. Moreover, the Midianforaminiferal assemblage in the autochthonouslimestones of the study area is not only very similar tothat reported from the northern Taurides (e.g., Alt›ner etal. 2000), but also to that described from thecontemporaneous blocks and pebbles within various rockunits of the Karakaya unit. This fact implies the followingassumptions: (1) During the Late Permian, the northernTauride-Anatolide and Sakarya units were covered by thesame extensive carbonate platform and the two unitswere still attached. This postulation (Göncüo¤lu 1989;Göncüo¤lu et al. 2000a, c) was opposed by variousauthors (e.g., Alt›ner et al. 2000). The opposition wasmainly based on the presupposition that Variscan eventswere only noted in the Sakarya unit but not in theTauride-Anatolide platform. However, the presence ofthese events, including the regional Carboniferousunconformities, ocean island-type volcanic rocks andback-arc basin formations in the Kütahya-Bolkarda¤ Beltand the Lycian Nappes, were demonstrated by Göncüo¤luet al. (1997, 2000a, b, c, 2001) and Kozur et al. (1999).These Variscan events are in some way recognised inAlt›ner et al. (2000)’s model (Figure 2e), suggestingfault-controlled basins during the deposition ofCarboniferous sediments in the northern Tauride-Anatolide platform. (2) The Upper Permian blocks withinthe Karakaya unit may well have been derived from this

autochthonous carbonate succession. If this was the case,the Karakaya basin should have opened above theVariscan Sakarya basement, with metamorphites,granitoids and Permian carbonate cover. Thisinterpretation may be supported by the presence ofgranitic pebbles and arkosic sandstones within the Çal andHodul units of the Karakaya Complex.

The source of the Lower Permian and lowermostUpper Permian limestones may also have been the locallypreserved autochthonous successions whichdisconformably overlie the Variscan Sakarya basement.Such an outcrop, with Lower Permian algal limestonescontaining Pseudoschwagerina sp., Parafusulina sp.,Staffella sp. and Pseudofusulina sp., was previouslyreported from the western part of the present study area(Göncüo¤lu et al. 1987). On the other hand, the sourceof the pre–Permian shallow-marine limestone blockswithin the Karakaya units, should be sought elsewhere.Leven & Okay (1996) have shown that different blockscontain foraminiferal assemblages, indicating thepresence of all the Carboniferous stages, exceptTournasian, Kasimovian and Bolorian. Visean andSerpukhovian limestone blocks have mainly beenencountered in the Orhanlar Greywacke, whereas blocksof Bashkirian (Okay & Mostler 1994) to Murgabian ageshave been described from the Hodul and Çal units of Okayet al. (1991). It is important to note that the rockassemblage (Orhanlar Greywacke with Permian blocks)reported in the Bursa-Mustafakemalpafla region (Leven &Okay 1996) does not resemble the unit in its type area,and belongs to the Hodul Unit. Similarly, we found darkgrey limestone pebbles with Lower Carboniferous(Visean) foraminifers in Hodul-type feldspathicsandstones to the north of K›z›löz village (9 km W of thestudy area). At its type locality, the Orhanlar Greywackeonly includes Lower Carboniferous (mainly Visean)carbonate blocks but no Permian olistoliths (authors’unpublished data). The depositional environment of thesecarbonate blocks ranges from reef to slope and basin. Theclastic rocks include black radiolarian chert interlayers.The unit as a whole is quite similar to the LowerCarboniferous flysch of the Konya (Göncüo¤lu et al.2000b), Karaburun (Kozur 1998) and Fethiye (TavasNappe of the Lycian Nappes, Kozur et al. 1999;Göncüo¤lu et al. 2000c) areas, all of which belong to thenorthern margin of the Tauride-Anatolide platform.Hence, the Orhanlar Greywacke unit in the Balya areamay represent a part of the Tauride-Anatolide platform,

or alternatively, a mega-block that was incorporated intothe Karakaya basin during its post–Midian opening. TheCarboniferous (or even older) blocks in the Hodul and Çalunits may be from the same source, if no in situ pre-Permian rocks can be proven from the Sakarya basement.

Another important constraint on the autochthonousMidian shallow-marine carbonates reported in thepresent study pertains to the opening age of the Karakayabasin and its correlation with the Palaeotethys Ocean.With the exception of late Djulfian and Dorashamianpelagic limestones (Kozur & Kaya 1994) andDorashamian radiolarian cherts (Kozur 1999; Göncüo¤luet al. 2004), all the Permian blocks found in differentKarakaya units are shallow-marine limestones. Hence,there is no evidence for a pre–Late Permian rifting thatresulted in the opening of the Karakaya basin. This factstands out against a correlation of the Karakaya basinwith the Palaeotethyan oceanic basins of fiengör (1979)or Stampfli (1978), both of which were assumed to haveopened during the Carboniferous or even earlier.

Last but not least, the geochemical characteristics ofthe associated volcanic rocks of the Karakaya units do notsuggest an oceanic or subduction/accretion-relatedtectonic setting. With the exception of typical ocean-island-type (plume-related, Yal›n›z & Göncüo¤lu 2002)Nilüfer volcanics of unknown age, no igneous rocks withmid-ocean ridge or subduction affinity have yet beenencountered in the “Karakaya Complex”. In contrast,limited geochemical data (Genç 1993) on the volcanicrocks of the Çal Unit are suggestive of alkaline within-plate (rift-type) volcanism; this data stands against anyinterpretation for Palaeotethyan oceanic involvement.

Conclusions

1. The Variscan basement of the Sakarya CompositeTerrane on the Yeniflehir-Geyve ridge includes alow-grade metaclastic association with radiolariancherts and limestones intruded by felsic and basicigneous rocks. It resembles the Visean back-arccomplex with bimodal volcanism observed in theKütahya-Bolkarda¤ Belt of the Tauride-Anatolideplatform. This would indicate that Sakaryabasement was a northern continuation of theGondwanan Tauride-Anatolide unit prior to theopening of the Neotethyan ‹zmir-Ankara oceanicbranch (Figure 2d).

2. The basement complex is disconformably overlainby quartzitic sandstones and carbonates of Midianage. The fossil assemblage of this succession isquite similar both to the coeval limestoneolistoliths in different Karakaya units and to theautochthonous limestones in the northernTauride-Anatolide platform (Northern Facies Beltof Alt›ner et al. 2000). The deposition of theselimestones onto the Sakarya and the Taurides isascribed to a regional Midian transgression. Theblocks/detritus of Permian limestones andcrystalline rocks within different Karakaya unitsmay have been derived directly from the Sakaryabasement and its Permian cover. This wouldsupport a rift-related generation of the Karakayaunits except the ocean-island-type Nilüfer Unit ofunknown age.

3. Shallow-marine limestone blocks of Carboniferousand Lower Permian in different Karakaya unitshave their autochtonous equivalents in thenorthern Tauride-Anatolide platform or in thenappes derived from its northern margin. In lightof this, the best candidate as the source area forthese blocks is the Tauride-Anatolide platform. Asthere is no indication for a post–Permian topre–Jurassic collision of the Sakarya and Tauride-Anatolide terranes (as evidenced by continuousTriassic–Cretaceous deposition on the Kütahya-Bolkarda¤ Belt, Göncüo¤lu et al. 2000a), theirincorporation into the Karakaya units must havebeen accomplished by another mechanism,followed by compressional tectonics (nappeemplacement, etc). Therefore, we support the riftmodel and the accommodation of these blocks asgravity slides/mass flows from the rift shouldersof the Karakaya rift basin.

To conclude, all the models proposed (including therift model supported in the present paper) have a numberof uncertainties which can be solved by a detailedmultidisciplinary study, including comprehensivesedimentological, petrological, structural andbiostratigraphical investigations.

Acknowledgements

We thank U. Ka¤an Tekin for his support duringfieldwork, and Aral ‹. Okay, Okan Tüysüz and fi. Can Gençfor their constructive reviews.

N. TURHAN ET AL.

227

AUTOCHTHONOUS MIDIAN CARBONATES IN THE WESTERN SAKARYA COMPOSITE TERRANE

228

References

AKYÜREK, B. & SOYSAL, Y. 1983. Biga yarımadası güneyinin (Savafltepe-Kırka¤aç-Bergama-Ayvalık) temel jeoloji özellikleri [Basicgeological characteristics of the southern Biga Peninsula(Savafltepe-Kırka¤aç-Bergama-Ayvalık area)]. Maden Tetkik veArama Enstitüsü (MTA) Dergisi 95/96, 1–13 [in Turkish withEnglish abstract].

ALTıNER D., ÖZKAN-ALTıNER, S. & KOÇY‹⁄‹T, A. 2000. Late Permianforaminiferal Biofacies belts in Turkey: palaeogeographic andtectonic implications. In: BOZKURT, E., WINCHESTER, J.A. & PIPER,J.D.A. (eds), Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey and theSurrounding Area. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications 173, 139–161.

ALTINER, D. & KOÇY‹⁄‹T, A. 1993. Third remark on the geology ofKarakaya basin. An Anisian megablock in northern centralAnatolia: micropaleontologic, stratigraphic and tectonicimplications for the rifting stage of Karakaya basin, Turkey.Revue de Paléobiologie 17, 163–175.

B‹NGÖL, E. 1968. Contribution a’l’etude geologıque de la partie centraleet sud-Est du massif de Kazda¤ (Turquie). These, Faculty ofScience University of Nancy (France), 189 p [unpublished].

B‹NGÖL, E., AKYÜREK, B. & KORKMAZER, B. 1975. Biga Yarımadası’nınjeolojisi ve Karakaya Formasyonunun bazı özellikleri [Geology ofthe Biga Peninsula and some characteristics of the Karakayablocky series]. Cumhuriyetin 50. Yılı Yerbilimleri KongresiTebli¤leri, MTA Enstitüsü (Congress on Earth Sciences for the50th Annevarsary of Republic of Turkey, Abstracts), 70–77 [inTurkish with English abstract].

EROSKAY, O. 1965. Paflalar Bo¤azı-Gölpınar sahasının jeolojisi [Geologyof Paflalar Bo¤azı-Gölpınar area]. ‹stanbul Üniversitesi FenFakültesi Mecmuası B XXX, 135–170 [in Turkish with Englishabstract].

GENÇ, ‹.C. 1993. ‹znik-‹negöl (Bursa) Arasındaki Tektonik BirliklerinJeolojik ve Petrolojik ‹ncelenmesi [Geological and PetrologicalInvestigation of Tectonic Units in the Area Between ‹znik and‹negöl (Bursa)]. PhD Thesis, ‹stanbul University (Turkey) [inTurkish with English abstract, unpublished].

GENÇ, ‹., SELÇUK, H., CEVHER, F., GÖZLER, Z., KARAMAN, T., B‹LG‹, C. &AKÇÖREN, F. 1986. ‹negöl (Bursa)–Pazaryeri (Bilecik) ArasınınJeolojisi [Geology of the Area Between ‹negöl (Bursa) andPazaryeri (Bilecik)]. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enstitüsü (MTA)Report No. 7912, 68 p [in Turkish, unpublished].

GENÇ, fi.C. & YILMAZ, Y. 1995. Evolution of the Triassic continentalmargin, northwest Anatolia. Tectonophysics 243, 193–207.

GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C. 1989. Structural framework of the AnatolianHercynides. 28. International Geological Congress, Washington,Abstracts 1, 563–564.

GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C., EREND‹L, M., TEKEL‹, O., AKSAY, A., KUflÇU, ‹., & ÜRGÜN,B. 1987. Geology of the Armutlu Peninsula. IGCP Project 5,Guide Book. Field Excursion Along W-Anatolia, 12–18.

GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C., TURHAN, N., fiENTÜRK, K., UYSAL, ‹., ÖZCAN, A. & IflIK, A.1996. Orta Sakaryada Nallıhan-Sarıcakaya Arasındaki YapısalBirliklerin Jeolojik Özellikleri [Geology of the Tectonic Units in theArea Between Nallıhan and Sarıcakaya in Central Sakarya]. MadenTetkik ve Arama Enstitüsü (MTA) Report No. 10094, 173 p [inTurkish, unpublished].

GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C., D‹R‹K, K. & KOZLU, H. 1997. General characteristics ofpre-Alpine and Alpine Terranes in Turkey: Explanatory notes tothe terrane map of Turkey. Annales Geologique de PaysHellenique 37, 515–536.

GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C., TURHAN, N., fiENTÜRK, K., ÖZCAN, A. & UYSAL, ‹. 2000a.A geotraverse across NW Turkey: tectonic units of the CentralSakarya region and their tectonic evolution. In: BOZKURT, E.,WINCHESTER, J.A. & PIPER, J.D.A. (eds), Tectonics and Magmatismin Turkey and the Surrounding Area. Geological Society, London,Special Publications 173, 139–161.

GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C., KOZUR, H., TURHAN, N., & GÖNCÜO⁄LU, Y. 2000b.Stratigraphy of the Silurian-Lower Carboniferous rock units inKonya area (Kütahya-Bolkarda¤ belt, Central Turkey). VIIIInternational Meeting of IGCP 421 in 1st Congresso Iberico dePaleontologia, Evora, 12–14 October, 2000, Abstracts,227–228.

GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C., YALINIZ, M.K. & FLOYD, P.A. 2000c. Petrology of theCarboniferous volcanic rocks in the Lycian Nappes, SW Turkey:implications for the Late Paleozoic evolution of the Tauride-Anatolide Platform. IESCA 2000, ‹zmir, September 25–29,2000, Abstracts, 213.

GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C., TURHAN, N. & GÖNCÜO⁄LU, Y. 2001. Vestiges of LatePaleozoic (“Variscan”) events within the Tauride-Anatolide Belt,Turkey: iImplications for the Paleotethyan evolution in NW Peri-Gondwana. ESF Europrobe Meeting, Ankara, 30 September–2October, 2001, Abstracts, 24–26.

GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C., KUWAHARA, K., KA⁄AN TEK‹N, U. & TURHAN, N. 2004.Upper Permian (Changxingian) radiolarian cherts within theclastic successions of the “Karakaya Complex” in NW Anatolia.Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 13, 201-213.

GRACIANSKY, de P.C. 1972. Recherches géologiques dans le Taurus lycien.Thése, Université de Paris-Sud, 289 p [unpublished].

KAYA, O., WIEDMANN, J. & KOZUR, H. 1986. Preliminary report on thestratigraphy, age and structure of the so-called Late Palaeozoicand/or Triassic “mélange or “suture zone complex” ofnorthwestern and western Turkey. Yerbilimleri 13, 1–16.

KOÇY‹⁄‹T, A. 1988. Tectonic setting of the Geyve basin: Age and totaldisplacement of the Geyve fault zone. METU Journal of Pure andApplied Sciences 21, 81–104.

KOZUR, H. 1998. The age of the siliciclastic series (Karareis Formation)of the western Karaburun Peninsula, W. Turkey. PaleontologiaPolonica 58, 171–189.

N. TURHAN ET AL.

229

KOZUR, H. 1999. Permian development in the Western Tethys. In:RATANASTIEN, B. & RIEB, S.L. (eds), Shallow Tethys. Proceedings ofthe International Symposium on Shallow Tethys 5, 101–135.

KOZUR, H. & KAYA, O. 1994. First evidence of pelagic Late Permianconodonts from NW Turkey. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie undPaleontologie Monatshefte 6, 339–347.

KOZUR, H., fiENEL, M. & TEK‹N, K. 1999. First evidence of HercynianLower Carboniferous flyschoid deep-water sediments in theLycian Nappes, SW Turkey. Geologica Croatica 51, 15–22.

LEVEN, E.JA. & OKAY, A.‹. 1996. Foraminifera from the exotic Permo-Carboniferous limestone blocks in the Karakaya Complex,northwest Turkey. Rivista Italiana Paleontologia e Stratigrafia102, 139–174.

MTA 1978. 1/50.000 Ölçekli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritaları Serisi Adapazarı– H 24-a Paftası [1/50.000 Scale Geological Map of Turkey Series– Adapazarı H 24-a Sheet]. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enstitüsü(MTA) Publication.

OKAY, A.‹. 2000. Was the Late Triassic orogeny in Turkey caused by thecollision of an oceanic plateau? In: BOZKURT, E., WINCHESTER, J.A.& PIPER, J.D.A. (eds), Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey andSurrounding Area. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications 173, 25–41.

OKAY, A.‹. & GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C. 2002. Accretionary complex or riftdeposits? Palaeotethyan ocean or a small back-arc basin? Theproblem of the Karakaya Complex. 1st International SymposiumFaculty of Mines (‹TÜ) on Earth Sciences & Engineering 16–18May, 2002, ‹stanbul, Abstracts, 151.

OKAY, A.‹. & MOSTLER, H. 1994. Carboniferous and Permian radiolariteblocks in the Karakaya Complex in northwest Turkey. TurkishJournal of Earth Sciences 3, 23–28.

OKAY, A.‹. & S‹YAKO, M. 1993. The new position of the ‹zmir-AnkaraNeo-Tethyan suture between ‹zmir and Balıkesir. In: TURGUT, S(ed), Tectonics and Hydrocarbon Potential of Anatolia andSurrounding Regions. Proceedings of the Ozan SungurluSymposium, Ankara, 333–355.

OKAY, A.‹., S‹YAKO, M. & BÜRKAN, K.A. 1991. Geology and tectonicevolution of the Biga Peninsula, northwest Turkey. Bulletin of theTechnical University of ‹stanbul 44, 191–256.

OKAY, A.‹., SATıR, M., MALUSKI, H., S‹YAKO, M., MONIE, P., METZGER, R. &AKYÜZ S. 1996. Paleo- and Neo-Tethyan events in northwestTurkey: geological and geochronological constraints. In: YIN, A. &HARRISON, M. (eds), Tectonics of Asia. Cambridge University Press,420–441.

ÖZCAN, A., GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C., TURHAN, N., UYSAL, ‹. & fiENTÜRK, K. 1988.Late Paleozoic evolution of the Kütahya-Bolkarda¤ı Belt. METUJournal of Pure and Applied Sciences 21, 211–220.

PICKETT, E. & ROBERTSON, A.H.F. 1996. Formation of the LatePalaeozoic–Early Mesozoic Karakaya Complex and relatedophiolites in NW Turkey by paleotethyan subduction-accretion.Journal of the Geological Society, London 153, 995–1009.

SANER, S. 1977. Geyve-Osmaneli-Gölpazarı-Taraklı Alanının Jeolojisi:Eski Çökelme Ortamları ve Çökelmenin Evrimi [Geology of Geyve-Osmaneli-Gölpazarı-Taraklı Region: Depositional Environmentsand the Evolution of Sedimentation]. PhD Thesis, ‹stanbulUniversity (Turkey), 312 p [in Turkish with English abstract,unpublished].

SANER, S. 1978. Geology and environments of deposition of Geyve-Osmaneli-Gölpazarı-Taraklı area. ‹stanbul Üniversitesi FenFakültesi Mecmuası B XXXXIII, 63–91.

fiENGÖR, A.M.C. 1979. Mid-Mesozoic closure of Permo–Triassic Tethysand its implications. Nature 279, 590–593.

fiENGÖR, A.M.C., YILMAZ, Y. & SUNGURLU, O. 1984. Tectonics of theMediterranean Cimmerides: nature and evolution of the westerntermination of Paleo-Tethys. In: DIXON, J.E. & ROBERTSON, A.H.F.(eds), The Geological Evolution of the Eastern Mediteranean.Geological Society, London, Special Publications 17, 77–112.

STAMPFLI, G.M. 1978. Etude géologique generale de l’Elbourz oriental ausud de gonbad-e-Qabus (Iran NE). Thése, Université Géneve, 196p [unpublished].

STAMPFLI, G.M. 2000. Tethyan oceans. In: BOZKURT, E., WINCHESTER, J.A.& PIPER, J.D.A. (eds), Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey andSurrounding Area. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications 173, 1–24.

TEKEL‹, O. 1981. Subduction complex of pre–Jurassic age, northernAnatolia, Turkey. Geology 9, 68–72.

WILSON, J.L. 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geological History. Springer,Berlin, 471 p.

YALINIZ, M.K. & GÖNCÜO⁄LU, M.C. 2002. Geochemistry and petrology of“Nilüfer-type” metabasic rocks of eastern Kozak Massif, NWTurkey. 1st International Symposium Faculty of Mines (‹TÜ) onEarth Sciences & Engineering 16–18 May, 2002, ‹stanbul,Abstracts, 158.

YILMAZ, Y. 1990. Allochtonous terranes of Tethyan Middle East: Anatoliaand the surrounding regions. Philosophical Transactions of RoyalSociety, London A 331, 611–624.

YILMAZ, Y., GENÇ, ‹., Y‹⁄‹TBAfi, E., BOZCU, M. &YILMAZ, K. 1995. Geologicalevolution of the Late Mesozoic continental margin ofnorthwestern Anatolia. Tectonophysics 243, 155–172.

Received 17 December 2003; revised typescript accepted 19 January 2004