Mediterranean Geoscience Reviews

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 179–202 | Cite as

Tephrostratigraphy and chronology of the Quaternary Gölludağ and Acıgöl volcanic complexes (Central Anatolia, Turkey)

  • D. MouralisEmail author
  • J.-F. Pastre
  • C. Kuzucuoğlu
  • A. Türkecan
  • H. Guillou
Original Paper


The two Göllüdağ and Acıgöl volcanic complexes are located in Cappadocia and belong to the Central Anatolia Volcanic Province. Their activity covers a wide time range from Middle to Upper Pleistocene and the Holocene. The large amount of tephra emitted explains the regional importance of this activity; whereas, the study of obsidian associated with their activity relates to several archaeological topics and research questions. Intensive field work in and around both complexes allows to present here a detailed tephrostratigraphy. In addition, results of ~ 460 single grain geochemical analyses (about 5–10 analyses for each sample out of a total of 48 samples) as well as intensive mineral counting provide an accurate reference set of signatures of Pleistocene rhyolitic tephras in Cappadocia. Correlations are based on stratigraphic observation and characterization of the tephra layers, and are also supported by multivariate statistical analyses. Chronology, constrained by 18 radiometric data (mainly K/Ar), demonstrates the Middle Pleistocene age of the main Göllüdağ tuff (ca 1.3 Ma) and confirms the Middle to Upper Pleistocene age of the main Acıgöl tuff. Our studies, thus, produce a regional tephrostratigraphic reference, which may be used for long-distance correlation. Besides, the tephra studied and analysed also form key layers used here for geomorphologic reconstruction and dating of stratigraphic and archaeological sequences.


Tephrostratigraphy Rhyolitic complexes Central anatolian volcanic province (CAVP) 


Establishing a confident stratigraphy of pyroclastic rocks on a regional scale requires that the formations erupted by volcanic complexes be characterised by a specific signature which can mainly be defined in terms of major element composition of glass shards and mineral content. Additional techniques, such as analyses of trace element composition and statistical treatments of all chemical elements, are also available for discriminating distinct eruptions emitted by a given volcanic complex. Additional indicators also contribute to discrimination: shapes of glass shards, morphology of pumice grains, mineral paragenesis and heavy mineral content.

Tephrochronology also requires sets of dates (whatever the dating method applied) associated with the mineral and geochemical characterization of the tephra layers. Tephras are then potential marker horizons for long-distance correlation. As an example, when applied to distal tephra layers, the results allow the chronological control of marine cores. In this domain and according to recent reviews of tephra layers in the Mediterranean region (Hamann et al. 2010; Zanchetta et al. 2011; Satow et al. 2015), the lack of knowledge about the pyroclastites of the CAVP is crucially obvious as it generates many unsupported hypotheses about the origin of several Late Pleistocene tephras from the Eastern Mediterranean region.

Indeed, Pleistocene and Holocene tephrochronological investigations are still scarce in Anatolia. Apart from the Minoan eruption (Thera-Santorini) which is now confidently identified in several lake sequences of western Anatolia (Bottema and Woldring 1984; Eastwood et al. 1999; Roberts et al. 1997; Sullivan 1990, 1988), only a few other Upper Pleistocene and Holocene tephras have been reported in sequences of the Western Anatolia (Platevoet et al. 2007; Kazancı et al. 2012), Tuz Gölü (Kashima 2002), Konya plain and Cappadocia (Inoue and Saito 1997; Kashima 2002; Kuzucuoğlu et al. 1998, 1997). Data on mineral and glass composition from these Anatolian tephras and pyroclastites are even rarer with some data available in (Kuzucuoğlu et al. 1997, 1998; Kürkçüoğlu et al. 1998; Pastre et al. 1998; Karabıyıoğlu et al. 1999).

The importance of Central Anatolian pyroclastic deposits related to the Göllüdağ and Acıgöl rhyolitic complexes also arises from increasingly challenging archaeological topics. In the Göllüdağ massif, recent surveys, excavations, and geoarchaeological investigations focused on prehistoric workshops associated with obsidian outcrops (Balkan-Atlı and Binder 2000; Balkan-Atlı et al. 2011; Kuhn et al. 2015). A significant amount of geochemical analyses for both artefacts and raw material in and around these ryholitic complex is now available (Binder et al. 2011; Poidevin 1998). So far, the pyroclastites associated with obsidian and those present in excavations have not been studied, with the exception of the Palaeolithic “Kaletepe Deresi 3” excavation (Mouralis et al. 2002; Mouralis 2003; Slimak et al. 2004, 2008; Tryon et al. 2009).

Thus, tephrostratigraphy contributes to the dating of human occupation of the region, and to the reconstruction of the morphological and palaeoenvironmental evolution of Cappadocia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene. Consequently, this paper aims at providing a detailed regional tephrostratigraphy based on the identification and characterization of the tephra layers related to the Quaternary rhyolithic complexes in Cappadocia, i.e., the Göllüdağ massif and the Acıgöl (Nevşehir) area. Apart from challenging the Eastern Mediterranean tephrochronology, the detailed analyses of the pyroclastites erupted by these rhyolitic volcanoes address three main palaeoenvironmental issues. (1) The large volumes of tephra emitted buried palaeotopography and palaeomorphology. (2) The obsidian erupted by these volcanoes was quarried and chopped by prehistoric people, while some tephra layers also bury human artefacts. (3) The volcanic activity covers a wide time range: from the Lower to the Middle Pleistocene in the Göllüdağ complex, and from Middle to Upper Pleistocene in the Acıgöl area where Holocene activity is also reported (Kuzucuoğlu et al. 1998). With regard to the necessity of completing our knowledge about these three related topics, our paper intends to produce a detailed tephrostratigraphy and chronology of both the Göllüdağ and the Acıgöl rhyolitic complexes. It is partially based on a project associating CNRS and Tübitak whose results have been reported in Türkecan et al. (2004), also including new stratigraphic observations as well as new chemical analyses and interpretations.

Regional geological setting

The Göllüdağ and Acıgöl rhyolitic complexes are located south of Cappadocia (Fig. 1). They belong to the Central Anatolian Volcanic Province (CAVP) where volcanic activity began during the Miocene and remained active until the Holocene. Recent papers by Aydar et al. (2012, 2014), Di Giuseppe et al. (2018), Raybarol et al. (2019) or Türkecan (2015) review the dating of the CAVP.
Fig. 1

Location map showing the studied area and the other Quaternary volcanoes of the CAVP

Because of the considerable volume of magma emitted during this long period, the pre-volcanic substratum outcrops very rarely and plays a minor role in the regional morphology (Fig. 2). The Neogene volcanoes comprise two main types: (1) Andesitic composite volcanoes at the north (Erdaş Dağ), south (Melendiz mountains), and west (Şahinkalesi Tepe) of today’s Göllüdağ; (2) Thick Cappadocian ignimbrites, studied by several geologists after the pioneer work of Pasquarè (1966, 1968) and Innocenti et al. (1976), Besang et al. (1977) and followed by Temel et al. (1998), Le Pennec et al. (1994, 2005) and Aydar et al. (2012). The lack of morphological evidence for volcano-tectonic depressions associated with the eruption of these ignimbrites has led to the development of various hypotheses regarding hidden calderas in the region. Sedimentologic features (Le Pennec et al. 1994, 2005) as well as gravimetric data (Froger et al. 1998) indicate two “hidden” calderas: south of Nevşehir (in the area of today’s Acıgöl rhyolitic complex) and west of Derinkuyu village (in the area of today’s Göllüdağ rhyolitic complex).
Fig. 2

Geological sketch map of Acıgöl and Gölludağ volcanic complexes. 1. Non-volcanic basement. 2. Neogene volcanic rocks (ignimbrites and lava flows). 3. Quaternary mafic to intermediary lava flows (basalt and andesite). 4. Göllüdağ main tuff (GMT). 5. Acıgöl main tuff (AMT). 6. Main obsidian outcrop. 7. Alluvium deposit. 8. Scoria cone. 9. Maar crater. 10. Dome. 11. Sections. 12. Samples Dated. 13. Villages and settlements. 14. Hypothetic limits of the volcano-tectonic structures. Ages refers to the data published in this article (Table 2), except CKUZ-97/8-01, CKUZ-97/8-02 and CKUZ-97/8-04 presented in Kuzucuoğlu et al. (this volume)

During the Quaternary, volcanic activity produced two composite volcanoes (Hasandağ and Erciyes), numerous monogenic vents (Doğan-Kulahcı et al. 2018), and two rhyolitic complexes (Fig. 2): Acıgöl to the north and Göllüdağ to the south (Mouralis et al. 2019, 2002) which are separated by the Erdaş Dağ andesitic massif respectively. Both complexes comprise voluminous pyroclastic deposits and domes extruded inside the main structures.

While the Göllüdağ complex has been poorly studied except for obsidian geochemistry, the Acıgöl complex was first described and identified as a caldera by (Yıldırım and Özgür 1981). Later, Druitt et al. (1995) studied its pyroclastic products, proposing a first stratigraphy. Kazancı et al. (1995) described the surges of the Eski Acıgöl maar located inside the complex. Kuzucuoğlu et al. (1998) identified seven tephra layers interstratified within the lake sediments of this maar; the 14C ages of these tephra layers range from 14 to 7 ka cal. BP (Kuzucuoğlu et al. 1998; Roberts et al. 2001).

Ages of both rhyolitic complexes have been obtained on obsidian by (mainly) Bigazzi et al. (1993, 1997) and Chataigner et al. (1998), dating the eruptive activity of Göllüdağ volcanoes Middle Pleistocene, and that of Acıgöl Middle to Upper Pleistocene. The stratigraphically subdivided Lower and Upper Acıgöl Tuffs (Druitt et al., 1995) were subsequently dated using U-Th and (U-Th)/He geochronology to ca. 190 and 160 ka, respectively (Schmitt et al. 2011, partially revised in Atici et al. 2019, this volume). Schmitt et al. (2011) also confirmed the 26–20 ka age of the rhyolitic domes which formed after the main eruption. Radiometric data compiled here not only confirm but also refine this chronology.


The tephrostratigraphy and tephrochronology proposed in this paper are based on: (1) the systematic study of the stratigraphy within and around the Göllüdağ and Acıgöl Quaternary complexes, combined with (2) establishing a regional tephra reference set based on the characterization of tephra layers (using petrography, glass chemistry and minerals association) and multivariate statistical analyses; (3) radiometric datingto constrain the chronology.

Stratigraphical correlations and characterization of tephra layers

The correlations between tephra layers are first based on field evidence: depositional facies and long-distance facies change; pumice morphologies, mineral paragenesis and texture, as well as petrographic compositions of lithics. Additional analyses performed in the laboratory completed the identification of tephra(s) through determination of the mineral associations, and glass geochemistry characterization (electron microprobe).

Mineral assemblages of Göllüdağ and Hasandağ samples were determined after a first separation using heavy liquid (bromoform; density ≈ 2.89). Extracted heavy minerals (density > 2.89) were mounted in Canada balsam and counted under a mineralogy microscope. For each sample, counting reached a total of 300 grains, the uncertainty being then lower than 5% (Parfenoff et al. 1970). Figure 3 shows that the tephra layers erupted by the Hasandağ volcano are characterised by a high amphibole amount (40–60% of the counted minerals), whereas the tephra layers emitted by the Göllüdağ are ortho- and clinopyroxene rich. On the other hand, pyroclastites erupted by the Acıgöl complex are generally aphyric.
Fig. 3

Paragenesis of selected tephras layers from the Göllüdağ complex

Single grain geochemical analyses (WDS). 48 samples were analysed through 460 single glass shards electron probe microanalyses (EPMA) using a Cameca SX100 microprobe at the “Magmas et Volcans” Laboratory (UMR 6524, Clermont-Ferrand), and in the “Camparis” Laboratory (Sorbonne University, Paris VI University, Paris). Nine major element contents were measured, according to a conventional protocol (Frogatt 1992; Lowe 2011): after mounting shards in epoxy and careful polishing, microprobe analyses were performed with a beam intensity of ~ 6–8 nA, with 15 kV accelerating potential. When analysing glass shards, the beam was defocused to 10 μm to limit the volatilization of alkaline elements. At least 5–10 different glass shards have been analysed for each sample. Results are expressed in mass percent of each oxide analysed.

We already published a small set of the data obtained in Tryon et al. 2009 (347 analyses). New sampling and analyses presented here improve this initial data set by including more tephra layers from Acıgöl and Göllüdağ as well as some geochemical data from Karadağ volcano (a composite volcano located in the Konya plain, near the well-known Çatalhöyük Neolithic site).

Regional tephra reference data set and multivariate analyses

To establish a reference data set, we sampled systematically the rhyolitic tephra layers from both the Göllüdağ and Acıgöl complexes. For comparisons, we also sampled tephra layers from the nearby composite Quaternary volcanoes of the CAVP (Hasandağ, Erciyes Dağ and Karadağ).

Our reference data set is structured according to the scale of observation and sampling. We distinguish four different levels; the structure of the reference data set used in this study is presented in complementary data 1. The first (larger) level (1) corresponds to six “groups of tephra layers”. Each group presents similar characteristics (geochemical and mineralogical) and is formed by tephra layers from a single volcano. Resolution increases at level (2) where 19 tephra layers were distinguished on the basis of inter-comparison of field sections (stratigraphic logs in Figs. 8 and 9) and stratigraphic position. Level (3) corresponds to the whole set of 48 samples collected in the field, and level (4) groups the chemical content results of 460 single grain analyses. Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviation of the geochemical analyses for level (1) (“groups of tephra layer”) whereas complementary data 2 gives the mean and standard deviation for each of the 48 samples (level 3).
Table 1

Summary data of major elements characterization using electron microprobe

Groups of tephra layers











Anlytical total





































































































































Mean (first line, in bold) and standard deviation for each group of tephra layer. Data are normalised to 100%. In the last column, the analytical total (not normalised) indicates the quality of the analyses. The complete data for each tephra layer are indicated in Complementary data 2

Analytical conditions: Electron probe micro analyses (EPMA) using a Cameca SX100 microprobe at the “Magmas et Volcans” Laboratory (UMR 6524, Clermont-Ferrand), and in the “Camparis” Laboratory (Paris VII University, Paris). Beam intensity of 6–8 nA, with 15-kV accelerating potential. Beam was defocused to 10 μm for glass shards

aNumber of individual analyses

bTotal Fe expressed as FeO

To reduce and graphically interpret the variations observed within this dataset, we use multivariate analyses based on discriminant function analyses (DFA). It is one of the most powerful methods, allowing to test statistically the strength of our classification based on the stratigraphic evidences and to assign any distal tephra of unknown origin to one of the regional Quaternary volcanoes.

DFA are computed using Systat 12.02 for Windows. Data from all nine major elements analysed are treated through a classical discriminant analysis. Prior probabilities are weighted proportionally to group size differences within our samples. Data used in the model are not normalised because neither normalisation nor log ratio transformation showed improvement of the results discrimination.

Radiometric ages

Twenty-two K/Ar dates have been obtained at the LSCE (UMR 8212). All samples were dated using the unspiked K–Ar technique described by Charbit et al. (1998). Both K and Ar measurements were performed on the groundmass of lava samples, since the groundmass is considered to be representative of the phase that crystallised during the solidification of the lava. After crushing, sieving to the 250–125 mm fraction size, samples were washed in ultrasonically bath of acetic acid (1 N) during 45 min at a temperature of 60 °C, to remove any secondary mineral phases. Phenocrysts and xenocrysts, which may carry excess 40Ar, were then removed using heavy liquids of appropriate densities, and magnetic separations to produce a clean groundmass separate.

Potassium was analysed by atomic absorption and flame emission spectrophotometry. Argon was extracted from 1 to 2.6 g of groundmass sample by radio frequency heating induction in a high vacuum glass line, and purified with titanium sponge and Zr–Al getters. Argon was analysed using a 180°, 6-cm radius, 620-V accelerating potential mass spectrometer working in a semi-static mode. Beam sizes were measured simultaneously on a double Faraday collector in sets of 100 online acquisitions with a 1-s integration time. A manometrically calibrated dose of atmospheric Ar is used to convert beam intensities into atomic abundances. A separate measurement of atmospheric argon is used to monitor the atmospheric correction. The manometric calibration is based on periodic, replicate determinations of the international dating standard HD-B1 (24.21 ± 0.32 Ma), (Fuhrmann et al. 1987; Hautmann and Lippolt 2000; Hess and Lippolt 1994) using the same procedure as described in Charbit et al. (1998).

If the unspiked K–Ar method allows to measure accurately small amounts of radiogenic 40Ar (Guillou et al. 2011), it cannot check two important assumptions ruling the K–Ar clock, (1) that the initial 40Ar/36Ar ratio of the sample is of atmospheric composition and (2) that the isotopic system remained closed since the age of crystallisation. Therefore, K–Ar ages may be affected by unresolved excess argon or argon loss, fractionated 40Ar, implying real errors higher than the analytical ones.

Morgan et al. (2009), Flude et al. (2018) and Clay et al. (2015) demonstrate that mobility of 40Ar in obsidian glass may produce erroneous results. Flude et al. (2018) and Clay et al. (2015) observed this on hydrated and subglacial obsidians where interaction of water with the magma is an important disruptive vector of the K–Ar clock. Given the fact that the obsidians studied here emplaced subaerially, we consider that our obsidian samples did not suffer from this perturbation. Following Morgan et al. (2009) recommendations, to reduce at its maximum erroneous results due to atmospheric alteration effects on obsidian and lava flows all our samples were collected as far as possible from the rims of the flows and domes. This approach has produced accurate and reliable unspiked K–Ar ages (Le Bourdonnec et al. 2012) based on agreement with 40Ar/39Ar ages. Age bias due to Ar-isotope fractionation, however, remains a potential source of bias.

K–Ar ages may significantly overestimate eruption ages in the case of samples containing extraneous argon that includes both excess and inherited argon (Sasco et al. 2017 and references therein). This is mostly the case with continental mafic rocks containing significant amounts of xenoliths, xenocrysts and phenocrysts. Because all our samples are free of such artefacts and because direct comparisons between the unspiked method and the 40Ar/39Ar (Guillou et al. 2004, 2011; Laj et al. 2014; Singer et al. 2008, 2009), which verifies via the age spectra and isochron formalism all the basic assumption ruling the K–Ar clock, successfully qualified the unspiked method when applied to unaltered and free of excess 40Ar samples, we trust on the geological significance of our K–Ar results. So even if we consider our ages reliable, in the absence of direct comparison with the 40Ar/39Ar method, the analytical errors given in Table 2 may in principle be less than the real error.
Table 2

K/Ar dating of lava flows in and around Göllüdağ, Acıgöl volcanoes







Weight molten (g)

40Ar* (%)

40Ar* (10−12 moles/g)

Age (±2s)ka

Age mean value

A—In and around Golludağ volcanic complex

M years



Porphyric rhyo-dacite

Western part of the Bozköy-Kayırlı road


4.333 ± 0.043




6.25 ± 0.12

6.21 ± 0.09




6.17 ± 0.12




Top of Kayırlı village. Under the Main Golludağ Tuf.


0.963 ± 0.010




1.66 ± 0.04

1.71 ± 0.03




1.75 ± 0.04




Western part of Boztepe


3.711 ± 0.04




0.972 ± 0.02

0.966 ± 0.014




0.959 ± 0.02




Northeastern slope of the Göllüdağ


3.849 ± 0.038




0.868 ± 0.018

0.855 ± 0.013




0.842 ± 0.018






3.769 ± 0.038




1.09 ± 0.02

1.10 ± 0.02




1.12 ± 0.02




Western part of Boztepe


3.752 ± 0.038




1.07 ± 0.02

1.08 ± 0.02




1.10 ± 0.02




Küçük Göllüdağ


3.692 ± 0.037




0.430 ± 0.009

0.444 ± 0.007




0.459 ± 0.010

B—In and around Acıgol volcanic complex

k years




Inalli-Asağıkızıl Tepe 


0.960 ± 0.010




631 ± 15

618 ± 14




605 ± 13




Yukarı Kızıl Tepe (South of Inalli)


0.739 ± 0.007




536 ± 16

538 ± 12




540 ± 18




Asmadağı Tepe

DAM- 124

3.683 ±0.037




162 ± 4

160 ± 3




158 ± 4




Kızıl Tepe (Tuluce). South of Boğazköy


1.468 ± 0.015




154 ± 5

154 ± 4




153 ± 4




Kızıl  Tepe (North). South of Boğazköy,


1.656 ± 0.017




130 ± 4

134 ± 3




138 ± 4




Özyayla Tepe. Top of the section


1.573 ± 0.016




105 ± 4

110 ± 5




116 ± 6




Ozyayla Tepe. Bottom of the section


1.517 ± 0.015




106 ± 4

109 ± 4




112 ± 4




East of Kocadağ


3.711 ± 0.037




95 ± 3

93 ± 2




90 ± 2




Kızıl  Tepe (Kızılcın)


1.602 ± 0.016




82 ± 4

81 ± 4




79 ± 8




Obruk Tepe


1.543 ± 0.015




32 ± 4

32 ± 3




31 ± 4

Correlations between element oxide abundance (in wt. %) for the first two canonical axes of the reference set. Canonical discriminant functions standardised by within variances

Age calculation is based on Steiger and Jäger (1977) constants

Moreover, a single 14C dating was performed by accelerated β counting at the UMR 1572 (M. Fontugne; LSCE, Gif-sur-Yvette) on a sample from a palaeosol interstratified within pyroclastites of the Acıgöl complex (complementary data 3).


Main characteristics of the tephra layers

Petrographic and mineralogical definition of pumice

Pumice erupted from the Acıgöl complex is aphyric, whereas pumice from the Göllüdağ and the Hasandağ eruptions is microphyric to porphyric with minerals < 0.5 mm and proportions of heavy minerals ranging between 0.01 and 4%. We did not perform exhaustive chemical analyses of minerals associated with each tephra, but focused on their relative content. The counting of heavy minerals within the samples collected in the Göllüdağ area reveals three main groups (Fig. 3): (1) Hasandağ pyroclastites contain a high amount of amphiboles; (2) pyroclastic deposits related to Göllüdağ associated with the paroxysmal eruption, noted TG-1 to TG-10, present a relative abundance of minerals in the following order: orthopyroxene, pyroxene, opaque minerals, clinopyroxene and amphibole; (3) pyroclastites related to extrusion of domes in and around the Göllüdağ complex differ from other groups by the dominance of amphibole and opaque minerals-rich products.

Geochemical results

The Quaternary pyroclastic deposits from Cappadocia belong to the calc-alkaline medium potassic series represented by the complete range from basalt to rhyolite. Pumice glass shards of both complexes belong to the most differentiated products in the CAVP, with SiO2 content above 72.5%. In the TAS diagram (Le Maitre 2002), pumice composition is located in the rhyolite field (Fig. 4). Mantle sources and magmatic evolution have already been studied (Aydar et al. 1995, 2012; Ercan et al. 1987, 1990, 1992; Notsu et al. 1995; Olanca 1994; Siebel et al. 2011); we focus here on the correlation of these tephra layers by using their geochemical properties.
Fig. 4

Total Alkali-Silica diagram (TAS). After Le Maitre (2002). Data are 100% normalised

The geochemical analyses of 48 samples of Quaternary rhyolitic tephras of the CAVP allow distinguishing six groups of tephra layers (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, Tables 1 and 3) which are:
Fig. 5

Result of the discriminant function analyses. Individual analyses and mean of each group of tephra layer classified according to the statistical model showing good separation between each group

Fig. 6

Selected major (wt %) Harker variation diagrams

Table 3

Analysis of the discriminant functions for the geochemical data set: correlations between element oxide abundance (in wt %) for the first two canonical axes of the reference set. Canonical discriminant functions standardised by within variances











Canonical variate 1


− 0.836








Canonical variate 2







− 0.282



  1. 1.

    Göllüdağ Tephra Layers (GDT), emitted by the Göllüdağ volcanic complex either during paroxysmal eruptions or during later dome extrusion (dated ca 1 Ma in Batum (1978) and Bigazzi et al. (1993, 1998).

  2. 2.

    Acıgöl main tuff group (AMT), represented by the Lower and Upper Acıgöl tuffs described by Druitt et al. (1995), and dated ca 206–163 ka in Schmitt et al. (2011).

  3. 3.

    Pyroclastic deposits associated with rhyolitic domes and maars extruded after the Acıgöl main tuff deposition during the Acıgöl terminal activity phase (ATT) and which are dated ca 30–20 ka according to Bigazzi et al. (1993) and Schmitt et al. (2011).

In addition, samples collected in and around the other Quaternary composite volcanoes of the CAVP, form three additional groups of tephra layers in our data set (Figs. 1, and 4, complementary data 1, complementary data 2):
  1. 4.

    Hasandağ (HSDG) where recent ages of rhyolitic events range from Middle to Upper Pleistocene (younger than 35 ka according to Kuzucuoğlu et al. (1998) and Pastre et al. (1998);

  2. 5.

    Erciyes (ERCI);

  3. 6.

    Karadağ in the Konya plain (KARA).


Discriminant function analyses (DFA)

The canonical variates (CV) plots reveal a clear separation between the different groups within the multivariate space defined by CV1 and CV2 axes which account for 93.2% of the total variance (Fig. 5, Tables 1 and 3). The most discriminant oxides are, in decreasing order: CaO, Al2O3, SiO2 and Na2O (Table 3). The discriminant analysis correctly classifies the individual analyses of tephra layers within the correct group of tephra layers defined on the basis of the stratigraphic correlation in 97% cases (Table 4). Misclassifications within our reference set concern primarily Karadağ because of similarities with the geochemical composition of Erciyes and Hasandağ pyroclastic deposits. Some misclassification also occurs between Göllüdağ tephras (GDT) and Acıgöl terminal tuff (ATT) groups. However, the good separation along the canonical axes and the high proportion of correctly classified samples emphasise the strength of our model allowing us to classify distal tephra layers from primarily unknown origin to one of the Quaternary volcanoes.
Table 4

Jackknifed classification matrix of volcanic sources and eruptive phases used in the linear discriminant analysis of the reference set (this paper), based on untransformed abundances (in wt. %) of all elements








% Correctly classified to known source

























































The end right column lists the correct classification (expressed in %) with regard to a volcanic source defined a priori. This percentage is, thus, an estimate of the strength of the classificatory model

Stratigraphic correlations

In both rhyolithic complexes, we distinguish two types of deposits related to two main eruption phases: (1) a “major tuff” mainly composed of ash and pumice flows emitted during the main activity phase; and (2) other pyroclastites linked to terminal activity (mainly maar formation and dome extrusions). These major tuffs are probably linked to collapse of part of each complexes, although the present morphology in both complexes lacks an expression of a caldera with the exception of a few fault-controlled cliffs.

In the case of the Göllüdağ complex, we group all Göllüdağ tephra layers into one geochemical group (GDT): the geochemical composition of major elements does not allow differentiating both eruptive phases. In the case of the Acıgöl complex, however, it is possible to distinguish the main tuff (AMT) from the terminal activity linked to later dome extrusions (ATT).

In Figs. 7 and 9, letters “TG” label the tephra layers emitted during both Göllüdağ volcanic activity phases. These « TG » letters are followed by a number (1–13) representing the stratigraphic and chronological position of each layer distinguished (1 = the basal one, i.e., the oldest tephra of the series). The same labelling system is used for the Acıgöl (TA-1 to TA-12) and Hasandağ (TH) pyroclastic deposits. In some cases, the pyroclastic deposits found in and around the Göllüdağ area were produced by the volcanic activity of the Acıgöl or Hasandağ volcanoes. They are, thus, named TGx-A and TGx-H, respectively. Finally, the letter β indicates the basaltic nature of some analysed tephra layers. In addition, all tephra units within the sedimentary sections studied in the field are identified by the following notation: section number/unit number (e.g., 17/2 refers to unit two within Sect. 17).
Fig. 7

Stratigraphy of the tephra layers in and around the Göllüdağ complex. “TG” labels the tephra layers emitted during Göllüdağ volcanic activity phases. The following numbers (1–13) represent the stratigraphic order and chronological position of each layer (1 = the basal one, i.e., the oldest tephra of the series). The same labelling system is used for the Acıgöl (TA-1 to TA-12) and Hasandağ (TH) pyroclastic units. TGx-A and TGx-H refer to pyroclastic deposits found in and around the Göllüdağ area and erupted by the Acıgöl or Hasandağ volcanoes, respectively. The letter β indicates the basaltic nature of some analysed tephra layers. In addition, all tephra units within the sedimentary sections studied in the field are identified by the following notation: section number/unit number (e.g., 17/2 refers to unit 2 within Sect. 17)

Tephrostratigraphy of the paroxysmal phase within Göllüdağ volcanic complex

In the western part of the Göllüdağ complex, old reworked pyroclastic deposits are interstratified with thick fluvio-lacustrine formations composed of a succession of cross-stratified pebbles, clay material and diatomite. These clastic and lacustrine formations overlap Neogene ignimbrites (Fig. 7: sites 14, 15, 16). At site 14, the thickness of these formations is more than 28 m (Fig. 8a). Two different reworked pyroclastic deposits cover these basal terrestrial formations. According to chemical and mineralogical evidences, tephra layer TG-1 is attributed to Göllüdağ volcano, and TG-2H to Hasandağ.
Fig. 8

Photography of some units in and around Göllüdağ complex. Location of the sites is given in Fig. 2. a Site 14 (1713 m), stratified alluvial and lake sediments. The upper part of the section shows TG-3 and TG-7 (Göllüdağ main tuff). Black line is ca. two metres high. b Site 15: Tilted alluvium containing well-rounded andesitic and basaltic pebbles reaching 15 cm in diameter, with no pumice. This alluvial deposit is deformed by a ca 33° eastward dip, pointing to a collapse of the centre of the volcanic complex. The colleague indicates the scale. c Site 16, 1798 m, western part of the Göllüdağ complex, ancient valley has been filled in with TG-3 and TG-7 (Göllüdağ main tuff) and then eroded. Looking to the east. d Site 26: TG-3 tuff, locally eroded by a gully. The hammer (low right of the picture) is shown for scale. e Site 21: fall and surge associated with Büyük Göllüdağ dome. Fall deposits are bedded with inverse grading. Pumices are 80% of the clasts with size reaching 15 cm. Upper surges show finer clasts (ash and lapilli) with undulating and cross-bedding features. Black line represents one metre

The main Göllüdağ volcanic activity comprises post TG-1 pyroclastic flows and fall deposits (Fig. 7). The tephra layers TG-3, TG-6 and TG-7 are the thickest ones and are preserved in the western part of the complex (logs 14, 15, 16). TG-3 (15/2 and 16/7; Fig. 8c, d) is a 15-m thick, white and ashy flow, lithics poor and rich in accretionary lapilli. Its lower part is composed of surges identified by wavy features. The heavy mineral assemblage contains orthopyroxene and amphibole (25% each) associated with clinopyroxene, rare biotite and zircon.

TG-6 is a 10-m-thick, local, pyroclastic flow deposit only observed near sites 15 (unit 15/5) and 17 (unit 17/2). It is a pumice and lapilli flow containing pseudo-fibrous pumice. Its lithic fraction is composed of perlitic rhyolite and obsidian, with rare weathered basaltic and andesitic blocks. The heavy mineral assemblage is composed of clinopyroxene and orthopyroxene (30% each) associated with opaque minerals and amphibole (10%).

TG-7 is ubiquitous in most sections studied in the western part of the complex (14/11, 15/7, 16/10, 18A/4 and 18B/6). This flow is characterised by abundant lithics with obsidian reaching 15 cm in size, and with rhyolite and basalt clasts. The length of the fibrous and pseudo-fibrous pumice in this flow sometimes reaches 10 cm; pumice clasts are sub-aphyric, with a heavy mineral content < 0.1%.

The thickness of each of these pyroclastic flow deposits decreases from the centre to the periphery of the complex, suggesting radial centrifuge flow directions. These pyroclastic units bury an ancient river network underlined by alluvial deposits (15/1, 15/2) under TG-3 (the oldest) pyroclastic formation. All flows seem to have been channelized toward the present Çiftlik and Derinkuyu depressions, suggesting that a lowland palaeotopography with a river network existed at the start of volcanic events.

In addition to these pyroclastic flow deposits, four pumice fallout deposits have been identified in the field. Pumice fallout deposit TG-4 has only been observed in the eastern part of the complex (18B/2; 20/1; 22/3; 23/4 and 30/3). Its pumice present oriented vesicles and are aphyric. The thickness of the deposit is always < 1 m. TG-5 (14/8; 15/3; 16/9; 18A/2 and 18B/2) shows quartz and feldspar-rich pumice presenting unorganised vesicles. The heavy mineral composition associates opaque minerals, orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene and amphibole, with rare black mica and zircon. The lithic fraction contains weathered rhyolitic lava and obsidian lapilli. This deposit is composed of two units: a basal 2-m-thick pumice fall deposit is overlain by a ca. 3-m-thick surge deposit within which a thin ash fall is intercalated (site 21, units 3, 4 and 5).

On the southern slopes dominating the Çiftlik plain (sites 4–7), two additional pumice fall deposits, TG-8 and TG-9, cover both TG-3 and TG-5. TG-8 (5/3, 6/2 and 7/4) comprises two pumice fall deposits containing pumice with orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene and opaque minerals. TG-9 (5/5, 6/4, 7/5) shows a different paragenesis with black micas and opaque minerals.

Pyroclastic activity related to dome extrusion during the Göllüdağ terminal phase

After the eruption of the main tuff (TG-3 to TG-9), the extrusion of ten distinct domes ended in forming a cumulo-dome (Fig. 2) dominated by the highest one, the Büyük Göllüdağ (2172 m). The site 21 (Fig. 8e) shows fall and surge deposits associated with Büyük Göllüdağ dome. The fall deposits are bedded with inverse grading, while pumice forms ca. 80% of the clasts with size reaching 15 cm. The upper part of the section shows surge deposits with finer clasts (ash and lapilli), undulating layering and cross-bedding.

Morphostratigraphic evidence allows reconstructing the relative chronology of these extrusions, with younger domes overlying older ones (e.g., Kabak Tepe and Büyük Göllüdağ, Fig. 2). Most of the extrusions are associated with local pyroclastic deposits.

Tephra layers deposited after the end of the Göllüdağ volcanic activity

In and around the Göllüdağ complex, reworked deposits (e.g., alluvium or colluvium) are intercalated between these pyroclastic formations suggesting a hiatus between two eruption phases. For example, south of Büyük Göllüdağ, three pumice-rich and lithic-poor (rhyolitic lapilli) fall deposits are located at site 24 (unit 24/2, 24/3a and 24/3b; Fig. 7). Units 24/2 and 24/3a are ~60-cm thick; unit 24/4b is 150-cm thick, and its summit is reworked by runoff. These three units comprise only ash and lapilli, excluding blocks; they are all heavy mineral-rich dominated by amphibole, a mineral paragenesis different from the typical (i.e. older) Göllüdağ pyroclastic deposits (Fig. 3). Similar tephra layers are also observed north of Büyük Göllüdağ at site 27 (samples 27/3 and 27/5), and east of Kabak Tepe at site 12. Mean and standard deviation of the chemical composition of these distal tephra layers are given in Table 5.
Table 5

Mean and standard deviation of some distal tephra layers











Analytical total

Tephra layer top of Göllüdag tuff

Kaletepe Tephra fall deposits—TG13A Site 35a

 35/2a (C2D9-R1)






















 35/2b (C3D4-R2)






















 35/2c (C2D11-R3)






















 35/2d (C2D12-R4)






















 35/2e (C3D8-R5)






















Other tephra layer top of Göllüdag tuffb

 24/3b (GD2_5)






















 27/3 (KOM3_48)






















Tephra layer top of Acigöl main tuff (2)

 53/11 (KA_1122)






















Mean (upper line, in bold) and standard deviation of some distal tephra layers. Data are normalised to 100%. In the last column, the analytical total (not normalised) indicates the quality of the analyses

*Total Fe expressed as FeO References of the data

aPrimary published in Mouralis, 2002 and then in Tryon et al. 2008

bThis study

To test our data set and to classify these distal tephra layers of unknown origin, we have used our DFA model. The classification of the six single grain analyses from sample 24-4 and of seven analyses from sample 27-3, shows that these distal tephras pertain to the Hasandağ “Group of tephra layers” with a posterior probability of 0.9 and 1.0, respectively (complementary data 4).

Other tephra layers have been observed at site 35, which is a section opened during the “Kaletepe Dere 3” archaeological excavation. Here, five rhyolitic tephra layers (TG-13-A: see Fig. 7, log 35, unit 2a–2e) and a younger trachytic tephra layer are interstratified with the most recent occupation levels of this Palaeolithic site (Mouralis 2003; Mouralis et al. 2002; Slimak et al. 2004, 2008; Tryon et al. 2009). In previous publications, we demonstrated that the five rhyolitic tephra layers are associated with the emission of the Acıgöl Main Tuff. The classification associated with our new dataset confirms this initial identification (complementary data 4).

The main pyroclastites emitted by the Acıgöl volcanic complex (AMT)

As already pointed out by Druitt et al. (1995), the Acıgöl pyroclastic deposits are mainly observable in the eastern part of the Acıgöl complex (the Kumtepe hills: Fig. 2). In this area, thick pyroclastic deposits emitted during the main activity phase are overlain by deposition of alluvium and colluvium and then by younger pyroclastic deposits that were emitted during the extrusion of domes in and around the complex.

The initial activity is poorly documented. Site 51 (Figs. 9 and 10c) shows a 1.5-m-thick plinian unit (TA-1). Pumice clasts are dense with few small vesicles. A thin basaltic scoria layer (TA-2β) is intercalated between the lower and upper part of TA-1. At site 64, TA-1 overlays the Plio-Quaternary andesite substratum.

Site 52 (Kumtepe hills, see Fig. 10a) allows a description of all main Acıgöl pyroclastites (TA-3 to TA-12). A synthetic log of these formations shows (1) two basal units (TA-3 and TA-4) covered by (2) a middle group formed by TA-4 to TA-7 fall, followed by (3) the youngest group exhibiting interstratified basaltic products (TA-β8 to TA-12). In site 52 located, in a proximal situation, these layers constitute a continuous record from TA-3 to TA-12. However, the inter-bedding of basaltic tephra layers (TA-β8 and TA-β10) indicates the interruption of rhyolitic accumulation before the renewing of rhyolitic eruption and the deposition of TA-11. Moreover, the major elements content is identical in the rhyolitic units from TA-03 to TA-12 with, for example, a SiO2 content ranging from 75.11 to 76.27% (see complementary data 2 and Fig. 4).
Fig. 9

Stratigraphy of the tephra layers in and around the Acıgöl complex. “TA” labels the tephra layers emitted during Acıgöl volcanic activity phases. The following number (1–12) represent the stratigraphic order and chronological position of each layer (1 = the basal one, i.e., the oldest tephra of the series). The letter β indicates the basaltic nature of some analysed tephra layers. In addition, all tephra units within the sedimentary sections studied in the field are identified by the following notation: section number/unit number (e.g., 17/2 refers to unit 2 within Sect. 17)

Fig. 10

Photography of selected units in and around Acıgöl complex. Location of the sites is indicated in Fig. 2. a Site 52 (Kumtepe hills), 1447 m. Quarry showing the different units associated with main Acıgöl tuff. b Site 52, section showing unit TA-4 to TA-12. c Site 51, TA-1. d Site 72 (Güneydağ): surges associated to the maar, before dome extrusion

The basal group is composed of a fall deposit (TA-3) covered by a pyroclastic flow deposit (TA-4). At site 52, TA-3 fallout thickness exceeds 3 m. Pumice is aphyric with distinctive tubular and fibrous facies. Rhyolite dominates the lithic fraction; there are no obsidian clasts. The impressive size (20 cm) reached by the pumice points to the proximity of site 52 to the vent.

Overlying TA-3, TA-4 is composed of three pyroclastic flow units (52/2, 52/6 and 52/7), associated with a surge (52/3), an ash fallout (52/4) and lag-breccias (52/5). The flow units outcrop all around the northern and eastern parts of the complex, whereas the ash fall and surge deposits have a more local extension. At site 52, TA-4 total thickness reaches 17 m, of which 10 m are represented by flow deposits. Pumice is aphyric, with two main facies: (1) elongated and oriented vesicles, and (2) flexuous. The lithic fraction contains obsidian, rhyolite and diabase lapilli. This deposit is matrix-supported. The ashy unit (52/3) is interpreted as a co-ignimbritic ash fall. North-eastwards at site 69 (units 2–4), the lag breccia layer disappears because of a higher distance to the vent and the total thickness of TA-4 decreases to < 10 m. At site 80 (Fig. 2), TA-4 consists only of flow units and presents a total thickness < 6 m. Furthermore, TA-4 pyroclastites seem to have filled-in river channels directed northwards and eastwards.

The following pyroclastites (TA-5 to TA-7) are characterised by a plinian regime. TA-5 consists of surges (52/8) and a plinian fall (52/9). Surges are 3–5-m thick, with fibrous pumice. TA-6 includes an ash and pumice flow (52/10), a pumice fall (52/11) and a thinly bedded ash fall (52/12) interpreted as a co-ignimbritic fall probably linked to unit 10. TA-7 comprises fall deposits (52/13 and 52/14); their pumice clasts display elongated vesicles. Unit 13 is massive; whereas unit 14 presents a bedded framework with 10–20-cm-thick beds.

The uppermost and youngest group of pyroclastites (TA-β8 to TA-12) presents interbedding of scoria layers and rhyolitic pyroclastites. Two scoria fall deposits (TA-β8 and TA-β10) are interstratified within TA-9 rhyolitic pyroclastites. Also, at site 57, in the southern part of the Acıgöl complex, scoria layers are interstratified with rhyolitic pyroclastites. At the top of Sect. 52, a rhyolitic ash and pumice flow (TA-11) is overlain by lahars (TA-12).

Pyroclastic deposits associated with monogenic vents in and around Acıgöl complex

Most of the domes extruded in and around the Acıgöl complex are associated with pyroclastic products, especially with phreatomagmatic tephras. Four domes (Susamsivrisi, Kuzey, Asmadağı and Kocadağ) (Fig. 2) are partially overlain by TA-4 ash and pumice flow. This observation demonstrates that these domes are older than the AMT (i.e., “Acıgöl main tuff”).

On the other hand, many vents located inside the Acıgöl complex were active after the AMT. Three of them are domes extruded in maars (Güneydağ, Kaleci Tepe and Korudağ), one is a maar without a dome (Eski Acıgöl), and the other ones are scoria cones (e.g., Obruk Tepe). Sections in the three rhyolitic domes show an initial phreatomagmatic activity preceding the extrusion of the dome (Fig. 10d). Domes and scoria cones have emitted pyroclastic products of local extension (i.e., found near the vents and in a few sections only). These pyroclastic deposits, thus, do not play any significant role in the regional tephrostratigraphy, although in some cases they are good chronological markers of the local Late Pleistocene/Holocene landscape evolution.

For example, at the bottom of section site 53, the Acıgöl Main Tuff is overlain by three scoria falls and colluvium. Unit 53/11, a 20–40-cm-thick ash and lapilli-sized pumice fall is overlain by a palaeosol (53/12) the age of which is 29.9 ± 1 ka BP (Complementary data 3). The comparison between the geochemistry of this tephra layer and our regional referential database indicates that it has been emitted during the Acıgöl terminal activity. Complementary data 4 show the results of the classification using the DFA: 20 of the 22 single grain analyses are classified into ATT group of tephra layers, with a posterior probability of 0.9. However, the chemical analyses of major elements do not allow to specify the emitting vent.

Chronology of the volcanic activity of the Göllüdağ and Acıgöl complexes

To constrain the chronology of both complexes 17 K/Ar dates have been obtained from volcanic products (lava flows and extrusions) (Table 2). In addition, a single 14C date (complementary data 3) has been obtained from a palaeosol.

Radiometric ages in and around the Göllüdağ complex

In our dataset, two samples pre-date the volcanic activity of the Göllüdağ complex: DMO/TF51 (porphyric rhyodacite flow) and DMO/TF54 (basalt flow). Both flows were sampled in the western part of the complex, west of Bozköy-Kayırlı road (DMO/TF54) and above Kayırlı village (DMO/TF51). Both flows are covered by the Göllüdağ main tuff (TG-7). Their respective K/Ar age is 6.21 ± 0.09 (TF51) and 1.71 ± 0.03 Ma (TF54). In addition, five post-caldera domes have been K/Ar dated. Four of them yielded ages ranging from 1.1 ± 0.02 Ma to 0.855 ± 0.013 Ma, whereas the fifth one (Küçük Göllüdağ) has a younger K/Ar age of 0.444 ± 0.007 Ma.

Radiometric ages in and around Acıgöl complex

In the northern part of the Acıgöl complex, two scoria cones, the Asağı and the Yukarı Kızıl Tepe, have been K/Ar dated at 618 ± 14 ka (DM-05) and 538 ± 12 ka (DM-120), respectively. The flanks of these cones being covered by the AMT, the lava from both these cones predate the AMT.

The obsidian related to the setting of the Asmadağı Tepe dome, and covered by TA-4 pyroclastic deposit, yielded an age of 160 ± 3 ka (DAM-124). At site 56, obsidian intruded into the TA-4 deposit has been dated at 93 ± 2 ka (DAM-126).

Inside the Acıgöl complex, two scoria cones (Kızıl Tepe North and South), respectively, 154 ± 4 and 134 ± 3 ka old (DM-02 and DM-03), appear to be older than the AMT pyroclastites that overlie them. A third scoria cone (Obruk Tepe), dated to the late Pleistocene (32 ± 3 ka: DAM-126), produced basaltic ashes which, at site 55, are interstratified with rhyolitic tephra layers erupted from Korudağ (Acıgöl Terminal Activity).

In the southern part of the complex, two other scoria falls include > 1 m large bombs. These falls were emitted by the nearby Özyayla Tepe. They are interbedded with TA-9 tephra layer. The bottom scoria layer was K/Ar dated at 109 ± 4 ka (DM 07), whereas the top scoria layer has been K/Ar dated at 110 ± 5 ka (DM 06), thus dating TA-9 tephra emission. South of Özyayla Tepe, Küzlük Tepe was dated at 81 ± 4 ka (DMO/TF68).

At site 53 (Figs. 2 and 7), a palaeosol, overlain by a thin in situ pumice layer, has been 14C dated 29.950 ± 1.080 uncal. BP yrs (GIF-11,550: M. Fontugne, LSCE; complementary data 3). The age of these uppermost rhyolitic tephras (equal to that of the dome which produced them) is, thus, the youngest age in our tephrochronology dataset.


Stratigraphy of the tephra layers

Around the Göllüdağ complex, stratigraphic observation supports the assumption of three distinct eruptive stages. During the initial activity (1), a thin tephra layer (TG-1) was deposited in the valleys located in the western part of the complex. At the same time, another tephra layer was emitted from the Hasandağ (TG-2H). Both these pyroclastites were reworked by running water. During the paroxysmal stage (2), the main tuff was emitted: it is characterised by the deposition of tephra layers TG-3 to TG9, infilling and preserving paleo-valleys running southwards to the Çiftlik plain and eastwards to northwards to the Derinkuyu plain. During the final stage (3), domes were extruded within the complex. The tephra layers related to this late volcanic activity had only a local dispersion. A fourth group of pyroclastites identified in the Göllüdağ complex (4) corresponds to the tephra layers emitted by the neighbouring Acıgöl complex (TG13A, TG14A) and Hasandağ volcano (TG-11H, TG12H). All these late tephra layers are separated from the Göllüdağ pyroclastic units by alluvial or colluvial deposits that indicate a time-gap between the end of the Göllüdağ activity and the deposition of these younger tephra layers derived from external sources.

In the Acıgöl complex, the stratigraphic reconstruction (Fig. 9) shows the following succession:
  1. 1.

    From TA-3 to TA-7, the absence of alluvium, colluvium or palaeosol points to the continuity of deposition. These TA-3 to TA-7 tephra layers form the Lower Acıgöl Tuff (LAT) defined by Druitt et al. (1995).

  2. 2.

    At the top of TA-7, interruption of the volcanic activity and related pyroclastic deposition are evidenced by: (1) interstratified basaltic scoria layers; (2) unconformity of the basaltic scoria layer TA-β10 and of young TA-11 and TA-12 rhyolitic units above the TA-3 to TA-9 units in Sect. 61. These TA-11 to TA-12 pyroclastic deposits form the Upper Acıgöl Tuff (UAT) defined by Druitt et al. (1995).


It is to be noticed that the sections we have observed in proximal situations do not show any palaeosol, in contrast to the description by Druitt et al. (1995) of a soil separating LAT and UAT. In sites 51, 57, 61 and 62, scoria layers are intercalated in-between the initial units TA-3 to TA-7 (corresponding to LAT) and TA-11 and TA-12 (corresponding to UAT) without any palaeosol. In a proximal situation, the volcanic activity of strombolian cones succeeded in inserting scoria layers in-between rhyolitic tephra layers (TA-3 to TA-7 and TA-11 to TA-12).

Chronology of both complexes

The chronology of both complexes is constrained here by 18 radiometric dates.

Chronology of Göllüdağ complex

In the north-western part of the complex, the substratum (Miocene, Pliocene and Early Pleistocene volcanics) has been locally dated at 1.71 Ma by DMO/TF-54. Other K/Ar dates obtained from volcanics in the Göllüdağ are from dome lavas extruded inside the volcanic complex after the eruption of the main Göllüdağ tuff. The oldest of these dated domes is the Kaletepe dome (ca 1.1 Ma). Accordingly, the main Göllüdağ tuff was emitted between 1.7 and 1.1 Ma. These data are in good agreement with the chronology published by Aydın et al. (2014): using U–Pb in zircon, these authors indicates a 1.083 Ma age on the southern slope of the Kaletepe dome, while we obtain a 1.1 Ma (K/Ar, DAM-129) on the south-eastern slope of the same dome.

In addition to the radiometric chronology, our field results refine the relative chronology of the extrusion of several domes. The palaeo-Kabak Tepe (dated 1.1 Ma), possibly one of the oldest domes, is cut and filled by volcanics from the younger Kabak Tepe and Kayışkıran Tepe domes. Kayışkıran Tepe is in turn cut-and-filled by volcanics from (1) the Bozdağ dome (0.966 Ma) and (2) the palaeo-Büyük Göllüdağ. Palaeo-Büyük Göllüdağ is in turn also partially destroyed by the younger Büyük Göllüdağ dome (0.855 Ma). This age (DMO/TF-75) is consistent with the one (0.899 Ma) published by Aydın et al. (2014) on pumice collected at site 21, associated with the extrusion of the Büyük Göllüdağ dome.

Finally, the youngest K/Ar age (0.4 Ma) was obtained from a rhyolite lava forming the basal cliff of the Küçük Göllüdağ. This cliff and other morphological characteristics point to this dome being the youngest of all domes inside the complex.

Chronology of the Acıgöl complex

Our tephrostratigraphy refines the chronology of the Acıgöl complex volcanic activity as defined by Schmitt et al. (2011). On the summit of the Asmadağı Tepe, TA-4 covers an obsidian K/Ar dated 160 ± 3 ka (DAM-124). The main Acıgöl pyroclastic units are thus younger than 160 ± 3 ka. The Acıgöl Main Tuff (AMT) is divided into two sub-groups as already noticed by Druitt et al. (1995) who distinguish the Lower Acıgöl Tuff (LAT) from the Upper Acıgöl Tuff (UAT). The earliest one corresponds to our TA-1 to TA-7 tephra layers ending with basaltic deposits (TA-β8 and TA-β10: see Sects. 52, 61, 90, 91, 92 and 93). At site 57, two basaltic bombs emitted by the Özyayla Tepe strombolian cone have been dated at 110 ka (DM-07 and DM-06). Our results also show that the AMT is contemporaneous of the activity of two small basaltic cones K/Ar dated 154 ± 4 (DM-02) and 134 ± 5 ka (DM-03). The TA-3 to TA-7 Acıgöl activity, thus, extends between 160 and 110 ka. Immediately after 110 ka, two younger rhyolitic tephra layers (TA-11 and TA-12) were emitted.

Subsequently, the volcanic activity persisted with the extrusion, within the volcanic complex, of the Kocadağ dome which is accompanied by an obsidian-filled dyke dated 93 ± 2 ka (DAM-126). This dyke intruded into the TA-4 pyroclastic deposit which, thus, predates de dyke.

After ~ 90 ka, an activity lag is indicated by a palaeosol and some colluvial deposits (site 53, 62 and 55). The volcanic activity started again with eruptions of (1) a basaltic scoria cone (Obruk Tepe dated 32 ± 3 ka K/Ar, DMO/TF-67), and (2) four rhyolitic maars and domes (Korudağ, Güneydağ, Eski-Acıgöl maar, Kaleci Tepe) all dated at 20 ka (Bigazzi et al. 1993; Schmitt et al. 2011). Our results provide also a more detailed, although relative, chronology of the activity of these three youngest vents of the complex. In the NW part of the complex, the Güneydağ dome extruded first into an initial maar. This dome was partly destructed during the eruption of the Eski-Acıgöl maar which cuts the older structures. Finally, Kaleci Tepe dome was extruded in an initial maar, the ring of which is today well preserved around the dome. During this final event, Kaleci Tepe tephra layers blanketed all previous volcanoes and their products. This relative chronology is in agreement with Schmitt et al. (2011) who dated these vents (using U/Th and U-Th/He geochronology) 23.8 ± 0.9 ka (Güneydağ), 23.2 ± 3 ka (Eski Acigöl) and 20.3 ± 0.6 ka (Kaleci Tepe). Noteworthy is a 28.3 ka uncal BP 14C date from a frost-deformed soil associated with a pure obsidian fall in the Göçü quarry NW of the Konya plain (Karabıyıoğlu et al. 1999; Kuzucuoğlu et al. 1998).

Quaternary volcano-tectonic structures

According to our field observation, the pyroclastic deposits assigned to GDT and AMT groups cover areas of ~ 720 and 1.100 km2 respectively (Fig. 2). In the case of Acıgöl, the value we report is close to that proposed by Druitt et al. (1995). Such a high amount of pyroclastic deposits produced by rhyolitic complexes deserves discussion about possible caldera structures.

In the Göllüdağ complex, several indicators suggest a collapsed volcano structure.
  1. 1.

    The Göllüdağ complex is located in a depression positioned at the foot of cliffs cut-into a Mio-Pliocene substratum (the Şahinkalesi Tepe to the west; the Melendiz mountains, to the south-east). (Fig. 2).

  2. 2.

    Elevation values of the substratum in comparison to the pyroclastic layers also suggest a collapse of the central part of the complex. In the western part (Sect. 10), the substratum outcrops at 1760 m; whereas, in Sect. 16 it outcrops at 1660 m. In the southern part of the complex in Sects. 22 and 23, the substratum buried by the pyroclastites is situated at 1480 m elevation, while the top of the pyroclastites reaches only 1560 m. Thus, the elevation of the substratum–pyroclastite contact presents a 100–300-m altitude difference between the central part of the complex and in its periphery.

  3. 3.

    Moreover, in Sect. 15 (Fig. 8b), early alluvium contains well-rounded andesitic and basaltic pebbles reaching 15 cm in diameter, with no pumice. This alluvial deposit is tilted with a ~ 33° eastward dip, pointing to a collapse of the centre of the volcanic complex. Most units in the section also dip in the same direction but weaker (15°), suggesting a decrease of the subsidence rate with time.


However, field observation and careful mapping did not allow the precise identification of the limits of the collapsed centre and its surrounding structures.

In the case of the Acıgöl complex, the situation is more complex. Yıldırım and Özgür (1981) first identified and described a caldera. According to these authors, the size of the collapsed structure is 6 × 10 km, its southern limit being the Erdaş Dağ, and its eastern limit being the obsidian “wall” (cliff) east of the Kocadağ. Druitt et al. (1995) disagreed with this interpretation citing that topographic steps in these locations are not clearly identifiable.

We argue for the presence of a caldera based on four considerations (e.g. Ferrari et al., 1991): (1) the outcrops of the pre-caldera substratum are located outside the structure and never in its centre; (2) pyroclastic flows are associated with the structure without occurrence of any other alternative volcanic source; (3) domes extruded in the centre and around the collapse structure, leave untouched some morphological parts of the collapse fault scarps; (4) the volumes of both the emitted pyroclastic deposits and the collapsed part of the structure present a similar magnitude. Whereas, the volume of the collapse structures remains unconstrained due to their uncertain boundaries, the first three criteria of Ferrari et al. (1991) are fulfilled for both, the Göllüdağ and Acıgöl complexes.

Relationship with Tertiary calderas

It is noticeable that the studied complexes occur near the inferred location of Neogene collapse structures that must have accompanied the emission of the Cappadocian ignimbrites during the Mio-Pliocene. According to Froger et al. (1998), the Acıgöl-Nevşehir and Derinkuyu areas host significant negative Bouguer anomalies, usually attributed to calderas and acidic eruptions. Using Le Pennec et al. (1994)’s reconstructions of ignimbrite flow directions, Froger et al. (1998) showed that the “Kavak” and “Zelve” Neogene ignimbrites came from an area south of Nevşehir, where gravimetric data point to the presence of a caldera; whereas, the “Sarımaden”, “Cemilköy”, “Gördeles” and “Kızılkaya” Neogene ignimbrites were emitted by a caldera located in the Derinkuyu area.

Our results (Fig. 11) show that the Göllüdağ Quaternary complex is located inside the “Derinkuyu” Neogene caldera, whereas part of Acıgöl caldera is located inside the “Acıgöl–Nevşehir” Neogene caldera as defined by Froger et al. (1998). According to these authors, measured negative Bouguer anomalies result from the accumulation of pyroclastites (Neogene) in the caldera areas, as the density of pyroclastic units is lower than that of the substratum (Neogene andesites and pre-volcanic substratum). Our results stress two important facts supporting this interpretation: (1) the negative Bouguer anomalies in Cappadocia are also due to the presence of younger pyroclastic accumulation related to structures which collapsed during the Quaternary; (ii) the morphologies related to the Neogene calderas are now invisible for two main reasons: erosion and volcanic activity during the Quaternary. Indeed, the Early and Late Pleistocene volcanic activity emplaced two rhyolitic complexes which destroyed and buried older morphologies.
Fig. 11

Göllüdağ and Acıgöl volcanic complexes re-use Neogene structures. 1. Hypothetic limits of collapsed structures associated with both volcanic complexes (see text for discussion). 2. Main faults. 3. Bouger negative anomaly (< 90 mGal), after Froger et al. (1998). 4. Hypothetic limits of Neogene calderas according to Froger et al. (1998). 5. Neogene andesitic massifs: Erdaş Dağ, Melendiz and Keçiboyduran. Quaternary volcano: 6. Scoria cone. 7. Dome. 8. Maar. 9. Lava flows and pyroclastites emitted by Hasandağ. 10. Villages and towns


The volcanic complexes analysed in the present paper have erupted voluminous pyroclastic deposits whose stratigraphy, petrographic and chemical characterization and dating are presented here for the first time altogether. Eruptive activity occurred around 1.3 Ma in the Göllüdağ complex, and around 150 ka in the Acıgöl complex. The large amount of tephras erupted during each of these major events buried and destroyed the previous morphology, largely modifying the regional landscape. As this volcanic activity probably re-activated Neogene structures, the morphology of the Neogene calderas became indistinguishable in the present landscape.

Intensive and systematic field observation allowed us to reconstruct the detailed regional tephro- and chronostratigraphy we present here. The robustness of the analysis of discriminant functions differentiating our geochemical data is well underlined by the obvious separation of the data within the multivariate space, as well as by the high proportion of correctly classified data.

It is noticeable that human populations were affected by the Middle to Upper Pleistocene Acıgöl eruption. For example, in the Palaeolithic “Kaletepe Dere 3” excavation, several tephra layers buried human artefacts (Mouralis et al. 2002, Mouralis 2003; Slimak et al. 2004, 2008; Tryon et al. 2009). In these archaeology-oriented publications, we demonstrated the capacity of our regional tephra reference to provide a chronological framework for archaeological studies.

This regional tephra reference is also useful for understanding landscape evolution. In Mouralis (2003), Mouralis et al. (2004) and Kuzucuoğlu (2004), we demonstrate that the studied tephra layers are key layers for the reconstruction of past landscapes and of their evolution under the influence of sediment erosion and/or accumulation.

Finally, the tephrostratigraphy and tephrochronology proposed here may not only be useful for understanding the volcanic complexes but also for establishing long-distance correlations that are important in different fields of research, from geomorphology to geoarchaeology, oceanography and climatology.



A part of the research presented here was conducted thanks mainly to the MTA-CNRS-TÜBITAK Project on “Upper Pleistocene Volcanism and Palaeogeography in Cappadocia, Turkey” (MTA-CNRS-TÜBITAK 2001–2003 RESEARCH PROGRAMME N° 101Y109) and to a Turkish-French TÜBITAK-CNRS agreement, both programmes co-directed by A. Türkecan and C. Kuzucuoğlu. The authors benefited from financial support from MTA, CNRS (LGP) and from French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Bosphorus Programme). DM benefited from a PhD scholarship from the University of Paris 12/Créteil (under the direction of Prof. B. Dumas), from the technical and scientific support of Kaletepe excavation team (directed by Prof. N. Balkan-Atlı from Istanbul University & Prof. D. Binder from CEPAM Lab. In Sophia-Antipolis). DM thanks Dr. Lütfi Dokuzoğlu for his help and friendship in Aksaray and Cappadocia. The authors are grateful to A. Schmitt and an anonymous reviewer for numerous suggestions that have greatly contributed improving the initial manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

42990_2019_10_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (11 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 10 kb)
42990_2019_10_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 18 kb)
42990_2019_10_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (284 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 283 kb)
42990_2019_10_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (XLSX 13 kb)


  1. Atici G, Schmitt AK, Friedrichs B, Sparks S, Danišík M, Yurteri E, Atakay Gündoğdu E, Schindlbeck-Belo J, Çobankaya M, Wang K-L, Lee H-Y (2019) Ages and glass compositions for paired large-volume eruptions from the Acigöl volcanic complex, Cappadocia (Turkey). Mediterranean Geosci Rev. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aydar E, Gourgaud A, Deniel C, Lyberis N, Gündoğdu N (1995) Le volcanisme quaternaire d’anatolie centrale (Turquie): association de magmatisme calco-alcalin et alcalin en domaine de convergence. Can J Earth Sci 32:1058–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydar E, Schmitt AK, Çubukçu HE, Akın L, Ersoy O, Şen E, Duncan RA, Atıcı G (2012) Correlation of ignimbrites in the central Anatolian volcanic province using zircon and plagioclase ages and zircon compositions. J Volcanol Geoth Res 213–214:83–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aydın F, Schmitt AK, Siebel W, Sönmez M, Ersoy Y, Lermi A, Dirik K, Duncan R (2014) Quaternary bimodal volcanism in the Niğde volcanic complex (Cappadocia, central Anatolia, Turkey): age, petrogenesis and geodynamic implications. Contrib Mineral Petrol 168:1078. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balkan-Atlı N, Binder D (2000) L’atelier néolithique de Kömürcü–Kaletepe: fouilles de 1999. Anatolia Antiqua 8:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balkan-Atlı N, Kuhn SL, Astruc L, Kayacan N, Dinçer B (2011) Göllüdağ survey 2010. Anatol Antiqu XIX:259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batum I (1978) Nevsehir güneybatısındaki Göllüdağ ve Acıgöl volkanitlerinin jeokimyası ve petrolojisi. Yerbilimleri 4:50–69 (70–88) Google Scholar
  8. Besang C, Eckhardt FJ, Harre W, Kreuzer H, Müller P (1977) Radiometrische alterbestimmungen an neogenen eruptivegestinen des Türkei. Geol Jahrb 25:3–36Google Scholar
  9. Bigazzi G, Yegingil Z, Ercan T, Oddone M, Özdoğan M (1993) Fission track dating obsidians in Central and Northern Anatolia. Bull Volcanol 55:588–595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bigazzi G, Yegingil Z, Ercan T, Oddone M, Özdoğan M (1997) Doğu Anadolu’daki obsidiyen içeren volkaniklerin “Fisyon Track” yöntemiyle yaş tayini (Age determination of obsidian bearing volcanics in eastern Anatolia using the Fission-track dating method). Geol Bull Turk 40:57–72Google Scholar
  11. Binder D, Gratuze B, Mouralis D, Balkan-Atlı N (2011) New investigations of the Göllüdağ obsidian lava flows system: a multidisciplinary approach. J Archaeol Sci 38:3174–3184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bottema S, Woldring H (1984) Late Quaternary vegetation and climate of south-western Turkey. Paleohistoria 26:123–149Google Scholar
  13. Charbit S, Guillou H, Turpin L (1998) Cross calibration of K-Ar standard minerals using an unspiked Ar measurement technique. Chem Geol 150:147–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chataigner C, Poidevin J-L, Arnaud NO (1998) Turkish occurrences of obsidian and use by prehistoric peoples in the Near East from 14,000 to 6000 BP. J Volcanol Geoth Res 85:517–537. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clay PL, Busemann H, Sherlock SC, Barry TL, Kelley SP, McGarvie DW (2015) 40Ar/39Ar ages and residual volatile contents in degassed subaerial and subglacial glassy volcanic rocks from Iceland. Chem Geol 403:99–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Giuseppe P, Agostini S, Manetti P, Savaşçın MY, Conticelli S (2018) Sub-lithospheric origin of Na-alkaline and calc-alkaline magmas in a post-collisional tectonic regime: Sr–Nd–Pb isotopes in recent monogenetic volcanism of Cappadocia, Central Turkey. Lithos 316–317:304–322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doğan-Kulahcı GD, Temel A, Gourgaud A, Varol E, Guillou H, Deniel C (2018) Contemporaneous alkaline and calc-alkaline series in Central Anatolia (Turkey): spatio-temporal evolution of a post-collisional Quaternary basaltic volcanism. J Volcanol Geoth Res 356:56–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Druitt TH, Brenchley PJ, Gökten YE, Francaviglia V (1995) Late quaternary rhyolitic eruptions from the Acigöl complex, central Turkey. J Geol Soc 152:655–667. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eastwood WJ, Pearce NJG, Perkins WT, Lamb HF, Westgate JA, Roberts N (1999) Geochemistry of Santorini tephra in lake sediments from southwest Turkey. Glob Planet Change 21:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ercan T, Yıldırım T, Akbaşlı A (1987) Gelveri (Niğde)—Kızılcin (Nevşehir) arasindaki volkanizmanin özellikleri. Jeomorfoloji Dergisi 15:27–36Google Scholar
  21. Ercan T, Tokel S, Can B, Fişekçi A, Fujitani T, Notsu K, Selvi Y, Ölmez M, Matsuda JI, Ui T, Yıldırım T, Akbaşlı A (1990) Hasan dağı—karacadağ (Orta Anadolu) dolaylarindaki senozoyik yaşli volkanizmanin kökeni ve evrimi. Jeomorfoloji Dergisi 18:39–54Google Scholar
  22. Ercan T, Tokel S, Matsuda JI, Ui T, Notsu K, Fujitani T (1992) Hasandağ-karacadağ (Orta Anadolu) kuvaterner volkanizmasina ilişkin yeni jeokimyasal, izotopik ve radyometrik veriler. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı Bülteni 7:8–21Google Scholar
  23. Ferrari L, Garduño VH, Pasquarè G, Tibaldi A (1991) Geology of Los Azufres Caldera, Mexico, and its relationships with regional tectonics. J Volcanol Geoth Res 47:129–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flude S, Tuffen H, Sherlock SC (2018) Spatially heterogeneous argon-isotope systematics and apparent 40Ar/39Ar ages in perlitised obsidian. s 480:44–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frogatt PC (1992) Standardization of the chemical analysis of tephra deposits. Report of the ICCT working group. Quat Int 13(14):93–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Froger J-L, Lénat J-F, Chorowicz J, Le Pennec J-L, Bourdier J-L, Köse O, Zimitoğlu O, Gündoğdu N, Gourgaud A (1998) Hidden calderas evidenced by multisource geophysical data; example of Cappadocian Calderas, Central Anatolia. J Volcanol Geoth Res 85:99–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuhrmann U, Lippolt H, Hess JC (1987) HD-B1 Biotite reference material for K-Ar chronometry. Chem Geol 66:41–51Google Scholar
  28. Guillou H, Singer BS, Laj C, Kissel C, Scaillet S, Jicha BR (2004) On the age of the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion. Earth Planet Sci Lett 227:331–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guillou H, Nomade S, Carracedo JC, Kissel C, Laj C, Perez Torrado FJ, Wandres C (2011) Effectiveness of combined unspiked K–Ar and 40Ar/39Ar dating methods in the 14C age range. Quat Geochronol 6:530–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamann Y, Wulf S, Ersoy O, Ehrmann W, Aydar E, Schmiedl G (2010) First evidence of a distal early Holocene ash layer in Eastern Mediterranean deep-sea sediments derived from the Anatolian volcanic province. Quatern Res 73:497–506. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hautmann S, Lippolt HJ (2000) 40Ar/39Ar dating of central European K–Mn oxides—a chronological framework of supergene alteration processes during the Neogene. Chem Geol 170:37–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hess JC, Lippolt HJ (1994) Compilation of K–Ar measurements on HD-B1 standard biotite. In: Odin GS (ed) Phanerozoic time scale., Bull. Liais. Inform. I.U.G.S., Subcom. Geochronol., vol 12, pp 19–23Google Scholar
  33. Innocenti F, Mazzuoli R, Pasquare’ G, Radicati Di Brozolo F, Villari L (1976) Evolution of the volcanism in the area of interaction between the arabian, anatolian and iranian plates (Lake van, Eastern Turkey). J Volcanol Geothermal Res 1:103–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inoue K, Saito M (1997) Climatic changes in the Konya basin, Turkey, estimated from physicochemical, mineralogical, and geochemical characteristics of its lacustrine sediments. Jpn Rev 8:147–165Google Scholar
  35. Karabıyıoğlu M, Kuzucuoğlu C, Fontugne M, Kaiser B, Mouralis D (1999) Facies and depositional sequences of the late pleistocene Göçü shoreline system, Konya basin, Central Anatolia: implications for reconstructing lake-level changes. Quatern Sci Rev Quatern Sci Rev 18:593–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kashima K (2002) Environmental and climatic changes during the last 20,000 years at Lake Tuz, central Turkey. CATENA 48:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kazancı N, Gevrek A, Varol B (1995) Facies changes and high calorific peat formation in a quaternary maar lake, central Anatolia, Turkey: the possible role of geothermal processes in a closed lacustrine basin. Sed Geol 94:255–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kazancı N, Boyraz S, Özkul M, Alçiçek MC, Kadıoğlu YK (2012) Late holocene terrestrial tephra record at western Anatolia, Turkey: possible evidence of an explosive eruption outside Santorini in the eastern Mediterranean. Global Planet Change 80–81:36–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuhn SL, Dinçer B, Balkan-Atlı N, Erturaç MK (2015) Paleolithic occupations of the Göllü Dağ, Central Anatolia, Turkey. J Field Archaeol 40:581–602. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kürkçüoğlu B, Şen E, Aydar E, Gourgaud A, Gündoğdu N (1998) Geochemical approach to magmatic evolution of Mt. Erciyes stratovolcano Central Anatolia, Turkey. J Volcanol Geoth Res 85:473–494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuzucuoğlu C (2004) Upper and late pleistocene environmental changes in Anatolia reconstructed from sediment sequences and landform studies. In: Barla B, Mater B, Algan O (eds) Proceedings of international symposium on earth system sciences 2004 Istanbul–Turkey: dedicated to the memory of professor sirri erinç. Istanbul University Press, Istanbul, pp 19–27Google Scholar
  42. Kuzucuoğlu C, Karabiyikoğlu M, Fontugne M, Pastre J-F, Ercan T (1997) Environmental changes in holocene lacustrine sequences from Karapinar in the Konya Plain (Turkey). In: Dalfes HN, Kukla G, Weiss H (eds) Third millennium BC climate change and old world collapse, NATO ASI series. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuzucuoğlu C, Pastre J-F, Black S, Ercan T, Fontugne M, Guillou H, Hatté C, Karabıyıoğlu M, Orth P, Türkecan A (1998) Identification and dating of tephra layers from quaternary sedimentary sequences of Inner Anatolia, Turkey. J Volcanol Geoth Res 85:153–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laj C, Guillou H, Kissel C (2014) Dynamics of the earth magnetic field in the 10–75 kyr period comprising the Laschamp and Mono Lake excursions: new results from the French Chaîne des Puys in a global perspective. Earth Planet Sci Lett 387:184–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Le Bourdonnec F-X, Nomade S, Poupeau G, Guillou H, Tushabramishvili N, Moncel M-H, Pleurdeau D, Agapishvili T, Voinchet P, Mgeladze A, Lordkipanidze D (2012) Multiple origins of Bondi Cave and Ortvale Klde (NW Georgia) obsidians and human mobility in Transcaucasia during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic. J Archaeol Sci 39:1317–1330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Le Maitre RW (ed) (2002) Igneous rocks: a classification and glossary of terms: recommendations of the international union of geological sciences, subcommission on the systematics of igneous rocks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Le Pennec J-L, Bourdier J-L, Froger J-L, Temel A, Camus G, Gourgaud A (1994) Neogene ignimbrites of the Nevsehir plateau (Central Turkey): stratigraphy, distribution and source constraints. J Volcanol Geoth Res 63:59–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Le Pennec J-L, Temel A, Froger J-L, Şen S, Gourgaud A, Bourdier J-L (2005) Stratigraphy and age of the Cappadocia ignimbrites, Turkey: reconciling field constraints with paleontologic, radiochronologic, geochemical and paleomagnetic data. J Volcanol Geoth Res 141:45–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lowe DJ (2011) Tephrochronology and its application: a review. Quat Geochronol 6:107–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mouralis D, Kuzucuoğlu C, Pastre JF, Guillou H, Slimak L, Kunesch S (2004) Göllüdag quaternary volcanic complex (central Anatolia): morphologic evolution and environmental implications. In: Barla B, Mater B, Algan O (eds) Proceedings of international symposium on earth system sciences 2004, Istanbul–Turkey: dedicated to the memory of professor Sırrı Erinç. Istanbul University Press, Istanbul, pp 67–74Google Scholar
  51. Morgan LE, Renne PR, Taylor RE, WoldeGabriel G (2009) Archaeological age constraints from extrusion ages of obsidian: examples from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Quat Geochronol 4:193–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mouralis D (2003) Les complexes volcaniques quaternaires de Cappadoce (Göllüdag et Acigöl)—Turquie : évolutions morphodynamiques et implications environnementales (Thèse doctorat). Paris 12, ParisGoogle Scholar
  53. Mouralis D, Pastre J-F, Kuzucuoglu C, Türkecan A, Atıcı Y, Slimak L, Guillou H, Kunesch S (2002) Les complexes volcaniques rhyolithiques quaternaires d’anatolie centrale (Göllü Dag et Acigöl, Turquie): genèse, instabilité, contraintes environnementales. Quaternaire Revue de l’Association Française pour l’Étude du Quaternaire 13:219–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mouralis D, Aydar E, Türkecan A, Kuzucuoğlu C (2019) Quaternary volcanic landscapes and prehistoric sites in Southern Cappadocia: Göllüdağ, Acıgöl and Hasandağ. In: Kuzucuoğlu C, Çiner A, Kazancı N (eds) Landscapes and landforms of Turkey, world geomorphological landscapes. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 551–563. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Notsu K, Fujitani T, Ui T, Matsuda J, Ercan T (1995) Geochemical features of collision-related volcanic rocks in central and eastern Anatolia, Turkey. J Volcanol Geoth Res 64:171–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Olanca K (1994) Geochimie des Laves Quaternaires de Cappadoce (Turquie). Les Appareils Monogéniques (Thèse doctorat—PhD). Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont-FerrandGoogle Scholar
  57. Parfenoff A, Pomerol C, Tourenq J, Wyart J (1970) Les Minéraux en grains: méthodes d’étude et détermination. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  58. Pasquarè G (1966) Outlines of the neogene and quaternary volcanism of Asia Minor. Atti Della Accad Nazionale Dei Lincei 8:1077–1085Google Scholar
  59. Pasquarè G (1968) Geology of the cenozoic volcanic area of Central Anatolia. Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 9:53–204Google Scholar
  60. Pastre J-F, Kuzucuoğlu C, Fontugne M, Guillou H, Karabiyikoğlu M, Ercan T, Türkecan A (1998) Séquences volcanisées et corrélations téphrologiques au N–W du Hasan dağ (Haut bassin de la Melendiz, Anatolie centrale, Turquie). Quaternaire Revue de l’Association Française pour l’Étude du Quaternaire 9:169–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Platevoet B, Scaillet S, Guillou H, Blamart D, Nomade S, Massault M, Poisson A, Elitok Ö, Özgür N, Yağmurlu F, Yılmaz K (2007) Pleistocene eruptive chronology of the Gölcük volcano, Isparta Angle, Turkey. Quaternaire Revue de l’Association Française pour l’Étude du Quaternaire 19:147–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Poidevin J-L (1998) Les gisements d’obsidienne de turquie et de transcaucasie. Géologie, géochimie et chronométrie. In: Cauvin M-C, Gourgaud A, Gratuze B, Arnaud N, Poupeau G, Poidevin J-L, Chataigner C (eds) L’Obsidienne Au Proche et Moyen Orient. Du Volcan à l’outil, BAR international series 738. Archeopress, Oxford, pp 105–156Google Scholar
  63. Rabayrol F, Hart CJR, Thorkelson DJ (2019) Temporal, spatial and geochemical evolution of late Cenozoic post-subduction magmatism in central and eastern Anatolia, Turkey. Lithos 336–337:67–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roberts N, Eastwood WJ, Lamb HF, Tibby JC (1997) The Age and causes of Mid-Holocene environmental change in Southwest Turkey. In: Dalfes HN, Kulkla G, Weiss H (eds) Third millennium BC climate change and old world collapse, NATO ASI series, series I, global environmental change. Springer, Berlin, pp 409–429Google Scholar
  65. Roberts N, Meadows ME, Dodson JR (2001) The history of mediterranean-type environments: climate, culture and landscape. Holocene 11:631–634. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sasco R, Guillou H, Nomade S, Scao V, Maury RC, Kissel C, Wandres C (2017) 40Ar/39Ar and unspiked 40 K–40Ar dating of upper Pleistocene volcanic activity in the Bas-Vivarais (Ardèche, France). J Volcanol Geoth Res 341:301–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Satow C, Tomlinson EL, Grant KM, Albert PG, Smith VC, Manning CJ, Ottolini L, Wulf S, Rohling EJ, Lowe JJ, Blockley SPE, Menzies MA (2015) A new contribution to the Late quaternary tephrostratigraphy of the Mediterranean: aegean Sea core LC21. Quatern Sci Rev 117:96–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schmitt AK, Danišík M, Evans NJ, Siebel W, Kiemele E, Aydin F, Harvey JC (2011) Acigöl rhyolite field, Central Anatolia (part 1): high-resolution dating of eruption episodes and zircon growth rates. Contrib Mineral Petrol 162:1215–1231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Siebel W, Schmitt AK, Kiemele E, Danišík M, Aydın F (2011) Acıgöl rhyolite field, central Anatolia (part II): geochemical and isotopic (Sr–Nd–Pb, δ18O) constraints on volcanism involving two high-silica rhyolite suites. Contrib Mineral Petrol 162:1233–1247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Singer BS, Hoffman KA, Schnepp E, Guillou H (2008) Multiple Brunhes Chron excursions recorded in the West Eifel (Germany) volcanics: support for long-held mantle control over the non-axial dipole field. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. Palaeomagnetism Earth’s Deep Inter 169:28–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Singer BS, Guillou H, Jicha BR, Laj C, Kissel C, Beard BL, Johnson CM (2009) 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar and 230Th–238U dating of the Laschamp excursion: a radioisotopic tie-point for ice core and climate chronologies. Earth Planet Sci Lett 286:80–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Slimak L, Roche H, Mouralis D, Buitenhuis H, Balkan-Atlı N, Binder D, Kuzucuoğlu C, Grenet M (2004) Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turquie), aspects archéologiques, chronologiques et paléontologiques d’une séquence pléistocène en Anatolie centrale. CR Palevol 3:411–420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Slimak L, Kuhn SL, Roche H, Mouralis D, Buitenhuis Hijlke, Balkan-AtlI N, Binder D, Kuzucuoglu C, Guillou H (2008) Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turkey): archaeological evidence for early human settlement in Central Anatolia. J Hum Evol 54:99–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Steiger RH, Jäger E (1977) Subcommission on geochronology: convention on the use of decay constants in geo- and cosmochronology. Earth Planet Sci Lett 36:359–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sullivan DG (1990) Minoan tephra in lake sediments in Western Turkey dating the eruption and assessing the atmospheric dispersal of the ash. In: Hardy DA, Renfrew C (eds) Thera and the Aegean World—Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece The Thera Foundation, London, pp 114–118Google Scholar
  76. Sullivan DG (1988) The discovery of Santorini Minoan tephra in western Turkey. Nature 333:552–554. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Temel A, Gündoğdu MN, Gourgaud A, Le Pennec J-L (1998) Ignimbrites of Cappadocia (Central Anatolia, Turkey): petrology and geochemistry. J Volcanol Geoth Res 85:447–471. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tryon CA, Logan MAV, Mouralis D, Kuhn S, Slimak L, Balkan-Atlı N (2009) Building a tephrostratigraphic framework for the Paleolithic of Central Anatolia, Turkey. J Archaeol Sci 36:637–652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Türkecan A (2015) Türkiye’nin senozoyik volkanitleri. Maden Tetkik Arama Müdürlüğü, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  80. Türkecan A, Kuzucuoğlu C, Mouralis D, Pastre J-F, Atıcı Y, Guillou H, Fontugne M (2004) Upper pleistocene volcanism and palaeogeography in Cappadocia, Turkey. MTA-CNRS-TÜBİTAK 2001–2003 Research Programme. Tübitak Project No. 101Y109 (No. 10652). M.T.A, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  81. Yıldırım T, Özgür R (1981) Acıgöl kalderası. Jeomorfoloji Dergisi 10:59–70Google Scholar
  82. Zanchetta G, Sulpizio R, Roberts N, Cioni R, Eastwood WJ, Siani G, Caron B, Paterne M, Santacroce R (2011) Tephrostratigraphy, chronology and climatic events of the Mediterranean basin during the Holocene: an overview. Holocene 21:33–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire IDEES (CNRS, UMR 6266)Université de Rouen-NormandieMont-Saint-Aignan cedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Géographie Physique, Environnements Quaternaires et Actuels (UMR 8591, CNRS & Univ. Paris 1)MeudonFrance
  3. 3.Maden Tetkik ve Arama (MTA) Genel MüdürlüğüAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement/IPSLCEA-CNRS-UVSQGif sur YvetteFrance

Personalised recommendations