Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni
Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni
ISSN: 1016-9164 | e-ISSN: 2564-6745 | Period Tri-annual: Yılda 3 Sayı | Founded: 1947
Show Last Issue

Geological Bulletin of Turkey, established in 1947, is one of the oldest and best-known periodicals of this country. It is an open access journal and publishes original research papers after a peer-review procedure in Turkish or English.

Geological Bulletin of Turkey covers all aspects of the geosciences except for Engineering Geology.

Geological Bulletin of Turkey is indexed and abstracted in GeoRef, Geotitles, Geoscience Documentation, Bibliography of Economic Geology, Geology, Geo Archive, Geo Abstract, Mineralogical Abstract, ProQuest, GEOBASE, EBSCO, BIOSIS, ULAKBİM  (TRDİZİN) and Thomson Reuters&Clavirate (ESCI) databases.

Geological Bulletin of Turkey is published three times a year (January, April and August). The articles submitted to the journal are evaluated by peer review.

Your new manuscript submission should be via DergiPark.

To download of all issues from Geology Bulletin of Turkey, published since 1947; https://tjb.jmo.org.tr

Contact to Editor in Chief: tjbdergi@gmail.com

2026 ÖZEL SAYI Cilt 69 Sayı 4

COVER
View as PDF
COPYRIGHT PAGE
View as PDF
CONTENTS
View as PDF
FOREWORD
View as PDF
Geological Heritage and Geotourism Potential of Adıyaman Province
Oğuz Mülayim
View as PDF

Abstract: This study aims to establish a geological heritage (geosite) inventory for Adıyaman Province and to evaluate the geotourism potential of this heritage. Within the scope of the study, geosites through out the province were systematically cataloged based on the ProGEO (1998) and Kazancı et al. (2015) classifications, their geographical distribution was mapped, and they were categorised according to their scientific, educational, and visual/aestheticvalues. Adıyaman is located on complex tectonic structures of the Bitlis-Zagros Orogeny, formed by the collision ofthe African, Arabian, and Eurasian plates. This geological history has led to the emergence of numerous geological heritage features with national and international importance. The findings reveal that despite its geographically small area, Adıyaman possesses extraordinary geodiversity. This rich accumulation of geological and natural assets indicates that the region holds significant, yet untapped, geotourism potential. In particular, integrating the identified geological heritage with the archaeological wealth of Mount Nemrut offers a strategic opportunity for sustainable regional development. However, anthropogenic threats such as quarrying, vandalism, and legal gaps endangerthis heritage. The study proposes comprehensive geo conservation and geotourism strategies against these threats, including site protection, buffer zone establishment, local employment, development of thematic georoutes, and the  establishment of a UNESCO global geopark. In conclusion, interdisciplinary cooperation, scientific research, andenhancing public awareness are crucial for the sustainable conservation of Adıyaman`s geological heritage and its transformation in to regional development through geotourism.

  • Adıyaman

  • natural heritage

  • geoconservation

  • geological heritage

  • geosite

  • geotourism

  • Aksu., R. ve Mülayim., O. (2015). Adıyaman veÇevresinin Jeolojisi Teknik Gezi Kılavuzu. TPAO2332, 1–107 (in Turkish).

  • Alkaç, O., Köroğlu, F. & Mülayim, O. (2024). Assessingthe Contribution of Clastic Sedimentary Rocks toGeosite Potential and Geoscience Education: AnExample of Coarse-grained Turbidite Sequences,Baskil (Elazığ, Türkiye). Geoheritage, 16, 109.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-01014-z

  • Brilha, J., Andrade, C., Azerêdo, A., Barriga, F. J. A.S., Cachão, M., Couto, H., Cunha, P. P, Crispim, J. A., Dantas, P., Duarte, L. V., Freitas, M. C.,Granja, M. H., Henriques, M. H., Henriques, P.,Lopes, L., Madeira, J., Matos, J. M. X., Noronha,F., Pais. J., Piçarra, J., Ramalho, M. M., Relvas,J. M. R. S., Ribeiro, A., Santos, A., Santos, V. &Terrinha, P. (2005). Definition of the Portugueseframeworks with international relevance asan input for the European geological heritagecharacterisation. Episodes, 28(3),177–186. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2005/v28i3/004

  • Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessmentof geosites and geodiversity sites: a review.Geoheritage, 8, 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3

  • Brilha, J. (2018). Geoheritage: Inventories andevaluation. Assessment, Protection, andManagement. Elsevier Inc.

  • Bruno, D. E., Crowley, B. E., Gutak, J. M., Moroni,A., Nazarenko, O. V., Oheim, K. B., Ruban,D.A., Tiess, G. & Zorina, S. O. (2014).Paleogeography as geological heritage:Developing geosite classification. Earth-ScienceReviews, 138, 300-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.06.005

  • Cater, J. M. L. & Tunbridge, I. P. (1992). Palaeozoictectonic history of SE Turkey. Journal ofPetroleum Geology, 15(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-5457.1992.tb00864.x

  • Cleal, C. J., Thomas, B. A, Bevins, R. E. & Wimbledon,W. A. P. (1999). Geosites–an internationalgeoconservation initiative. Geology Today 15(2),64–68

  • Dean, W. T., Martin, F., Monod, O., Günay, Y.,Kozlu, H. & Bozdoğan, N. (1997). Precambrian?and Cambrian stratigraphy of the Pembeğli-Tut inlier, southeastern Turkey. GeologicalMagazine, 134(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001675689700650X

  • Dilek, Y., Thy, P., Moores, E. M. & Ramsden, T.W. (1990). Tectonic evolution of the TroodosOphiolite within the Tethyan Framework.Tectonics, 9(4), 881-823. https://doi.org/10.1029/TC009i004p00811

  • Dixon, G. (1996). Geoconservation: An InternationalReview and Strategy for Tasmania. MiscellaneousReport (pp 1–101). Parks and Wildlife Service,Tasmania.

  • Dowling, R. K. & Newsome D. (2005). Geotourism.Elsevier.

  • Duman, T.Y., Emre, Ö. (2013). The East Anatolian Fault:geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics.In Robertson, A.H.F., Parlak, O. & Ünlügenç, U.C. (Eds.), Geological Development of Anatoliaand the Easternmost Mediterranean Region (pp.495–529). Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications 372.

  • Fourcade, E., Dercourt, J., Günay, Y., Azema, J., Kozlu,H., Bellier, J.P., Cordey, J.P., Cros, F., De Eever,P., Enay, P., Hernandez, R., Lauer, J. & Vrielynck,B, (1991). Stratigraphie et paléogéographie dela marge septentrionale de la platforme arabe auMesozoique (Turquie de Sud-East). Bulletin dela Société Géologique de France, 162(1), 27–41.https://doi.org/10.2113/gssgfbull.162.1.27

  • Golonka, J. (2004). Plate tectonic evolution of thesouthern margin of Eurasia in the Mesozoic andCenozoic. Tectonophysics, 381(1–4), 235–273.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2002.06.004

  • Gray, M. (2004). Geodiversity: Valuing and ConservingAbiotic Nature. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester,UK

  • Güven, A., Dinçer, A., Tuna, E.M. & Çoruh, T. (1991).Stratigraphic evolution of the Campanian–Paleocene autochthonous succession of theSoutheast Anatolia. Ozan Sungurlu SymposiumProceedings, pp. 238–261.

  • Henriques, M. H., Canales, M. L., García-Frank, A. &Gomez-Heras, M. (2019). Accessible geoparksin Iberia: a challenge to promote geotourismand education for sustainable development.Geoheritage, 11, 471-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0300-5

  • Henriques, M. H., Pena dos Reis, R., Brilha, J. & Mota,T.S. (2011). Geoconservation as an emerginggeoscience. Geoheritage, 3(2),117-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-011-0039-8

  • Herece, E. (2008). Atlas of East Anatolian Fault (EAF).General Directorate of Mineral Research andExploration, Special Publication Series 1–3.

  • Herrera-Franco, G., Mata-Perelló, J., Caicedo-Potosí,J. & Carrión-Mero, P. (2023). Vulnerability inGeosites: A Systematic Literature Review. In: LealFilho, W., Frankenberger, F. & Tortato, U. (Eds),Sustainability in Practice. World SustainabilitySeries. Springer, Cham.

  • Hose, T. A. (2005). Geotourism and interpretation. InDowling, R.K. & Newsome, D. (Eds), Geotourism.Elsevier

  • IUGS (2022). International Union of GeologicalSciences (2022). The First 100 IUGS GeologicalHeritage Sites (pp. 301). ISBN: 978-1-7923-99756. International Union of Geological SciencesPublication.

  • Kaya, T., Şen, Ş., Mayda, S., Saraç, G., Metaıs, G.(2012). Adıyaman dolaylarındaki (GüneydoğuTürkiye) Geç Miyosen memeli fosilleri.65.Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı. Bildiri özeti, 2-6Nisan/April 2012

  • Kazancı, N. (2010). Jeolojik Koruma; Kavram veTerimler. Jeolojik Mirası Koruma Derneği.

  • Kazancı, N. (2012). Geological background andthree vulnerable geosites of the Kızılcahamam–Çamlıdere Geopark project in Ankara, Turkey.Geoheritage 4(4), 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-012-0064-2

  • Kazancı, N., & Gençoğlu Korkmaz, G. (2023). Konyaİlinin Doğal Varlıkları ve Jeolojik Miras Potansiyeli / Natural Assets and Geological Heritage Potentialof Konya Province. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 66(3),403-420. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1321896

  • Kazancı, N., Şaroğlu, F. & Suludere, Y. (2015).Geological heritage and framework list of thegeosites in Turkey. Bulletin of the MineralResearch and Exploration, 151, 259-268. (inTurkish)

  • Köroğlu, F. & Mülayim, O. (2023). Geoconservationstrategies of Türkiye. Geoheritage, 15, Article 97.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00862-5

  • Köroğlu, F. (2025). Paleobiyolojik Jeosit Kavramı:Doğu Karadeniz’in K/Pg Jeositlerinde ReferansBir Çalışma, KD Türkiye. Türkiye JeolojiBülteni, 68(1), 33-84. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1570386

  • Köroğlu, F., Mülayim, O. & Alkaç, O. (2025). A proposalfor a new educational model: GeoconservationEducation (GEOEDU) model. InternationalJournal of Geoheritage and Parks, 13(1), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2024.10.001

  • Meriç, E., Oktay, F.Y. & Özer, S. (1985). Newobservations on the stratigraphical development ofthe Besni Formation to the northwest of Alidamı(KahtaAdıyaman). Jeoloji Mühendisliği, 25, 51–54 (in Turkish with English abstract).

  • Meriç, E. & Görmüş, M. (2001). The Genus Loftusia.Micropaleontology, 47, 1–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486146

  • Mikhailenko, A. V., Ruban, D. A. & Ermolaev, V. A.(2021). Accessibility of geoheritage sites—amethodological proposal. Heritage, 4(3), 1080–1091. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030060

  • Mülayim, O., Özkul, M., Nazik, A. & Tekin S. (202a5). Adıyaman’ın Jeolojik Mirası Çalıştayı WorkshopOn Geoheritage of Adıyaman Bildiri Özleri Kitabıve Saha Gezisi Rehberi Abstracts Book and FieldTrip Guidebook. TMMOB Jeoloji MühendisleriOdası (JMO) ISBN: 978-605-01-1464-5. p. 80.

  • Mülayim, O., Köroğlu, F. & Alkaç, O. (2025b).Volcanic Geoheritage and Geotourism Valuesof the Siverek Columnar Basalts, Şanlıurfa (SETürkiye). Geoheritage, 17 Article 103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-025-01154-w

  • Okay, A.I. & Tüysüz, O. (1999). Tethyan SuturesNorthern Turkey. In The Mediterranean Basins:Tertiary Extension Within The Alpine Orogen, 156.Geological Society, London, Special Publication,pp. 475–515.

  • Ólafsdóttir, R. & Tverijonaite, E. (2018). Geotourism:A Systematic Literature Review. Geosciences,8(7), Article 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8070234

  • Özer, S. & Mülayim, O. (2022). Geoconservation andgeotourism potential of vulnerable rudist fossilgeosites from SE Anatolia (Turkey). Geoheritage,14, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00650-7

  • Özkul, M., Gül, A., Semiz, B., Koralay, T., Topal, S.,Gökgöz, A., Özen, H., Erten, H., Hançer, M. veKumsar, H. (2025). Denizli İlinin (GB Türkiye)Jeoçeşitliliği ve Önemli Jeositleri / Geodiversityand Significant Geosites of the Denizli Province(SW Türkiye). Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 68(4), 145-188. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1559108

  • Patzak, M. & Eder, W. (1998). “UNESCO GEOPARK”.A new programme-a new UNESCO label.Geologica Balcanica, 28, 33-35. https://doi.org/10.52321/GeolBalc.28.3-4.33

  • Perinçek, D. (1979a). Geology of the Hazro-KorudağÇüngüs-Maden-Ergani-Hazar Elazığ-Malatyaregion. The Geology of Hazro-Korudağ-ÇüngüsMaden-Ergani Hazar-Elazığ-Malatya area.Special Publication of the Geological Society ofTurkey, pp. 1–33.

  • Perinçek, D. (1979b). Çelikhan-Sincik-Koçali(Adıyaman) bölgelerinin jeolojik incelemesi(Geological Investigation of the Region betweenÇelikhan-Sincik-Koçali (city of Adıyaman)),(Report, 1394). Turkish Petroleum Corporation, ,pp. 130 (in Turkish with English abstract).

  • ProGeo Group, (1998). A first attemt at a geositesframework for Europe- an lUGS initiativeto support recognition of World heritage andEuropean geodiversity. Geologica Balcanica 28,5-32. https://doi.org/10.52321/GeolBalc.28.3-4.5

  • Prosser, C. D., Murphy, M. & Larwood, J. G. (2006).Geological site conservation. In Geologicalconservation—a guide to good practice (pp. 15–36). English Nature.

  • Prosser, C. D., Díaz-Martínez, E. & Larwood, J.G. (2018). The Conservation of Geosites. InGeoheritage (pp. 193–212). Elsevier

  • Reynard, E. & Brilha, J. (Eds.), (2018). Geoheritage:Assessment, Protection, and Management.Elsevier, Amsterdam.

  • Rigo de Righi, M. & Cortesini, A. (1964). Gravitytectonics in foot hills structure belt of southeastAnatolia. American Association of PetroleumGeologists Bullettin, 48(12), 1911–1937. https://doi.org/10.1306/A66334D8-16C0-11D7-8645000102C1865D

  • Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O. & Ustaömer, T. O.(2013a). Late Palalaeozoic–Early Cenozoictectonic development of Southern Turkey and theeasternmost Mediterranean region: evidence fromthe inter-relations of continental and oceanic units.In Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O. & Ünlügenç, U.-C. (Eds.), Geological Development of the AnatolianContinent and the Eastern Mediterranean Region(pp. 9–48). Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications, 372.

  • Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O., Ustaömer, T., Taslı, K.,Inan, N., Dumitrica, P. & Karaoğlan, F. (2013b).Subduction, ophiolite genesis and collision historyof the Eurasian continental margin: new evidence from the Eastern Pontides, Turkey. GeodinamicaActa, 26, 230–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2013.877240










  • APA

  • AMA

  • Chicago

  • EndNote

  • IEEE

  • ISNAD

  • JAMA

  • MLA

  • Vancouver

  • Geological Heritage and Geotourism Potential of Kapıkaya Canyon (Adana, Karaisalı)
    Atike Nazik Mustafa Akyildiz Mehmet Tatar
    View as PDF

    Abstract: The Adana Basin is located between the Taurid Mountains to the north, the Mediterranean Sea to thesouth, the Ecemiş Fault to the west, and the Amanos Mountains to the east. The basin is an important geologicallaboratory with remarkable tectonic, stratigraphic, and morphological features, and contains numerous geologicalheritage elements. This study evaluated the geological heritage value and geotourism potential of Kapıkaya Canyon,one of the important geological and geomorphological formations of the Adana Basin. Kapıkaya Canyon is locatedon the Çakıt Stream of the Seyhan River, a major stream in Çukurova. The canyon is 72 kilometres from Adanaprovince and 5 kilometres from the district of Karaisalı. It is located between Yerköprü, a prominent karst featurewithin the study area that provides observable groundwater flow typical of karst systems in Turkey, and KapıkayaVillage in the Karaisalı district. The canyon has an elevation of 200 meters and a length of 7 kilometres. Along thecanyon route, Paleozoic and Mesozoic units, which form the basement of the Adana Basin, as well as Cenozoic units,are exposed. Subparallel faults oriented in a north–south direction are observed along the Çakıt Valley, placing the geological units in tectonic contact. Geostations containing sedimentary rocks, faults, folds, and fossils, importantfor geoscience education, were identified throughout the canyon. The canyon also boasts waterfalls and hydropowerplants. Its biodiversity is notable for its natural flora and fauna, including monumental trees. Castles, bridges,and inns are cultural assets in the canyon`s vicinity. Geotourism potential includes nature observation and hiking,mountaineering, rock climbing, paragliding, canyoning, camping, nature photography, and visiting cultural heritagesites. The canyon still has the status of a "Sensitive Area to be Strictly Protected".

  • geotourism

  • Adana

  • canyon

  • education

  • geological heritage

  • Geosite Potential and Geoheritage Assets of Uşak Province
    Gözde Zorlu Dündar Selahattin Polat
    View as PDF

    Abstract: Geosites encompass natural elements that represent geological / geomorphological events, processes,and features extending from the past to the present, including fossil assemblages, minerals, rocks, structuralcomponents, and landforms. They also include cultural elements such as ancient quarries, water channels, androck dwellings. Geological heritage (geoheritage) consists of geological-geomorphological formations that possesssignificant scientific, educational, and landscape value and must be preserved against natural / anthropogenicthreats through a sustainable approach.Within the borders of Uşak province, which has a surface area of approximately 5,341 km², there are natural andcultural geosites that have geoheritage value and represent significant potential for the development of geotourism.Elements with geosite potential in Uşak province, including faults, fault scarps, plant and vertebrate fossil deposits,skarn zones, and alteration zones, were identified. In addition, landforms identified during fieldwork—namelytravertines, travertine cones, dacite columns, fairy chimneys, canyon valleys, intra-valley bed depressions, badland topography, and erosion- and deposition-derived karstic forms—were examined, classified as geosites, and theirmorphological and geological characteristics were described. Uşak province hosts not only a diversity of geositesformed by natural processes but also a variety derived from cultural and historical heritage. In this context, culturalgeosites such as ancient water channels, ancient roads, ancient quarries, rock tombs, mounds (höyüks), tumuli, androck (cave) settlements were identified and their characteristics detailed.According to ProGEO`s geosite classification, the identification of a total of 64 geosites from seven differentclasses in the research area demonstrates that Uşak province possesses a rich natural and cultural heritage potentialfrom geological, geomorphological, and geoarchaeological perspectives.

  • Geoheritage

  • geosite

  • geotourism

  • geomorphology

  • Uşak

  • Delikkaya (Bakırcıoğlu, Yıldızeli, Sivas) Natural Travertine Bridge: A Geological Heritage to Preserve
    Bekir Levent Mesci
    View as PDF

    Abstract: Travertine formations represent a significant component of geological heritage due to their scientific,educational, aesthetic, and geotourism value. Globally, such structures are protected for their rarity and ecologicalimportance. In Türkiye, travertine deposits are widespread, with 16 distinct localities identified in Sivas and itssurroundings. However, extensive quarrying activities threaten the preservation of these natural features, leading torapid depletion and irreversible destruction.The Delikkaya travertine field (Yıldızeli–Sivas) is of particular importance, hosting four ridge-type travertines.Geochronological data indicate that formation commenced approximately 15.1 (±0.5) ka in the Upper Pleistoceneand was completed 11.4 (±0.7) ka later, corresponding to the Greenlandian stage. The NNW–SSE-trending ridgetype travertine includes a natural travertine bridge, formed through stream erosion and block disintegration, whichis large enough to permit passage both above and below.Preservation of the Delikkaya Travertine Bridge and its surrounding travertine field is essential to safeguardgeological heritage and to promote regional geotourism potential. Registration of this site as a geosite would not only ensure its protection for future generations but also contribute to scientific research, educational development,and sustainable tourism initiatives.

  • Cave

  • geological heritage

  • geosite

  • Sivas Delikkaya

  • travertine

  • travertine bridge

  • Geoheritage and Geomorphotourism Potential of the Surroundings of Lake Bolluk (Cihanbeyli-Konya Central Anadolu)
    Sultan Murat Uzun Nuriye Garipağaoğlu
    View as PDF

    Abstract: Geomorphotourism is a type of alternative tourism that utilizes the specific potential of areas / unitsthat differ in lithological and geomorphological formation, development processes, and morphological appearance,and whose relief is rare, unique, and intriguing. Türkiye, due to its geomorphological diversity, hosts numerousgeosites, geomorphosites, geoparks, geoheritage elements, and geomorphotourism resources. This study examinesgeomorphotourism potential of travertine cones and other geomorphological elements around Lake Bolluk, locatedsouth of Cihanbeyli (Konya) in the Central Anatolia Region. Geomorphosites in the study area were identified usingcartographic data, satellite imagery, orthophotos, and field observations. These elements were then evaluated in  terms of geomorphotourism potential using the Geomorphosite Assessment Criteria (GEC). Travertine cones, tufadeposits, dolines, travertine channels, micromounds, paludal deposits, Lake Bolluk and salt pans in the study areawere defined as geomorphosites. Travertine cones, formed under geomorphological, climatological, and edaphicconditions due to karstification, tectonism, mineral springs, and other factors, are concentrated particularly in thenorth and east of Lake Bolluk. The 64 cones vary in type, morphometric characteristics, morphological appearance,hydrographic status, and extent of damage. Travertine channels, tufa deposits, microhumps, and paludal depositsare considered rare geomorphosites formed by the same factors and processes in the region. According to theGEC analysis, travertine cones have the highest overall mean (0.61). Following the travertine cones in termsof geomorphotourism potential are travertine channels (0.56), dolines (0.55), tufa deposits (0.54), Lake Bolluk(0.54), microhumps and paludal deposits (0.48), and salt pans (0.46). The overall geomorphotourism mean for allgeomorphosites was 0.53, while the scientific value mean was 0.64, the secondary value mean was 0.51, and theusage potential mean was 0.44. The findings indicate that the study area has a high potential in terms of geologicaland geomorphological representation, aesthetics, and scientific dimensions, and that significant shortcomings,however, exist in areas such as promotion, services, and transportation. Planning is necessary to protect these raregeomorphosites and facilitate their inclusion in alternative tourism.

  • Geoheritage

  • geomorphosite

  • geomorphotourism

  • Lake Bolluk

  • travertine cones

  • The Importance of the Otlukbeli (Erzincan) Travertines in Terms of Geological and Cultural Heritage (Eastern Anatolia)
    Yakup Çelik Ezher Tagliasacchi Mehmet Akif Taş Pinar Polat
    View as PDF

    Abstract: The Otlukbeli Travertines, located in the Otlukbeli district of Erzincan Province in Eastern Anatolia,constitute one of the most distinctive and geologically rare travertine formations in Türkiye. These travertinesare terrestrial carbonates with distinct geomorphological features, formed by Fe-oxide-rich mineralized watersemerging along fractures and faults under the influence of active tectonics in the region. In the study area, theseterrestrial carbonate deposits are observed as travertine cones, ridge-type travertines, and slope travertines. While inactive travertine ridges and cones are widely observed in the field, there are also ongoing deposits of activecarbonate precipitates.In this study, approximately 60 travertine cones and 15 travertine ridges were described in detail. The measuredtravertine cones and ridges were evaluated within a geographic information system, and the geomorphological andgeological characteristics of the travertines were mapped at high resolution. From a sedimentological perspective, thisstudy presents, for the first time, the depositional systems and lithotypes of these terrestrial carbonates. Accordingly,laminated, crystalline crust, gas bubbles and paper-thin rafts are the mainly lithotypes observed within these threedifferent travertine systems. Travertine pools and terracettes are commonly observed on the slope travertine.Petrographic analyses also revealed trace amounts of Fe-oxide/oxyhydroxide minerals in these travertines.The Otlukbeli Travertines are geological formations of considerable importance in terms of geological andcultural heritage criteria. Their rarity, scientific research potential, and value for education and geotourism make theOtlukbeli Travertines an important geosite that requires protection. The preservation of these unique occurrences,the promotion of scientific studies, and their evaluation within the scope of sustainable geotourism are essential.

  • Eastern Anatolia

  • Erzincan

  • geological and cultural heritage

  • geotourism

  • Otlukbeli Travertines

  • Evaluation of Fairy Chimneys Developed in Fluvial Deposits in Terms of Geomorphotourism: The Uşak–Eşme Case
    Sevgi Dönmez
    View as PDF

    Abstract: This study aims to examine the formation mechanisms of fairy chimneys located within the boundaries ofEşme district (Uşak province) through a multilayered geological and geomorphological approach. Unlike classicalexamples that typically develop in volcanic tuffs, the fairy chimneys in the study area formed through the interactionof lithological heterogeneity, differential weathering, and surface runoff erosion processes acting on weaklyconsolidated alluvial and colluvial deposits derived from fluvial sedimentation.The local deposits are characterised by alternating layers of conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and partiallyclaystone. The presence of relatively resistant zones within these sedimentary rocks constitutes one of the primarylithological controls on fairy-chimney development. Linear erosion along steep slopes, generated by the drainage network, accelerates selective erosion of the less resistant rocks; consequently, columnar structures develop beneatha protective cap layer due to contrasting erosion rates.In this study, field-based morphological observations, sedimentological features, slope and profilemeasurements, and DEM-supported morphometric analyses were integrated to reveal the formation processesfrom multiple perspectives. The findings indicate that these fairy chimneys represent geodiversity elements that aremorphogenetically unique and directly governed by local lithology.The scientific interpretability, educational potential, aesthetic quality, and landscape integrity of these landformsrender them not only geomorphological features but also geological heritage elements that merit protection andpromotion within the framework of geotourism. The fairy-chimney formations identified in the Uşak–Eşme regionare a valuable contribution to the inventory of such landforms in Türkiye. The study also recommends the evaluationof these features within sustainable geotourism policies.

  • Fairy chimneys

  • geological heritage

  • geomorphotourism

  • geotourism

  • Uşak

  • Atalay, İ. (2006). Genel Fiziki Coğrafya. İzmir, Meta Basım.

  • Atalay, İ. ve Mortan, K. (2017). Bölgesel Coğrafya. İnkılap Kitabevi.

  • Atasoy, A. (2018). Ulucak (Uşak) peribacalarının doğal ortam özellikleri [Sözlü bildiri] TÜCAUM 30. Yıl Uluslararası Coğrafya Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, 22–34.

  • Bozkurt, E. & Park, R. G. (1994). Southern Menderes Massif: An incipient metamorphic core complex in western Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 151(2), 213–216. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.151.2.0213

  • Coratza, P. & Giusti, C. (2005). Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geomorphosites. Il Quaternario, 18(1), 307–313. https://amq.aiqua.it/index.php/amq/article/view/500

  • Ekinci, D. ve Doğaner, S. (2012). Jeomorfoturizm açısından Simav (Yeniköy) peribacaları. III. Ulusal Jeomorfoloji Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı (ss. 395–407). Hatay, Türkiye.

  • Ercan, T., Dinçel, A., Metin, S., Türkecan, A., & Günay, E. (1978). Uşak yöresindeki Neojen havzalarının jeolojisi. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 21(2), 97–106.

  • Gessner, K., Ring, U., Passchier, C. W. & Güngör, T. (2001). How to resist subduction: Evidence for large-scale out-of-sequence thrusting during Eocene collision in western Turkey. Journal of the Geological Society, 158, 769–784. https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs.158.5.769

  • Goudie, A. S. (Ed.). (2004). Encyclopedia of Geomorphology (Vol. 1, pp. 678–681). Routledge.

  • Göktaş, F., Mayda, S. & Alçiçek, M. C., (2025). Stratigraphic Revision of the Selendi, Güre, and Uşak Neogene Basins, Western Anatolia. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 99(2), 332– 351. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-6724.15279

  • Hetzel, R., Passchier, C. W., Ring, U. & Dora, O. Ö. (1995). Bivergent extension in orogenic belts: The Menderes Massif (southwestern Turkey). Geology, 23(5), 455–458. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091- 7613(1995)023%3C0455:BEIOBT%3E2.3.CO;2

  • Kubalíková, L. (2013). Geomorphosite assessment for geotourism purposes. Czech Journal of Tourism, 2(2), 80–104. https://doi.org/10.2478/cjot-2013-0005

  • Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü (MGM). (2022). İklim verileri. T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.mgm.gov.tr

  • Volcanic and Cultural Geoheritage Potential of Erenlerdağ-Alacadağ Volcanism (SW of Konya-Türkiye)
    Gülin Gençoğlu Korkmaz Hatice Ünal Ercan
    View as PDF

    Abstract: The Erenlerdağ–Alacadağ Volcanic Complex (ErAVC), located in southwest Konya (Central Anatolia),represents a Neogene-aged volcanic unit covering approximately 1500 km². The EAVC is composed of volcanicproducts that range in composition from mafic to felsic, including lava domes, lava flows, pyroclastic fall and flowdeposits, and subvolcanic intrusions such as dikes and plugs. The present study aims to identify and characterizerepresentative volcanic geosites within the ErAVC, assess their geoheritage value, and discuss their potential forgeotourism and educational development in the context of Central Anatolian Volcanic Geoheritage.Volcanic facies analysis reveals a wide range of eruptive behaviors, from the development of lava domes and lavaflows and the formation of dacitic spine structures to ignimbrite-forming explosive volcanism and complex volcanosedimentary processes, expressed across facies ranging from central/proximal to distal settings. In the proximal andmedial facies, dacitic–andesitic lava flows, domes, their pyroclastic equivalents, and ignimbrite sequences displayfeatures indicative of multi-stage magma mixing, recharge events, and decompression-driven processes. Distalfacies are characterized by tuff horizons, widespread ignimbrite, and sedimentary units, which clearly reflect thesynchronous development of volcanic and sedimentary processes. These well-preserved successions provide rare andvaluable archives for reconstructing eruption dynamics and magma chamber evolution in continental arc settings.The distribution of volcanic facies in the ErAVC documents a pronounced geomorphological contrast between highrelief areas associated with lava domes and lava flows, and lower-relief zones dominated by ignimbrites, tuff layers,and volcano-sedimentary units.Highly porous ignimbrites and tuff horizons in the medial-distal facies have facilitated settlement and constructionactivities throughout history, as exemplified by the rock-carved dwellings of the ancient city of Kilistra. The ancientsettlement of Kilistra, located within the boundaries of the Erenlerdağ–Alacadağ Volcanic Complex (ErAVC),represents one of the rare geo-cultural heritage sites where volcanological, geomorphological, and archaeologicalcomponents are integrated. The Late Hittite-period Fasıllar Monument, built upon resistant dacitic–andesitic lavaflows, stands as a striking example of the integration of volcanic lithologies in to the cultural landscape.In conclusion, the ErAVC is one of the most significant geosites in Central Anatolia, offering substantial potentialfor geoconservation, geoeducation, and sustainable geotourism. The region`s geological diversity and cultural assetsserve as an "open-air laboratory" for multidisciplinary research and community engagement. 

  • Erenlerdağ-Alacadağ Volcanic Complex

  • Fasıllar

  • ignimbrite

  • lava flow

  • Kilistra

  • volcanic geoheritage

  • Alfama, V., Henriques, M.H. & Barros, A. (2024). The Challenging Nature of Volcanic Heritage: The Fogo Island (Cabo Verde, W Africa). Geoheritage, 16, Article 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-00939-9

  • Arıtan, H. (2010). Konya Kilistra (Gökyurt) tarihsel yerleşimi mekânsal gelişimi ve koruma önerileri [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

  • Asan, K. & Ertürk, M. A. (2013). First Evidence of Lamprophyric Magmatism from the Konya Region, Turkey: a Genetic Link to High-K Volcanism. Acta Geologica Sinica - English Edition, 87(6), 1617- 1629. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-6724.12163

  • Asan, K., Kurt, H., Gündüz, M., Gençoğlu Korkmaz, G. & Morgan, G. (2021). Geology, geochronology, and geochemistry of the Miocene Sulutas volcanic complex, Konya-Central Anatolia: genesis of orogenic and anorogenic rock associations in an extensional geodynamic setting. International Geology Review, 63, 161-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00206814.2019.1706651

  • Asan, K., Gündüz, M., Gençoğlu Korkmaz, G. & Kurt, H. (2024). The role of magma recharge in producing compositional modality in postcollisional volcanic rocks, Konya volcanic field, Central Anatolia (Türkiye). Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 276, Article 106364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2024.106364

  • Baylak, H.M., Erkal, T. ve Taş, B. (2024). Kilistra (Gökyurt) Kültürel Jeomorfolojik Alanı. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Karatekin Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.57115/karefad.1407454

  • Besang, C., Eckhardt, F., Harre, W., Kreuzer, H. & Müller, P. (1977). Radiometric age determinations on Neogene igneous rocks in Turkey. Geological Yearbook (in German), 25, 3-36.

  • Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage, 8, 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3

  • Cas, R. A. & Wright, J. V. (1991). Subaqueous pyroclastic flows and ignimbrites: an assessment. Bulletin of Volcanology, 53, 357-380. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00280227

  • Doğan, U. & Koçyiğit, A. (2018). Morphotectonic evolution of Maviboğaz canyon and Suğla polje, SW central Anatolia, Turkey. Geomorphology, 306, 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2018.01.001

  • Erbil, Y. H. ve Ünlü, E. (2017). Fasıllar Anıtı ve Çevresi Geç Tunç Çağı Seramik Buluntuları. Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 34, 48-60.

  • Fisher, R. V. & Schmincke, H.-U. (1984) Pyroclastic fragments and deposits. Pyroclastic rocks (pp.: 89-124).Springer.

  • Gençoğlu Korkmaz, G., Asan, K., Kurt, H. & Morgan, G. (2017). 40Ar/39Ar geochronology, elemental and Sr-Nd-Pb isotope geochemistry of the Neogene bimodal volcanism in the Yükselen area, NW Konya (Central Anatolia, Turkey). Journal of African Earth Sciences, 129, 427-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2017.02.001

  • Gündüz, M. (2023). The origin and eruption mechanism of the Kilistra ignimbrites deduced from chemostratigraphic, geochronologic, remote sensing, and GIS methods, Erenlerdağ-Alacadağ volcanic complex SW Konya-Central Anatolia [Yayımlanmamış Doktora tezi]. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Universitesi, Muğla.

  • Gündüz, M. (2025). Kilistra ignimbiritlerinin uzaktan algılama yöntemleriyle yeniden haritalanması ve Beyşehir Havzası’nın (GB Konya/Türkiye) CBS tabanlı çizgisellik analizi. Geomatik, 10, 76-91. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.1533893

  • Gündüz, M., Özkan, A. M. & Asan, K. (2025). The origin and emplacement dynamics of the volcaniclastic and sedimentary clastic dykes in volcanic fields: A case study from the Erenlerdağ-Alacadağ Volcanic Complex (Konya-TURKEY). Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 31, 1073-1082. https://doi.org/10.5505/pajes.2025.57227

  • Gürbüz, A., Kazancı, N., Hakyemez, H.Y., Leroy, S.A., Roberts, N., Saraç, G., Ergun, Z., Boyraz-Arslan, S., Gürbüz, E., Koç, K. Yedek, Ö & Yücel, T. O. (2021). Geological evolution of a tectonic and climatic transition zone: the Beyşehir-Suğla basin, lake district of Turkey. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 110, 1077-1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-021-02007-x

  • Kazancı, N. & Gençoğlu Korkmaz, G. (2023). Konya İlinin Doğal Varlıkları ve Jeolojik Miras Potansiyeli. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 66(3), 403- 420. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1321896

  • Kazancı, N., Şaroğlu, F. & Suludere, Y. (2015). Geological Heritage and Framework List of the Geosites ın Turkey. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration, 151, 259-268. https://doi.org/10.19111/bmre.39701

  • Keller, J., Dieter, J. Klaus, B. & Friedrich, W. (1977). Geologie und Petrologie des neogenen KalkalkaliVulkanismus von Konya (Erenler Dag-Alaca Dag-Massiv, Zentral-Anatolien). Geologisches Jahrbuch, B25, 37-117.

  • Kocak, K. & Zedef, V. (2016). Geochemical characteristics of the lava domes in Yatagan village and Sağlik town, from Erenlerdagi (Konya, Central Turkey) volcanites. Acta Geobalcanica, 2, 7-19. https://doi.org/10.18509/AGB.2016.01

  • Kurt, H., Ozkan, A. M. & Kocak, K. (2003). Geology, petrography and geochemistry of the subduction related volcanic rocks, west of Konya, Central Anatolia. Geological Bulletin of Turkey,46(2), 39- 52.

  • Kurt, S., Akgül, B. ve Kurt, H. (2005). Sağlık - Erenkaya (Konya Batısı) Yöresi Volkanik Kayaçlarının Petrografik ve Jeokimyasal Özellikleri. Fırat Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 17, 190-204.

  • Kuzucuoğlu, C., Gündoğdu Atakay, E., Mouralis, D., Atıcı, G., Guillou, H., Türkecan, A. & Pastre, J.F. (2020). Geomorphology and tephrochronology review of the Hasandağ volcano (southern Cappadocia, Turkey). Mediterranean Geoscience Reviews, 2, 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s42990-019-00017-1

  • Navasardyan, G., Meliksetian, K., Savov, I. P., Gevorgyan, H., Bangoyan, M., Galstyan, A. & Grigoryan, E. (2025). Volcanic Geoheritage and Geotouristic Potential of the Gegham Monogenetic Volcanic Upland (Armenia). Geoheritage, 17, Article 146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-025-01170-w

  • Nemeth, K. (2010). Monogenetic volcanic fields: Origin, sedimentary record, and relationship with polygenetic volcanism. Special Paper of the Geological Society of America, 470, 43-66. https://doi.org/10.1130/2010.2470(04)

  • Németh, K. (2022). Volcanic geoheritage in the light of volcano geology. In Dóniz-Páez, J. & Pérez, N. M. (Eds.), El Hierro Island global geopark: diversity of volcanic heritage for geotourism (pp.: 1-24). Springer International Publishing Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07289-5_1

  • Németh, K. & Palmer, J. (2019). Geological mapping of volcanic terrains: Discussion on concepts, facies models, scales, and resolutions from New Zealand perspective. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 385, 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2018.11.028

  • Okay, A. I. & Tüysüz, O. (1999). Tethyan sutures of northern Turkey. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 156, 475-515. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.156.01.22

  • Öztürk, F. G. (2017). Rock-cut Architecture. The archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia. From the End of Late Antiquity to the Coming of the Turks, 148- 159. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190610463.003.0012

  • Platzman, E., Tapirdamaz, C. & Sanver, M. (1998). Neogene anticlockwise rotation of central Anatolia (Turkey): preliminary palaeomagnetic and geochronological results. Tectonophysics, 299(1-3), 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00204-2

  • Rabayrol, F., Hart, C. J. R. & Thorkelson, D. J. (2019). Temporal, spatial and geochemical evolution of late Cenozoic post-subduction magmatism in central and eastern Anatolia, Turkey. Lithos, 336- 337, 67-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2019.03.022

  • Şengör, A. M. C. & Yilmaz, Y. (1981). Tethyan evolution of Turkey: a plate tectonic approach.Tectonophysics, 75(3-4), 181-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(81)90275-4

  • Şengör, A. M. C., Özeren, S., Genç, T. & Zor, E. (2003). East Anatolian high plateau as a mantlesupported, north-south shortened domal structure. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(24), Article 8045. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017858

  • Şengör, A. M. C., Lom, N., Zabcı, C., Sunal, G. & Sancar, T. (2019). On the nature of the Cimmerian Continent and the opening of the Neo-Tethys. EGU General Assembly Conference Geophysical Research Abstracts,Vienna, Austria, 21, 4310.

  • Tatar, O., Gursoy, H. & Piper, J. (2002). Differential neotectonic rotations in Anatolia and the Tauride Arc: palaeomagnetic investigation of the Erenlerdag Volcanic Complex and Isparta volcanic district, south–central Turkey. Journal of the Geological Society, 159, 281-294. https://doi.org/10.1144/0016-764901-035

  • Temel, A., Gundogdu, M. N. & Gourgaud, A. (1998). Petrological and geochemical characteristics of Cenozoic high-K calc-alkaline volcanism in Konya, Central Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 85(1-4), 327-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(98)00062-6

  • Uyanık, C. & Koçak, K. (2016). Geochemical Characteristics of the Erenlerdagi Volcanics, Konya, Central Turkey. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, 50, 2057-2067. https://doi.org/10.12681/bgsg.11952

  • Whitney, D.L. & Evans, B.W. (2009). Abbreviations for names of rock-forming minerals. American Mineralogist, 95, 185-187. https://doi.org/10.2138/am.2010.3371










  • APA

  • AMA

  • Chicago

  • EndNote

  • IEEE

  • ISNAD

  • JAMA

  • MLA

  • Vancouver

  • The First Surveyed Lava Tube on Mount Ağrı Volcano (Türkiye): A Geological Heritage Assessment of the Ice Cave
    Korhan Çakir Çağlar Aslan Esra Ünal Çakir Devrim Erşen Meftun Kerem Sönmez
    View as PDF

    Abstract: Türkiye hosts numerous geological formations that qualify as natural monuments, commonly referredto as geological heritage sites. These sites represent exceptional examples of key stages in Earth history, includingactive geological processes, distinctive geomorphological features, and significant physiographical characteristics. Within this framework, this study presents the Ice Cave, a lava tube developed within basaltic lava flows on MountAğrı volcano, as an important geological heritage site.The Ice Cave is a non-renewable natural lava tube distinguished by well-preserved volcanic morphology and recording aspects of the volcanic and geomorphological evolution of the region. The cave was documented through detailed cave surveying and mapping, supported by microclimatic and gas measurements conducted withina geological heritage assessment framework. The Ice Cave represents the first lava tube on Mount Ağrı volcano to besystematically surveyed and mapped in detail.The geological, morphological, and microclimatic characteristics of the Ice Cave indicate strong potentialfor scientific research, geoscience education, and sustainable geotourism as a complementary activity to existing mountaineering tourism in the region. Furthermore, the results suggest that similar investigations on Mount Ağrı and surroundings may reveal additional lava tubes, contributing both to scientific understanding and to the sustainable management of Türkiye`s volcanic geological heritage.

  • Cave

  • geological heritage

  • ice cave

  • lava tube

  • Mount Ağrı

  • Allred, K. (2019). Kazumura Cave, Hawaii. In White, W. B., Culver, D. C. 6 püpan, T. 8Eds.), Encyclopedia of Caves (Third Edition), Chapter 73, (pp.: 619-626). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814124-3.00073-X

  • Allred, K. & Allred, C. (1997). Development and Morphology of Kazumura Cave, Hawaii. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 59(2), 67-80.

  • Çakır, K., Erşen, D., Sönmez, M.K., Törk, K., Bozan Ç. ve Erten, G. (2022). Karacadağ Öneri Jeopark Alanı Değerlendirme Raporu (Rapor No: 14116). MTA Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara.

  • Ercan, T., Fujitani, T., Matsuda, J. I., Natsu, K., Tokel, S. & Ui, T. (1990). Doğu ve Güneydoğu Anadolu Neojen-Kuvaterner volkaniklerine ilişkin yeni jeokimyasal, radyometrik ve izotopik verilerin yorumu. MTA Dergisi, 110, 143-164, Ankara.

  • Gülen, L. (1980). Strontium isotope geochemistry of Mount Ararat and Süphan volcanics, Eastern Turkey. EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 61,17.

  • Hepşen, N. (2009). Türkiye Jeoloji Haritaları, Doğubayazıt-J52 paftası No: 113 MTA, Ankara.

  • Karaoğlu, Ö., Elshaafi, A., Salah, M. K., Browning, J. & Gudmundsson, A. (2017). Large-volume lava flows fed by a deep magmatic reservoir at Ağrı Dağı (Ararat) volcano, Eastern Turkey. Bulletin of Volcanology, 79, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-016-1098-0

  • Kempe, S. (2012). Volcanic rock caves. In White, W. B., Culver, D. C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Caves (2nd ed.), (p.: 865-873). Academic Press, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-383832-2.00125-0

  • Kıranşan, K. ve Şengün, M.T. (2017). Karahasan Lav Tüneli (Muş-Malazgirt)’nde Buz Oluşumları. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken, 9(2), 165-181.

  • Luetscher, M. & Jeannin, P. Y. (2004). A process-based classification of alpine ice caves. Theoretical and Applied Karstology, 17, 5–10.

  • UNESCO and IUGS (2023). Guidelines for the assessment of the international significance of geological heritage in UNESCO Global Geopark Applications. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386952

  • Yılmaz, Y., Güner, Y. & Şaroğlu, F. (1998). Geology of the Quaternary volcanic centers of the East Anatolia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 85(1-4), 173-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(98)00055-9










  • APA

  • AMA

  • Chicago

  • EndNote

  • IEEE

  • ISNAD

  • JAMA

  • MLA

  • Vancouver

  • New Geomythosite Proposal from Türkiye
    Yildirim Güngör Direnç Azaz
    View as PDF

    Abstract: Mythological narratives have played a significant role in shaping the lives and worldviews of societiesthroughout history. While many of these narratives originate from religious traditions, natural phenomena resultingfrom geological processes constitute another important source. In their attempts to explain extraordinary eventsin nature, communities often merged these occurrences with legends, thereby transforming them in to mythologicalaccounts. Some of these accounts serve as valuable references for contemporary research, particularly inunderstanding past catastrophic events such as volcanic eruptions, floods, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Mythologicalstories in which geology and legend are interwoven are defined as geomythology, whereas geosites with pronouncedgeomythological characteristics are referred to as geomythosites. When the cultural and historical wealth of asociety converges with the geological and geomorphological richness of its landscape, the influence of the earthsciences within its mythological traditions becomes inevitable. This study seeks to elaborate on the relationshipbetween geology and mythology by presenting ten geomythosites from different regions of Turkey, where culturalheritage and geological phenomena intersect.

  • Geological heritage

  • geomythology

  • geomythosite

  • geosite

  • mythology

  • Akkemik, Ü. & Sakınç, M. (2013). Sequoioxylon petrified woods from the Middle to Late Oligocene of Thrace (Turkey). IAWA Journal, 34(2), 177- 182. https://doi.org/10.1163/22941932-00000015

  • Akkemik, U, Akkılıc, H. & Gungor, Y. (2019). Fossil wood from the Neogene of the Kilyos coastal area in Istanbul, Turkey. Palaeontographica Abteilung B, 299(1-6), 133-185. https://doi.org/10.1127/ palb/2019/0065

  • Aksoy, F. (2018). Tarih öncesi Çağlardan Roma’nın yıkılışına kadar Spil Dağı’nın (Sipylos) tarihi ve Arkeolojisi [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

  • Altun, E. (2025). Bitlis’in jeoçeşitliliği ve jeolojik miras potansiyelinin sürdürülebilir kalkınma açısından incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi –Cerrahpaşa Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü.

  • Altun, N. E., Gül, M., Aktürk, S., Kuşcu, I. ve Kuşcu, G. (2009). A geological approach for the assessment of the legend of the cleopatra beach: Investigation of the origin and formation conditions of ooids by sedimentological, mineralogical, geochemical and amino-acid recemization methods. EU SMAP III Gökova Project Preparation of a Management Plan for the Integrated Coastal Zones of the Inner Gokova Bay and the Sedir Island, 60 pp

  • Atabey, E. (2002.) Korumaya Değer Doğal Bir Kum Dili, Orhaniye Kızkumu. Mavi Gezegen 6, 76–77.

  • Bean, G. E. (1995). Eski Çağda Ege Bölgesi, (Çev. İnci Delemen). Orion Yayınları, 360 s.

  • Bourrouilh-Le Jan, F. G., Akram, I. B. & Schvoerer, N. (2007). Band-e-Amir Lakes and Dragon Valley (Bamiyan): myths and seismicity in Afghanistan. Myth and geology. The Geological Society of London, Special Publications, 273, 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2007.273.01.11

  • Çığ, M. İ. (2015). Gılgameş, tarihte ilk kral kahraman. Kaynak yayınları, 95 s.4. Baskı

  • Dağer, E. (2005). Yamanlar Dağında Geç Antik Çağ İskanları: Kronoloji ve Mekan Organizasyonlarına ilişkin sorunlar. Durugönül, S. ve Durukan, M. (Ed.ler). Olba XII, (S, 101-125), Kaam Yayınları.

  • Dietrich, L., Meister, J., Dietrich, O., Notroff, J., Kiep, J., Heeb, J., Beuger, A. & Schütt, B. (2019). Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey. PLoS One 14(5), Article e0215214. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0215214

  • Dirik, K. & Erol, O. (2003). Tectonomorphologic evolution of Tuzgölü and surrounding area, central Anatolia-Turkey. Turkish Association of Petroleum Geologists Special Publication, 5, 27- 46.

  • Ekinci, D. ve Doğanaer, S. (2016). Unique Spit: Kızkumu (Marmaris/Turkey). Epra International Journal of Multidisciplinary Resaerch (JMR), 2(6), 35-48.

  • Emir, O. (2009). Argonautlar Efsanesi: Bir Mitosun Ardındaki Gerçekler ve Kolkhis. Uluslararası Karadeniz İncelemeleri Dergisi, 6, 9-24.

  • Erdem, M. E., Özcan, E., Yücel, A. O., Okay, A. I., Erbay, S., Kayğılı, S. & Yılmaz, İ. (2021). Late Campanian larger benthic foraminifera from the Zekeriyaköy Formation (İstanbul, NW Turkey): taxonomy, stratigraphy, and paleogeography. Turkish Journal of Earth Science, 30(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3906/yer-2007-9

  • Eren, M., Güler, C., Kadir, S. & Wanas, H. (2016). Sedimentological, mineralogical and geochemical characteristics of the ooids in Cleopatra (Sedir Island, Gökova Bay, SW Turkey) and Alexandria (NW Egypt) Beach sediments: A comparison and reality of myth of the love. Chemie der Erde (Geochemistry), 76(1), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemer.2016.02.001

  • Erkan, Y. (2013). Sedimanter Petrografi (Genişletilmiş 2. baskı). Afşaroğlu Matbaası.

  • Ertekin, C., Ekinci, Y. L., Büyüksaraç, A. & Ekinci, R. (2021). Geoheritage in a mythical and volcanic terrain: an inventory and assessment study for geopark and geotourism, Nemrut volcano, Bitlis, Eastern Turkey. Geoheritage, 13, Article 73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00593-5

  • Evliya Çelebi. (2023). Seyahatname, Yeditepe Yayınevi.

  • Gray, M. (2013). Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Second Edition. Wiley Blackwell.

  • Gül, Y. (2017). Kleopatra’nın İncileri mi, Doğanın İncileri mi: Ooidler. Mavi Gezegen, 22, 1-12.

  • Gül, M., Küçükuysal, C., Çetin, E, Ataytür, Ö. & Masud, A. (2020). Coastal Erosion Threat on the Kızkumu Spit Geotourism Site (SW Turkey): Natural and Anthropogenic Factors. Geoheritage, 12(3), 1– 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00477-0

  • Gül, M., Özbek, A. & Gül, M. (2025). Geomyths of Tunceli, Eastern Türkiye. Geoheritage, 17, Article 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-025-01106-4

  • Güngör, Y. (2021) Dünyayı Etkileyen Afetler ve Alınan Dersler, İstanbul Üniversitesi Açık ve Uzaktan Eğitim Fakültesi Yayını.

  • Güngör, Y. (2024). Geoheritage Inventory and Geotourism Studies of Gökçeada (Çanakkale, Western Türkiye). Geoheritage, 16, Article 138, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-01038-5

  • Güngör, Y. ve Oğuztüzün, C. (2007). Celilin Peri Bacaları. Atlas Dergisi, 176, Sayfa 80-88.

  • Güngör, Y., Akkemik, Ü., Azaz, D., Kimyonok, T., Çalık, M. M., Delibay, A. S. & Çiftçi, Y. (2025). An Example of a Spontaneous Geo-Conservation Beylikdüzü (İstanbul-Western Turkiye) Petrified Tree. Geoheritage, 17, Article 114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-025-01159-5

  • Hariri, Y. N. (2016). Hayvanlardan Tanrılara, Sapiens. İnsan türünün kısa bir tarihi. Kolektif Kitap.

  • Hosgörmez, H. (2007). Origin of the natural gas seep of Çirali (Chimera), Turkey: Site of the first Olympic fire. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 30(1), 131- 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2006.08.002

  • Karaoğlu, Ö. & Kılıç, S. (2017). Nemrut volkanı ve kral Nemrut’un efsanesi. Mavi Gezegen 22, 29, 37

  • Karlıoğlu, N, Akkemik, Ü. & Caner, H. (2009). Detection of some woody plants in Late Oligocene forests of Istanbul. Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 33(6), 577-584. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-0811-25

  • Kazancı, N. & Adıyaman-Lopes, Ö. (2022). The stones of Göbeklitepe, SE anatolia, turkey; an example of the shaping of cultural heritage by local geology since the early neolithic. Geoheritage, 14, Article 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00694-9

  • Kazancı, N. & Boyraz-Aslan, S. (2025). Brief Description of the Geomythological Sites in Anatolia, Türkiye. Geoheritage, 17, Article 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-025-01160-y

  • Knitter, D., Braun, R., Clare, L., Nykamp, M. & Schütt, B. (2019). Göbekli Tepe: a brief description of the environmental development in the the Surroundings of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. Land, 8(4), 72; https://doi.org/10.3390/land8040072

  • Mayor, A. (2004). Geomythology. In Selley, R.C., Cocks, R. & Pilmer, I. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Geology, Elsevier.

  • Okrostsvaridze, A. (2017). The Argonauts: A modern Investigation of the Myhtical “Gold Sans”. Lambert Academic Publisher.

  • Oktay, F. Y. ve Gökaşan, E. (2012). İstanbul Boğazının Oluşumu. 65. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı bildiri özetleri kitabı, s., 172-173.

  • Özgül, N. (2011). İstanbul il alanının jeolojisi. İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Planlama ve İmar Daire Başkanlığı, Zemin ve Deprem İnceleme Müdürlüğü, İstanbul, 305 s.

  • Özhan, E. (1990). The legend of Cleopatra Beach: May it be true?. Eurocoast, 98-103, Marseilles.

  • Özkaya, A. S. (2019). İstanbul’un En Eski Dikilitaşı: Hayat Kurtaran Pompei Sütunu. İstanbul’un Simge Taşları. Haz.: Fatih Dalgalı. İBB Kültür A.Ş. Yayını, İstanbul, 69-95.

  • Öztürk, H. (2004). The origin of the ooides of the Cleopatra Beach of Sedir Island, Aegean Sea, Turkey. 37th CIESM Congress, (p. 62). Barcelona.

  • Öztürk, H., Öztürk, B. ve Öztürk, A. A. (1998). Kleopatra Plajı (Gökova Körfezi) Kumlarının esrarı üzerine bulgular. Su Altı Bilimi ve Teknoloji Kongresi (s.: 98-104). İstanbul Üniversitesi.

  • Piccardi, L. (2007). The AD 60 Denizli Basin earthquake and the apparition of Archangel Michael at Colossae (Aegean Turkey). Myth ang Geology (p.: 95-105). The Geological Society of London 350 p.,

  • Piccardi, L. & Masse, W. B. (2007). Myth and geology. The Geological Society of London. London

  • Sarı, R., Türkecan, A., Dönme, M., Küçükefe, Ş., Aydın, Ü. & Özmen, Ö. (2015). The geology of Gökçeada (Çanakkale). Bullettin of the Mineral Research and Exploration, 150, 1-18.

  • Schmidt, K. (2003). The 2003 Compaign at Göbekli Tepe (Southeastern Turkey). Neo-lithics2/03, The Newsletter of Southwest Asian Neolithic Research. https://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2003_2.pdf

  • Schmidt A. K., Danısık, M., Aydar, E., Şen, E., Ulusoy, I. & Lovera, O. M. (2014).Identifying the volcanic eruption depicted in a neolithic painting at Çatalhöyük (Turkey). PloS ONE, 9 (1) Article e84711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084711

  • Şerefhan. (1597). Şerefname. (Arapçadan Türkçeye çeviren: Bozarslan, M. E.), 4. Baskı (1990). İstanbul, Hasat Yayınları.

  • Torrey, E. F. (2018). Beynin evrimi ve tanrıların ortaya çıkışı. Paloma Yayınevi.

  • Tuna,T. (2023). Boğazın Üzerinden atlayan İnek. İstanbul Dergi, 14.

  • Tüysüz, O., Aksay, A. ve Yiğitbaş, E. (2004). Batı Karadeniz Litostratigrafi Birimleri. MTA Stratigrafi Komitesi Litostratigrafi Birimleri Serisi, 1.

  • Ulu, Ü., Bulduk, A. K., Ekmekçi, E., Karakaş, M., Öcal, H., Arbas, A., Saçlı, L., Taşkıran, A., Adır, M., Sözeri, Ş. ve Karabıyıkoğlu, M. (1994a). İnlice-Akkise ve Cihanbeyli-Karapınar Alanının Jeolojisi (Rapor no: 9720). Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara.

  • Ulu, Ü., Ocal, H., Bulduk, A. K., Karakaş, M., Arbas, A., Saçlı, L., Taşkıran, A., Ekmekçi, E., Adır, M., Sözeri, Ş. ve Karabıyıkoğlu, M. (1994b). Cihanbeyli-Karapınar yöresi Geç Senozoyik çökelme sistemi: Tektonik ve iklimsel önemi. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı Bülteni, 9, 149-163.

  • Uygun, A. (1981). Tuzgölü havzasının jeolojisi, evaporit oluşumları ve hidrokarbon olanakları. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu İç Anadolu’nun Jeolojisi Sempozyumu, Ankara, 66-71.

  • URL-1, (05.09.2025). Guillaume-Antoine Olivier, 1806, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Bosphore_de_Thrace_ou_Canal_de_la_Mer_ Noire_-_Olivier_Guillaume_Antoine_-_1801.jpg

  • URL-2, (25.08.2025). George Sandys, 1610, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sandys#cite_note-:1-4

  • URL-3, (05.09.2025). Howard Davie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symplegades

  • URL-4, (06.09.2025). https://jinepsgazetesi.com/2013/10/tantalos-efsanesi-1

  • URL-5, (05.09.2025). Mitolojik Hikayeler, Tantalos İşkencesi. https://mitolojikhikayeler.com/tag/ tantalos-iskencesi

  • URL-6, (25.08.2025). Marmaris Kızkumu Plajı / Marmaris Kızılkum. https://tr.marmaris.info/project/marmaris-kizkumu-plaji/

  • URL-7, (25.08.2025). Marmaris Belediyesi İnternet Sayfası. http://www.marmaris.bel.tr.

  • URL-8, (25.08.2025). Yarıkkaya Efsanesi, The Epoch Times, Tr. https://epochtimestr.com/index.php/yarikkaya-efsanesi

  • Vitaliano, D. (1973). Legend of the Earth; Their Geological Origins. İndiana University Press.

  • Wallace-Hadrill (15 Eylül 2025). BBC. Pompeii: Portents of Disaster. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/pompeii_portents_01.shtml

  • Yalçın, M. N., Güngör, Y. ve Angı, O. S. (2022). Çarpışan Kayaların (Rumeli Feneri /İstanbul) üç öyküsü. Mavi Gezegen, 30, 1-14

  • Yüksel, V. ve Korkmaz, S. (1982) Mitoloji, Jeoloji ve turizm: Olimpos’un Sönmeyen Alevi. Yeryuvarı ve İnsan 7(2), 3-4.










  • APA

  • AMA

  • Chicago

  • EndNote

  • IEEE

  • ISNAD

  • JAMA

  • MLA

  • Vancouver

  • Significant Geosites in Bursa Province (NW Türkiye)
    Hükmü Orhan Aral Okay Nizamettin Kazanci Lütfi Nazik Murat Poyraz Berna Alpagut Yakup Çelik
    View as PDF

    Abstract: Geological heritage elements, consisting of geomorphological structures, minerals, rocks, and fossils, areused in uncovering the Earth`s past, identifying and mitigating natural hazards, and investigating global issues suchas adaptation to climate change. The protection and promotion of these structures, called geosites, is supported by UNESCO and other international institutions. Bursa, one of Türkiye`s major centers of culture, winter sports, and tourism, together with its surrounding area, contains numerous geological and geomorphological features of significant geoheritage value and geotourism potential. Bursa`s geological framework was shaped by the İzmir-Ankara suture zone, which formed as a resultof the subduction of the Tethys Ocean between the Sakarya Zone of the Pontides and the Tavşanlı Zone of the Anatolide-Tauride Block. Uludağ, often mistakenly regarded as volcanic, instead represents a classic metamorphic core complex (the Uludağ Massif), composed predominantly of gneiss, amphibolite, and marble. The principal geosites identified in Bursa Province include the Paşalar Mammal Fossil Bed, notable for its unique Middle Miocene fauna; the Kocasu Delta and the Karacabey Longozu (flooded forest), recognized as an important bird area; Lakes İznik and Uluabat, distinguished by their exceptional limnological and tectonic histories; andthe type locality of the mineral bursaite. Additional sites of mineralogical significance comprise the distinctive purple jadeite formations and the Uludağ scheelite deposit. The province also hosts numerous geomorphological features, including canyons (Sadağı, Fevziye, Sansarak, Tacir, and Yarhisar), waterfalls (notably Suuçtu Waterfall), and caves (Ayvaini, Oylat, Koca, Ayıini, and Gavurini). High-altitude areas of Uludağ display well developed periglacial features, glacial lakes, and tor structures formed in granite. Coal-bearing Mioceneunits are also wide spread within the Harmancık, Keles, Orhaneli, Mustafakemalpaşa, and İnegöl basins.This study draws on the outcomes of the Geological Heritage of Bursa Workshop held in 2023 and seeks to promote the protection and sustainable use of areas characterized by a rich and diverse geological heritage.

  • Bursa

  • geological heritage

  • geotourism

  • geosite

  • natural heritage

  • Uludağ










  • Alpagut, B. (2023). Bursa-Paşalar Miyosen dönemfosil yatağı kazısı, Bir doğal ve kültürel mirasöyküsü. H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlinin JeolojikMiras Değerleri, (s.46-55). Jeoloji MühendisleriOdası yayın no 152.

  • Andrews, P. & Alpagut, B. (Misafir Ed.ler) (1990).The Miocene Hominoid Site at Paşalar, Turkey.Journal of Human Evolution. 19 (4-5), 335-589.

  • Andrews, P. & Alpagut, B. (Misafir Ed.ler) (1995).Further papers on the Miocene hominoid site atPaşalar, Turkey. Journal of Human Evolution,28(4), 301-409.

  • Atabey, E, Nazik, L. ve Törk, K. (2002). Oylat Mağarasıçökel kayalarının sedimantolojisi, İnegöl (Bursa).Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi, 123-124, 91-98.

  • Çelik, Y. (2021), Keles (Bursa) Neojen havzasıkömür içerikli çökellerin depolanma ortamları.Uluslararası katılımlı Sedimantoloji ÇalışmaGrubu 2021 Çalıştayı bildirileri özet kitapçığı,55-60.

  • Çelik, Y., Karayigit, A. I., Oskay, R. G., Kayseri-Özer,M. S., Christanis, K., Hower, J. C. & Querol,X. A. (2021). Multidisciplinary Study andPalaeoenvironmental Interpretation of MiddleMiocene Keles Lignite (Harmancık Basin, NWTurkey), with Emphasis on Syngenetic ZeoliteFormation. International Journal of CoalGeology, 237, Article 103691.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2021.103691

  • Çiçek, E. (2004). Subasar ormanların özelliklerive Türkiye’nin Subasar Ormanları. İstanbulÜniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Seri B,54(2), 107-111.

  • Dostoğlu, N. (2023). UNESCO Dünya mirası Bursa:Hedefler ve sorumluluklar. H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursaİlinin Jeolojik Miras Değerleri, (s.56-61). JeolojiMühendisleri Odası yayın no 152.

  • Erginal, A. E. ve Ertek, A. (2008). Orhaneli Plütonununbazı jeomorfolojik özellikleri: Denüdasyon tarihikonusunda göstergeler. MTA Dergisi, 137, 79-89.

  • Erginal, A. E., Kıyak, N. G., Öztürk, M. Z., Avcıoğlu,M., Bozcu, M. & Yiğitbaş, E. (2012). The originand age of beach rock in a fresh-water environment,Lake Iznik, NW Turkey. Sedimentary Geology,243-244, 148–154.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2011.10.012

  • Erkut E. (2016). Bursa Orhaneli bölgesi, Sadağı vecivarının hidrojeolojisi [Yayımlanmamış Yükseklisans tezi]. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.

  • Eroğlu, G. ve Şahiner, M. (2019). Dünya’da veTürkiye’de Tungsten (Wolfram). MTA FizibiliteEtütleri Dairesi Başkanlığı Yayını.

  • Eryılmaz, D. (2023). 2003-2013 Yılları ArasındaYapılan Bursa–Paşalar Kazısı HominoidDişlerinin Metrik ve Morfolojik Analizi. AhiEvran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 9(3), 988-1007. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1307544

  • İncedayı, N. (2015). Kocasu çayı deltası ve yakınçevresinin ekolojik açıdan değerlendirilmesi.[Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. İstanbulÜniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü

  • Karaman, E. S. (2002). Farklı Türkiye mermertürlerinin toplam alfa ve toplam beta radyoaktiviteseviyelerinin tayini [Yayınlanmamış YüksekLisans Tezi]. İTÜ Nükleer Enerji Enstitüsü.

  • Kavgacı, A., Özalp, G. & Özhatay, N. (2007). Floraof Igneada floodplain forests (Longozes) andtheir surroundings. İstanbul Üniversitesi OrmanFakültesi Dergisi A, 57(2), 61- 90

  • Kazancı, N., Emre, Ö., Erkal, T., İleri, Ö., Ergin, M.ve Görür, N. (1999). Kocasu ve Gönen Çayıdeltalarının (Marmara denizi kuzey kıyıları)güncel morfolojileri ve tortul fasiyesleri. MTADergisi, 121, 33-50.

  • Kazancı, N. (2023). Bursa gölleri ve jeomirasözellikleri. H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlinin JeolojikMiras Değerleri, (s.78-91). Jeoloji MühendisleriOdası yayın no 152.

  • Kazancı, N. Şaroğlu, F. ve Yeşildere, Y. (2015).Jeolojik Miras ve Türkiye jeositleri çatı listesi.MTA Dergisi, 151, 263-272.

  • Kelly, J. Andrews, P. & Alpagut, B. (2008). TheHominoid Remains from the Miocene Site ofPaşalar, Turkey. Journal of Human Evolution,54(4), 453-538.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.08.006

  • Ketin, İ. (1947). Über die Tektonik des Uludağ –Massivs: Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bülteni, 1, 60-88.https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/720161

  • Kraeff, A. (1974). Bursait mineralinde parlaklık vemikrosertlik ölçmeleri. MTA Bülteni, 82, 133-136.

  • Nazik, L. ve Poyraz, M. (2023b). Bursa’da jeositözelliği taşıyan mağara ve kanyonlar. H. Orhan(Ed.), Bursa İlinin Jeolojik Miras Değerleri, (s.99-108). Jeoloji Mühendisleri Odası yayın no 152.

  • Nazik, L. (2010). Türkiye morfolojisinde kanyonlarayeni bir yaklaşım: Mağara kanyonlar. UlusalJeomorfoloji Sempozyumu, 11-13 Ekim,Afyonkarahisar

  • Nazik, L. ve Poyraz, M. (2023a). Bursa ilindeki karstikyapılar. H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlinin JeolojikMiras Değerleri, (s.32-45). Jeoloji MühendisleriOdası yayın no 152.

  • Okay, A. I. & Whitney, D.I. (2010). Blueschists,Eclogites, ophiolites and suture zones inNorthwest Turkey: A review and a field excursionguide. Ofioliti, 35(2), 131-172.

  • Okay, A. I. (2023a). Uludağ’ın jeolojisi ve evrimi.H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlinin Jeolojik MirasDeğerleri, (s.10-19). Jeoloji Mühendisleri Odasıyayın no 152.

  • Okay, A. I. (2023b). Bursa’ya özgü değerli bir taş-Moryeşim. H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlinin Jeolojik MirasDeğerleri, (s.126-130). Jeoloji MühendisleriOdası yayın no 152.

  • Orhan, H. ve Kozak, Y. (2023a). Bursa kanyonları. H.Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlinin Jeolojik Miras Değerleri,(s.109-118). Jeoloji Mühendisleri Odası yayın no152.

  • Orhan, H ve Kozak, Y. (2023b). Uludağ buzul (Sirk)gölleri. H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlinin Jeolojik MirasDeğerleri, (s.119-123). Jeoloji MühendisleriOdası yayın no 152.

  • Orhan, H. (2023). Bursait. H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlininJeolojik Miras Değerleri, (s.124-125). JeolojiMühendisleri Odası yayın no 152.

  • Özkul, M. (2023). Jeoparklar ve jeoturizm. H. Orhan(Ed.), Bursa İlinin Jeolojik Miras Değerleri, (s.62-71). Jeoloji Mühendisleri Odası yayın no 152.

  • Öztürk, M. Z. (2023). Uludağ’ın periglasiyaljeomorfolojisi. H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlininJeolojik Miras Değerleri, (s.20-31). JeolojiMühendisleri Odası yayın no 152.

  • Pişkin, A. İ. (1998). Bursa-Uludağ volfram ve skarnmineralizasyonunun ekonomik değerlendirilmesi[Yayınlanmamış Yüksek lisans tezi]. İstanbulÜniversitesi.

  • Sarıyıldız, T., Parlak, S. ve Tanı, M. (2020). BursaKaracabey subasar ormanlarının kavak vefıstıkçamı plantasyonlarına dönüştürülmesinintoprak karbon ve azot stoklarına etkisininaraştırılması. Ağaç ve Orman, 1(1), 28-35

  • Seyitoğlu, G. ve Esat, K. (2023). Bursa SıyrılmaFayı: Uludağ genişlemeli çekirdek kompleksitanımlaması için anahtar konumda bulunan birjeosit önerisi. H. Orhan (Ed.), Bursa İlinin JeolojikMiras Değerleri, (s.91-98). Jeoloji MühendisleriOdası yayın no 152.

  • Tolun, R. (1955). A new mineral: Bursaite. UnescoSymp. Appl. Geol. Near East, Ankara.

  • URL-1, (16 Ağustos 2023). T.C. Bursa Valiliği.http://www.bursa.gov.tr

  • URL-2, (06 Eylül 2025). T.C. Bursa Valiliği. KaracabeyLongoz Ormanları.http://www.bursa.gov.tr/karacabey-longoz-ormanlari

  • URL-3. http://www.ivmminerals.org/public/images/bursa.jpg

  • URL-4, (16 Ağustos 2023). Assignment Point. Bursaite:Properties and Occurrenceshttps://assignmentpoint.com/bursaite-properties-occurrences/

  • URL-5, (16 Ağustos 2023). Maden Tetkik ve AramaGenel Müdürlüğü. Tungsten – Volfram.(https://www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0/metalik-madenler/tungsten-volfram)

  • URL-6, (09 Eylül 2025). Arel Doğaltaş.www.arelstone.com/tr.

  • URL-7, (06 Eylül 2025). Visit Bursa. Sadağı Kanyonu.https://visitbursa.org/tr/mekanlar/sadagi-kanyonu-23

  • URL-8, (12 Ağustos 2023).https://gezgince.com/tr/gezinti/sadagi-kanyonu-ve-kaya-hamamı/

  • URL-9, (16 Ağustos 2023). Bursada Bugün.https://www.bursadabugun.com/haber/bursa-sansarak-kanyonu-hak-ettigi-degeri-bulacak-1323099.html

  • URL-10. (16 Ağustos 2023). Sözcü.https://www.sozcu.com.tr/hayatim/yasam-haberleri/cennetten-bir-kose/

  • URL-11. (16 Ağustos 2023). İnegöl Belediyesi.https://www.inegol.bel.tr/inegol/inegolde-gezilecek-yerler-inegol-rehberi/fevziye-kanyonu)

  • URL-12, (06 Eylül 2025). Visit Bursa. Tacir Kanyonu.https://visitbursa.org/tr/mekanlar/tacir-kanyonu-26

  • URL-13, (06 Eylül 2025). MustafakemalpaşaBelediyesi. Suuçtu Şelalesi.https://www.mustafakemalpasa.bel.tr/mustafakemalpasa/suuctu-selalesi

  • Ustaoğlu, M. R., Balık, S., Sarı, H. M., Mis, D. Ö.,Aygen, C., Özbek, M., İlhan, A., Taşdemir,Yıldız, A., S. ve Topkara, E. T. (2008). Uludağ(Bursa)’daki buzul gölleri ve akarsularında faunalbir çalışma. E.Ü. Su Ürünleri Dergisi, 25(4), 295–299.

  • Uzun, A. (1995). Uludağ’da Tor oluşumu. TürkiyeCoğrafya Dergisi, 30, 53-65.

  • APA

  • AMA

  • Chicago

  • EndNote

  • IEEE

  • ISNAD

  • JAMA

  • MLA

  • Vancouver

  • View as PDF