World Geomorphological Landscapes Catherine Kuzucuoğlu Attila Çiner Nizamettin Kazancı    Editors Landscapes and Landforms of Turkey World Geomorphological Landscapes Series editor Piotr Migoń, Wroclaw, Poland More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10852 Catherine Kuzucuoğlu Attila Çiner Nizamettin Kazancı (cid:129) Editors Landscapes and Landforms of Turkey 123 Editors Catherine Kuzucuoğlu Nizamettin Kazancı Laboratory of Physical Geography(LGP, Ankara University UMR8591) Ankara,Turkey CNRS,UniversitiesofParis1Panthéon-Sorbonne andParis 12U-Pec Meudon, France Attila Çiner Istanbul TechnicalUniversity Istanbul,Turkey ISSN 2213-2090 ISSN 2213-2104 (electronic) World Geomorphological Landscapes ISBN978-3-030-03513-6 ISBN978-3-030-03515-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03515-0 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018960303 ©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublicationdoesnot imply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevantprotectivelawsand regulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthisbookarebelieved tobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty, expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeen made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland Foreword So far, only five books have been published describing the landscapes of Turkey as a whole (Tchiatcheff1866a,b;Güldalı1979;Kurter1979;Atalay1982,2ndedition1987;Erol1983). Ardos (1979) is a most inadequate account of the geomorphology of Turkey from a neotec- tonicperspectiveonly,andEkenetal.’s(2006)magnificentlyillustratedvolumesdealalmost exclusively with biogeography and ecology with minimal data on landforms. None of these bookscouldsatisfyeithertheprofessionalorthegeneralreaderinterestedinthelandformsof Turkeybothintermsofthematerial presentedandinthemanneritispresented.Thebookin yourhandisthefirsttryingtofillthevoidofageomorphologicaldescriptionofTurkey,butit addresses itself mainly to the educated public. It seems surprising that so little has been written about the geomorphology of a piece of land that is located in the middle of the inhabited worldsince the inception of human history and along the western shores of which human civilisation was created by its Greek-speaking people. In fact, the famous American classicist William Arthur Heidel (1868–1941) said that Anaximander’sbook,thefirstprosetextevergeneratedinGreekandsupposedlycalledPeqί Uύrex1(periphuseus:onnature),wasactuallyabookaboutgeography(Heidel1921)andit may have contained his famous map (Fig. 1). Geography developed continuously after the Presocratics and reached its apogee in the ancient world with the work of Claudius Ptolemy (c. CE 100–170), entitled Cexcqauijὴ Ὑuήcηri1 (Geographike Ufegesis: guide to geog- raphy). However, Ptolemy’s work was mathematical geography only and the associated car- tography.ThegreatgeneralgeographerofantiquitywasStrabo(c.64BCE–c.24CE)anative ofAmaseia(nowAmasya,atowninTurkey).InhisCexcqauijά(Geography),consistingof seventeenbooks,heleftuswonderfuldescriptionsofthephysicalgeographyofwhatistoday Turkey in books XII and XIII. Strabo divided Asia into two moieties by the transcontinental Taurus (II, 5, 31–32, and XI, 1), which, according to him, had a length of 45,000 stadia1 from one end to the other (XI. 1. 3); he called the northern part Cis-Tauran and the southern part Trans-Tauran (Strabo,II.5.31andXI.1.2).From Strabo’sstatementthat“sinceAsiaisdividedintwoby theTaurusrange,whichstretchesfromthecapesofPamphyliatotheeasternseaatIndiaand farther Scythia, the Greeks gave the name of Cis-Tauran to that part of the continent which looks towards the north, and the name of Trans-Tauran to that part which looks towards the south;itisclearthathedidnotinventthesespecificdesignations”(seealsoXI.1.2).Hehad certaindisagreementswithhispredecessorEratosthenes(c.276–196BCE),themanwhohad invented the term geography, as to which regions were Cis-Tauran and which Trans-Tauran, 1Here, Strabo uses the Eratosthenian stadia, i.e. 1 stade being considered here equivalent to 157.50 m. (1/250,000ofthelengthoftheequatorfollowingBerthelot1930).Thus,for45,000stadia,weobtainroughly 7000kmlengthfortheTaurus(Berthelot1930,p.91).WhilethemodernequivalentoftheGreekstadeisstilla matter of much dispute today, it ranges from 185 to 148 m in the modern literature of the history of cartography.Forliterature,seeHarleyandWoodward(1987,p.148,note3). v vi Foreword Fig.1 Şengör’s(2000)attemptatareconstructionofAnaximander’sworldmap(pinax) because Strabo appreciated the breadth of the Taurus better than Eratosthenes had done (see, for example, Strabo, XI. 12. 5). This appreciation led him to the concept of a plateau, an oropedia (=mountain plain) as he expressed it, as opposed to just a range of mountains (Fig. 2). According to Strabo, the Taurus begins where the Reşadiye Peninsula (Rhodian Peraea: identification after Kiepert 1878, p. 123) joins the mainland (Fig. 1). “From here the (mountain) ridge continues [presumably westward and/or northward], but it is much lower and is no longer regarded as part of the Taurus” (Strabo, XIV. 2.1). Both here and in a later place (Strabo, XIV, 3.8), Strabo combats the view that the Taurus mountains begin at the Hieranpromontory(IdentificationafterJameson1971,Fig.1;CapeKilidonyaorGelidonyaor Kırlangıç or Yardımcı: Fig. 2). This view had supporters “not because of the loftiness of the promontory, and because it extends down from the Pisidian mountains that lie above Pam- phylia,butalsobecauseoftheislandsthatlieoffit[Chelidoniae],presentingastheydo,asort of conspicuous sign in the sea, like the outskirts of a mountain” (Strabo, XIV, 3. 8). This island=mountainequivalenceencouragesmeinthinkingthatbothStraboandhispredecessors probably considered island genesis (i.e. uplift out of the sea) and mountain genesis as parts of the same process of uplift on Mediterranean examples. Strabo knew that the Taurus, all along its length, does not form a singular ridge of mountains.HejustifieshissinglingoutoftheTaurustonametheentiremountainsystemthat traverses Asia from westtoeast as follows(a justification that may have beenemployedalso by his predecessors Dicaearchus {c. BCE 350–285} and Eratosthenes): “…neither are the partsoutside[i.e.tothesouthof]theTaurusandthisside[i.e.north]ofitsoregarded,because ofthefactthattheeminencesanddepressionsarescatteredequallythroughoutthebreadthand lengthofthewholecountry,andpresentnothinglikeawallofpartition[asdoestheTaurus]” (Strabo, XIV. 2. 1). In Caria and Lycia (present provinces of Aydın and Denizli and the westernpartofMuğla,andtheeasternpartofMuğlaandwesternpartofAntalya,respectively, in Turkey), the Taurus “has neither any considerable breadth nor height, but it first rises to a considerableheightoppositetheChelidoniae…[presentBeşadalarortheDevecitaşıIslands] andthenstretchingtowardstheeastencloseslongvalleys,thoseinCilicia[presentKaraman, İçel,andAdana],andthenononesidetheAmanusMountainsplitsoffitandontheotherthe Antitaurus Mountain…. Now the Antitaurus ends in Cataonia [present northern Kahraman- maraş], whereas the mountain Amanus extends to the Euphrates river and Melitinê [present Foreword vii Malatya]2… And it is succeeded in turn by the mountains on the far side of the Euphrates, which are continuous with those aforementioned, except that they are cleft by the river [i.e. Euphrates] that flows through the midst of them. Here its [i.e., of the Taurus] height and breadthgreatlyincreaseanditsbranchesaremorenumerous.Atallevents,themostsoutherly part is the Taurus proper, which separates Armenia [i.e., east Anatolian high plateau] from Mesopotamia [i.e., roughly the Border Folds region in Ketin’s 1966, sense; Assyrides of Şengöretal.1982]”(Strabo,XI,12.2)(Fig.2).Then,StraboassumesfollowingDicaearchus and Eratosthenes “that the Taurus extends in a straight line… as far as India” (Strabo, XIV, 5.11). “It is said that the last part of the Taurus, which is called Imaïus and borders on the Indian Sea, neither extends eastwards farther than India nor into it” (Strabo, XI. 11. 7). AsvonHumboldt(1843,p.58,note1)pointedout,itwasStrabo’simportantcontribution tohavedistinguished “mountains” from“plateaux”:for thelatter, heintroducedthetechnical term oropedia.3 He noted that Eratosthenes’ Taurus System “has in many places as great a breadth as three thousand stadia”4 (Strabo, XI. 1. 3). He also knew that “the Taurus has numerousbranchestowardthenorth”(Strabo,XI.12.4),whichhedescribedunderthenames Antitaurus (XI. 12. 4), Scydises (XI. 2. 15), Moschici (XI. 2. 4) and Pariadres (XII. 3. 18; sometopographicdetailsatXII.3.28).Eastofthese,henotedanumberofparallelchainsin thepresent-dayeasternTurkey,which,accordingtoStrabo,“comprisemanymountains[ore], many plateaux [oropedia]” (XI. 12. 4), all of which comprising the main trunk of the Taurus System of Eratosthenes here (Fig. 2). Farther west, Strabo names a number of mountains roughly along the strike of the Par- yadres (LithrusandOphlimus: XII. 3.40;fartherwest Arganthonius andOlympus:XII. 4.3, andfinallyIda:XII.8.8;ontheKapıdağPeninsula,Dindymus:XII.8.11;Fig.5)thatdefine an independent train north of the dry interior plains of central Anatolia (Strabo’s “waterless plateauxof Lycaonia”: XII. 6. 1). All of these ranges are considered a part ofthe Taurus and notpartsofanindependentchain,probablyonaccountoftheirconnexionwiththeParyadres in the east and their inferior hypsometry compared with the main Taurus range in the south. Although Strabo talks about the “sacred mountain” Hieros (present Ganosdağ; formerly Tekfur Dağı; now changed to Işıklar Dağı) in Thrace, he makes no connexion between the Thracian mountains and those of northern Anatolia. This is probably because the main mountain range just north and west of Thrace, the Haemus (the Balkan), runs out to the sea (Strabo, VII, 6. 1) and because Strabo thought that the Taurus was confined to Asia. Strabo describes at length the waterless plateaux of Lycaonia as “cold, bare of trees, and grazed by wild asses” (XII. 6. 1), and here, he clearly recognises a distinctive landform contrasting with the mountains to the south and to the north, for which he again employs the term oropedia. This oropedia of Lycaonia is bordered on the south by the Taurus proper (Strabo,XII,6.1),yetitisenclosedwithintheTaurusSystem(Fig.2).Inthedescriptionofthe Taurus in Asia Minor, we note that Strabo recognised the branching out of a mountain stem, the various branches enclosing plateaux (e.g. XI. 2. 15; XII, 2. 2), thus first indicating what 2WeknownowthatAmanosreallyendsatatributarycalledAksuoftheCeyhanjusttothesouthofthetownof Kahramanmaraş,andtherangesgroupedunderthedesignationAntitaurusreachmuchfarthernorthandeast thantheancientCataonia,evenonthebasisofStrabo’sowndata. 3IntwomanuscriptsoftheHippocratictreatisePeqίaέqxm,tdάsxm,sόpxm(=Airs,Waters,Places),namely intheCodexVaticanusGraecus276(twelfthcenturyAD)andCodexBarberinus(fifteenthcenturyAD),we read in paragraph XVIII, “ἡ dὲ Rjthέxm ἐqηlίη jaketlέmη pediάs ἐrsi jaὶ keilajώdη1 jaὶ ὑwηkὴ jaὶ ἔmtdqorpesqίxs”insteadof“ἡdὲRjthέxmἐqηlίηjaketlέmηpediάsἐrsijaὶkeilajώdη1jaὶwikὴjaὶ ἔmtdqorpesqίxs”(seeJones1923[1984],p.118).Jones(1923[1984],pp.118and119)translates“ὑwηkὴ” as “plateau”. Thus, the first sentence would read in English “What is called the Scythian desert is level grassland,aplateau(ὑwηkὴ),andfairlywell-watered,”whereasthesecond,Jones’preferredreading,“Whatis called the Scythian desert is level grassland, without trees (ὴ bare), and fairly well-watered”. If the ὑwηkὴ readingiscorrect,asitappearsinmostmanuscripts,thentheconceptofaplateauasahighlandwouldhaveto bedatedsomefivecenturiesbeforeStrabo,buteveninthatcasewedonotseeaspecialtechnicalterm.The introductionofaspecialtermtoexpresstheconceptofaplateauinallcasesbelongstoStrabo. 4I.e.472kmwidth! viii Foreword was to be called later virgations by von Humboldt, Ritter and Suess (Fig. 2), a concept that was to play a critical rôle in the tectonic interpretation of all Asiatic mountain ranges. East of Asia Minor, the Taurus continues in the present Transcaucasia (Armenia and Azerbaijan) and northern Iran as the Parachoathras Mountains (in Strabo’s terms from ArmeniatotheeastoftheHyrcanianSea,i.e.thepresentCaspianSea)andhepointsoutthat theycontinueinastraightlinefromCiliciainAsiaMinor(Strabo,XI.8.1).Farthersouth,he recognised in the eastern Anatolian high plateau another branch, the so-called Gordyaean Mountains(mountainsofCordyene,i.e.ofKurds,asfirstnoticedbytheEnglishhistorianand theologian George Rawlinson (1817–1902), the younger brother of Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson (1810–1895), the founder of Assyriology, in the nineteenth century: Rawlinson undated [1876?], p. 308), including the Mt. Masius5 (not to be confused with Mt. Masis in Armenian, which is a volcanic cone much farther north: Mt. Ağrı, inappropriately known as Mt. Ararat6), which eventually joined with the Zagros in Iran (Strabo, XI. 12. 4). In Strabo’s account, we thus recognise a rather large number of mountain ranges, high plateaux surrounded by them and coastal plains along the course of “Dicaearchus and Eratos- thenes” Taurus. Strabo thought that most of the mountain ranges he wrote about, extended east-west although he knew of important exceptions such as the Anti-Taurus and the Amanus. All of these he considered a part of the east–west trending Taurus System, although he often madeadistinctionbetweentheTaurusSystemandtheTaurusproper.Farthereast,stillStrabo’s knowledgebecomeslesscomprehensive:“NowtheMacedoniansgavethenameCaucasustoall themountainswhichfollowinorderafterthecountryoftheArians7;butamongthebarbarians theextremitiesonthenorthweregiventheseparatenamesParopamisusandEmodaandImaus; and other such names were applied to separate parts.” (Strabo, XI, 8. 18). Unfortunately, Strabo offers little in terms of an interpretation of the origin of these mountains and the various structures he distinguishes within them.9 He does describe, how- ever,theearthquakes,hotsprings,10theformervolcanicactivityandtheassociatedchangesin the landscape in western Turkey, for example (Strabo, XII. 8. 17, 18, 19), and in connexion with whathesays ontheoveralltectonicphenomenaknowntohim,inthe firsttwobooksof hisGeography,thereislittlereasontothinkthathistectonicviewsdifferedconsiderablyfrom thoseofEratosthenes.WearethusledtothinkthatStrabotooconsideredtheTaurusaproduct of vertical uplift associated with plutonic forces. He believed in a non-uniformitarian, in fact 5These are what today we call the south-eastern Taurus Mountains in south-eastern Turkey that delimit the Tethyside orogenic belt against the Arabian platform. The designation south-eastern Taurus occurs in The TimesAtlasoftheWorld,twelfthcomprehensiveedition,2007,directlyinTurkishasGüneyDoğuToroslar.In the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie (19th edition) Weltatlas, they are named the Äußerer Osttaurus (Outer East Taurus). Themain authority for the toponym south-eastern Taurus is theYeni Türkiye Atlası (Ankara 1977) publishedbytheCartographicCommandoftheTurkishArmy. 6Genesis VIII, 4; in fact, the whole of eastern Turkey may have been meant by “Ararat”=Urartu: for this tradition,seeJacksonandMorgan(1990,p.267,note1). 7Present-dayIranandTurkmeniaplusnorthernAfghanistan. 8Berthelot (1930, p. 92) quotes this passage from Strabo, but before the Paropamisus he lists an Agriens mountain. In the two Strabo translations I have at hand writing this article (Hamilton and Falconer in the Bohn’sClassicalLibrary1856,v.II;andJonesintheLoebClassicalLibrary1969,TheGeographyofStrabo, v.V),thesemountainsarenotmentioned,asneitheralsointheLoebGreektextinanyform.Thesameistrue inthenewStraboeditionandtranslationbyRadt(2004,pp.340–341).Ithusdonotknowfromwhatsource BerthelotderivedthenameAgriens. 9OnecanhardlyblameStraboforthis,becausehisintentwastowriteahistoricalandpoliticalgeographyasan outgrowth of his earlier historical studies and travels, which he hoped would be of use to the rulers of his country(i.e.toPythodoris,theQueenofPontus,andnottotheRomans:Jones1917,pp.xxv–xxvi). 10InHierapolis(presentPamukkale),Strabomentionsthefamouswhitetravertinedepositsas“plutonium”,i.e. as products of Pluto, the god of the netherworld (XIII. 4. 14). He clearly makes a connexion between the “plutonia”andvolcanicphenomena,becausehealsocalls“plutonium”the“vapours”(fumaroles,herethetype localityofSolfatara!)risinginthePhlegraeanFields(orPhlegraeanPlain:CampiFlegrei,volcanicregionwest ofNaplesandeastofCumae)inItaly,anactivevolcanicprovincecontainingsome19lowcraters,thelastof which,appositelycalledMonteNuovo,wasformedaslateas1538AD(cf.Scrope1862,pp.319ff.andfig. 60onp.232;Bullard1980,p.187).ThisvolcanicdistrictwasrecognisedbyStraboassuch(Strabo,V.4.5). Foreword ix Fig.2 Strabo’sviewofthegeomorphologyofTurkeyasreconstructedbyŞengör(inŞengöretal.2008) catastrophicbehaviourofnature,11butonethatdisplayedagreatregularityofbehaviour.Von Humbolt (1843, pp. 132–133) finds this confidence in regularity expressed in the straight course ascribed by Eartosthenes and Strabo to the Taurus System that supposedly unerringly followedthe36thparallel.VonHumboldtsearchesthesourceofthisconfidenceina“certain predilectionfortheregularityofforms”andthusunderlinestheinfluenceofPlatoandAristotle on our geographers (Fig. 2). Although Rome was already in intellectual decline (Strabo was only followed within the same century by the Spaniard Pomponius Mela {died 45 CE} with his De situ orbis libri III, whichisanincomparablypoorerperformance),theriseofChristianityandthegradualdecline 11Inhisfirstbook,Strabowrote:“…butsuchchangesasEratosthenesmentionsdonotinanyparticularalter theearthasawhole(changessoinsignificantarelostingreatbodies)thoughtheydoproduceconditionsinthe inhabitedworldthataredifferentatonetimefromwhattheyareatanother,whiletheimmediatecauseswhich produce them are different at different times” (Strabo, I. 3. 3; italics are mine). I interpret this as a non-uniformitarianstatement,forStrabolateron(II.3.6)applaudsPosidoniusforthinkingthatthestoryabout the disappearance of Atlantis (in asingle day and night: Plato, Timaeus, 25; especially Taylor1928 (1972), p.56,whereTaylorstressesthat“Theearthquakeandthedelugearetheconstituentsofonesuddenconvulsion of nature”.See hisentire discussion there undertheentry 25c6) is notafiction.Kidd (1988,p. 259),in his commentary on this passage of Posidonius quoted by Strabo, rightly expressed some surprise at Strabo’s credulityinthisparticularcase,forheismuchmoreconservativeingeneral.Hiscredulityherecanonlybe explained,Ithink,bytheconformityofPlato’scatastrophismtohisownviews. Lyell,inall editionsofhisPrinciplesof Geology(Lyell 1830,1875),makesStraboanuniformitarianist, becauseofStrabo’scriticismofStratoandEratosthenes.ButLyell(e.g.Lyell1830,p.19)paraphrasesthegreat geographer out of context. Strabo, in his criticism, is made by Lyell to say that “It is proper to derive our explanations from things which are obvious, and in some measure of daily occurrence, such as deluges, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and sudden swellings of the land beneath the sea”. This is also how Ellenberger (1988, p. 26; also see the third motto on p. 11) reads him. The very literal translation of Jones (1917,v.I,p.199)reads,however,asfollows:“…itisnecessary formetobringmy discussionintocloser connexion with things that are more apparent to the senses and that, so to speak, are seen every day. Now deluges;andearthquakes,volcaniceruptions,andupheavalsofthesubmarinegroundraisethesea,whereasthe settlingofthebedofthesealowersthesea.Foritcannotbethatburningmassesmayberaisedaloft,andsmall islands, but not large islands; nor yet that islands may thus appear, but not continents” (my italics). The sentenceIitalicised,whenconsideredinconnexionwithStrabo’sviewsontheAtlantis,constitutesanattackon uniformitarianism,notanargumentinitsfavour.Strabowasdefendingacommon-sensecatastrophismwithout resorting to fabulous causes. Ellenberger (1988, p. 26) considers Strabo an uniformitarianist–moderate catastrophist. I would agree with this judgement provided emphasis is placed on the word catastrophist in Cuvier’ssense.