Tertiary tectonic and sedimentological evolution of the ...1… · Fig. 1. Geological structural map of the external part of the South Carpathians. Compiled from geological maps 1:200.000,

Tertiary tectonic and sedimentological evolution of the SouthCarpathians foredeep: tectonic vs eustatic control

T. RabaÆ giaa,*, 1, L. Mat° encob

aProspect° iuni S.A., Hydrocarbon Division, 20 Coralilor str., Bucharest, 1, RomaniabBucharest University, Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, 6 Traian Vuia str., sect. 1, 70139, Bucharest, Romania

Received 25 October 1998; received in revised form 2 August 1999; accepted 6 August 1999

Abstract

A detailed seismic sequence stratigraphy study based on a dense network of seismic pro®les is integrated with structural

observations from interpreted geological sections to derive a tectonic and sedimentological model for the Miocene±Plioceneevolution of the South Carpathians foredeep (Getic Depression). Following Paleogene and older orogenic phases, the ®rsttectonic event which a�ected the studied area was characterised by Early Miocene large scale extension to transtension which isresponsible for the opening of the Getic Depression as a dextral pull-apart basin. Further Middle Miocene contraction caused

WNW±ESE oriented thrusts and associated piggy-back basins. The last tectonic episode recognised in the studied area relates togeneral transpressive deformations during the Late Miocene±Early Pliocene interval, a ®rst NW±SE oriented dextral episode isfollowed by second N±S sinistral deformations. The detailed sequence stratigraphy study allows for the de®nition of the

dominant tectonic control of the sedimentary sequences in foreland basins. A eustatic control may be associated, but has a clearsubordinated character. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: South Carpathians; Sequence stratigraphy; Tectonics; Eustasy

1. Introduction

The South Carpathians foredeep, named the GeticDepression or the South Subcarpathians (SaÆ ndulescu,1984), represents a sedimentary basin developed at thecontact between the South Carpathians nappe pile andthe Moesian Platform (SaÆ ndulescu, 1984) (Fig. 1). The50±100 km wide basin comprises more than 6 km ofUppermost Cretaceous to Tertiary sediments depositedin a polyphase tectonic regime. Following a generaltectonic scheme, the evolution of the Getic Depressionwas characterised by Paleogene to Lower EarlyMiocene extension/transtension followed by large scaleMiddle to late Miocene contractional to transpres-

sional deformations, the entire system being buried by1±2 km of ¯at-lying Pliocene sediments, slightlydeformed in the last, late Pliocene tectonic event(Dicea, 1996; Mat° enco, Bertotti, Dinu & Cloetingh,1997; RaÆ baÆ gia & FuÈ lop, 1994).

Previous studies of the eustatic and tectonic controlon the development of the sedimentary bodies in activetectonic basins (Crumeyrolle, Rubino & Clauzon,1991; Leckie & Smith, 1992; Prosser, 1993; Robertson,Eaton, Follows & McCallum, 1991) have demon-strated the importance of the sequence analysis inrevealing the detailed architecture of the sedimentarybasins. Several uncertainties arise in de®ning the in¯u-ence of tectonic in respect to eustatic control in activetectonic areas, especially in foreland basin settings(Robertson et al., 1991; Vail et al., 1977).

Previous studies of the South Carpathians generallyfocused on the northern nappe pile (Berza &DraÆ gaÆ nescu, 1988; Codarcea, 1940; Mat° enco et al.,1997; Murgoci, 1905; Ratschbacher et al., 1993).

Marine and Petroleum Geology 16 (1999) 719±740

0264-8172/99/$20.00 # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0264-8172(99 )00045 -8

1 Present address: Schlumberger Logelco, Romanian Branch, Hotel

Diplomat 106, 13-17 Sevastopol str., sect. 1, Bucharest, Romania.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +40-1-3110922; fax: +40-1-

3111168.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T. RabaÆ gia)

Fig.1.Geologicalstructuralmapoftheexternalpart

oftheSouth

Carpathians.

Compiled

from

geologicalmaps1:200.000,1:50.000,published

bytheGeologicalInstitute

ofRomania

and

resultsofthis

paper

structuralwork.Thicklines,1±14,indicate

thepositionofpro®lesin

Figs.

5±8.SIto

SV

indicatesthepositionofFigs.

9±13,respectively.Insetindicate

thepositionofthe

structuralmapdetailed

inFig.4.

T. RabaÆgia, L. Mat° enco /Marine and Petroleum Geology 16 (1999) 719±740720

However, few studies have taken into account the

detailed analysis of the foredeep sedimentary architec-

ture as a whole (Dicea, 1996; Motas° , 1983), while thedetailed kinematic and tectonic evolution of the basin

is still to be pursued (e.g., Mat° enco, 1997; RaÆ baÆ gia &FuÈ lop, 1994) (Fig. 1).

The Getic Depression is analysed in this paperthrough a dense network of roughly 3500 km of seis-

Fig. 2. General time correlation table and stratigraphyic column for the Tertiary deposits and sketch of the main tectonic events (modi®ed after

Mattenco & Schmid, 1999). Correlation with Central and Eastern Parathethys for the Oligocene and Miocene and Pliocene ages after RoÈ gl

(1996). Hatched areas represent the ages used in this study. Note especially the di�erences at the Miocene/Pliocene boundary between the ages

used in the present study and the standard Tethys scale. Thick light grey and dark grey arrows represent an attempt to de®ne a foreland-breaking

sequence for the extensional deformation and for the contractional deformation respectively. SSQ represent the seismic sequences de®ned in the

present study. General deformation patterns represent results of this paper and correlation with Ratschbacher et al. (1993), Mat° enco (1997),

Schmid et al. (1998) and Mat° enco and Schmid (1999).

T. RabaÆgia, L. Mat° enco /Marine and Petroleum Geology 16 (1999) 719±740 721

mic lines, distributed both along the E±W strike of thebasin and on the N±S cross sections. The average dis-tance between the lines is about 5 km, their calibrationbeing made with 65 correlation wells. The high datadensity has allowed the de®nition of a detailed localseismic/sequence stratigraphy, correlation of thesequences being possible directly between the lines.Further conclusions enabled a detailed Miocene tec-tonic and sedimentary model, focused mainly on thesedimentary response of the tectonic deformationswithin the South Carpathians foredeep. These ®ndingsare important for the quantitative assessment of therole of the structural and eustatic control, providingfurther constraints on the mode of tectonic and sedi-mentary evolution. The latter has major implicationsfor the processes controlling the formation and archi-tecture of sedimentary basins along the externalRomanian Carpathians.

2. Geological background

The Tertiary evolution of the Getic Depression ismainly characterised by major variations in sedimen-tary and structural patterns. A roughly S-ward thin-ning clastic wedge is observed, three main sedimentarycycles being de®ned in connection with the tectonic ac-tivity (Dicea, 1996; Mat° enco, 1997; Motas° , 1983).

A ®rst Uppermost Cretaceous±Paleogene cycle (Fig.2) is characterised by molasse type sediments deposited

as a result of the Late Cretaceous ``Laramian'' defor-mations, namely the Dacidic molasse (SaÆ ndulescu,1984). A thick coarse-grained clastic succession wasdeposited on the inner basement formed by the Getic,Severin and the Danubian nappes, and on theMesozoic carbonates and Paleozoic series of theMoesian platform (Dicea, 1996). An UppermostCretaceous (Campanian±Maastrictian) succession canbe observed at surface in the east, as well as at depth,westward, close to the northern basin border. Thick(1000±1500 m) coarse-grained clastic deposits aretransgressively covering the northern border in theeastern region (Szasz, 1975). The Paleogene is charac-terised by a thick succession (roughly 5000 m in thenorthern parts), transgressively covering theCretaceous deposits in the NE areas (Jipa, 1980, 1982,1984), onlapping southward the top-Cretaceous uncon-formity of the Moesian platform (Dicea, 1996) andrecording up to 2500 m basement subsidence in thewestern parts of the Getic Depression (Fig. 3).

The Miocene sedimentary cycle (Fig. 2) is mainlycomposed by clastic deposits, the basal coarse sedi-ments being gradually replaced upward by ®ner sedi-ments. A regional unconformity, the ``Paleogenemorphology'' (Paraschiv, 1975), marks the beginningof this cycle. The Lower Miocene is characterised bymajor subsidence (Fig. 3), accommodating up to 2000thick conglomerates (Dicea, 1996), followed byroughly 500 m of ®ner marine deposits (Fig. 2). UpperBurdigalian sediments are deposited above a regionalunconformity, observed both on seismic lines and onoutcrops, marking the transition to an evaporitic orlacustrine episode. Further Badenian deposits arecharacterised by tu�s, marine marls and salt deposits.The top of the Miocene sedimentary cycle is de®nedby the Lower to Middle Sarmatian (Upper Miocene inParatethys time scale) siliciclastic deposits, which de-®ne the most important syntectonic sediments.

The third sedimentary cycle (Upper Sarmatian±Pliocene ) (Fig. 2) is mainly characterised by up to2000 m clastic deposits covering the deformed part ofthe foredeep. The various basins separated by theMiocene tectonic activity were ®lled during the LateMiocene to Pliocene times, maximum thickness beingobserved in the foreland of the frontal (Pericarpathian)thrust (Mat° enco, 1997; RaÆ baÆ gia & FuÈ lop, 1994), wherelarge subsidence values are recorded especially duringthe Late Miocene (Fig. 3). At the same time, signi®-cant uplift takes place in the inner South Carpathians,as suggested by ®ssion track data (Bojar, Neubauer &Fritz, 1998; Sanders, 1998).

Most of the accepted plate tectonic models (e.g.Csontos, 1995; Ratschbacher et al., 1993; Royden &BaÂ ldi, 1988; SaÆ ndulescu, 1984) assume that theTertiary tectonic evolution of the South Carpathiansforedeep represent the result of the complex interaction

Fig. 3. 1D basement subsidence evolution based on backstripping

techniques (Steckler & Watts, 1978; Watts, Karner & Steckler, 1982).

1=Ticleni, 2=Bibesti, 3=Bulbuceni, 4=Bustuchini, 5=Alunu

representative wells in various oil®elds (for location see Fig. 4). Note

that the curves represent the basement subsidence, i.e. no isostatic

compensation was performed to derive tectonic subsidence curves,

due to the ¯exural behaviour of the foreland (Moesian) platform in

the front and below the foredeep (Mat° enco, 1997). Note the signi®-

cant Eocene subsidence in the Ticleni structure, the Early

Burdigalian subsidence related to the onset of the extension and the

large Sarmatian subsidence in the frontal part of the Pericarpathian

thrust (Bibesti, Bulbuceni).


between the movements of the Rhodopian fragment(Burch®el, 1976) to the N and NW and the Moesianplatform towards the S and SW (Mat° enco et al.,1997). According to SaÆ ndulescu (1984), the SouthCarpathians foredeep becomes tectonically active onlyin Sarmatian times (Moldavides deformation), whenthe Subcarpathian nappe was thrusted southward ontop of the Moesian platform, along a sole thrust,whose tip line is de®ned as the Pericarpathian linea-ment. According to more recent interpretations (e.g.,Ratschbacher et al., 1993; Csontos, 1995), the Moesianplatform acted during the Alpine orogeny as a rigid``corner'', imposing late Cretaceous to Paleogene dex-tral wrenching in the South Carpathians and causingE±W contraction and subsidence in its northern part.The latter would be responsible for the large amountof Uppermost Cretaceous±Paleogene sediments depos-ited in the area. Other authors (e.g., Mat° enco et al.,1997) assume that the Paleogene±Early Mioceneperiod is characterised by large scale extension totranstension, due to the NE-ward movement of theRhodopian fragment. Despite the classical images, thismodel assume a further NE±SW Late Burdigalian con-traction and NW±SE to N±S oriented large scale dex-

tral transcurrent movements during the late Miocene(Mat° enco, 1997).

3. Seismic analysis

The South Carpathians foredeep has been recentlybeen investigated in detail through a large number ofseismic studies and wells performed for the petroleumindustry, the Getic Depression being a large oil andgas Miocene basin (see also Dicea, 1996). The denseseismic network and the correlation wells enabled adetailed seismic sequence analysis, focused especiallyon the Miocene deposits. This further allowed the de®-nition of a kinematic, structural and sedimentologicalmodel, integrated in the currently available plate tec-tonic scenarios. Further discussion will take intoaccount 14 regional geological cross sections (Fig. 4)(Figs. 5±8), the major structures being detailed in ®velocal seismic lines (Figs. 9±13). In the western±centralpart of the Getic Depression the high density of theseismic lines made possible the direct correlation of theseismic sequences (Fig. 4), while in the eastern part of

Fig. 4. Detailed structural map of the central and western area of the Getic Depression. Note the large scale normal faults truncated by later

transpressional transcurrent movements. Description in the text, location in Fig. 1.


Fig.5.Interpretedseismic

pro®les1±4,across

thewestern

areaoftheGetic

Depression.1±14representseismic

sequencesfortheMiocene±Lower

Pliocenedeposits.Earliersequenceshavenot

beeninterpretedalongtheseismic

pro®les.

Thickdashed

lines

representthesupposederoded

tracesofthenorm

alfaults.Locationin

Fig.1.(a)Interpretedpro®le

1;(b)interpretedpro®le

2;(c)

interpretedpro®le

3;(d)interpretedpro®le

4.



pro®les5±8,across

thecentral±western

area(a±c)

andcentral±easternarea(d)oftheGetic

Depression.Figure

conventionsasin


5;(b)

interpretedpro®le

6;(c)interpretedpro®le


8.



pro®les8±12,across

thecentral-easternareaoftheGetic

Depression.Figure

conventionsasin


9;(b)interpretedpro®le

10;(c)interpreted

pro®le


12.


the area the correlation was made only on the basis ofthe well data (Fig. 1).

Further sedimentological discussion will take intoaccount recently developed seismic-sequence terminol-ogy in extensional basins (e.g., Prosser, 1993).According to this terminology, the evolution of thesebasins could be divided into a ®rst rift initiation, fol-lowed by rift-climax and post-rift system tracts. Thisapproach enables the de®nition of a high resolutionseismic sequence stratigraphy in the extensionaldeformed units of the Getic Depression.

3.1. Pre-Middle Burdigalian deformations and sequenceanalysis

Within the pre-Miocene deposits, the major struc-tural features relate to normal faulting, two major sys-tems with di�erent strike being de®ned in directrelationship with their position within the basin (Fig.4). Both systems are locally inverted in later Miocenedeformations, the faults and the pre-Miocene re¯ectorsbeing truncated by a regional unconformity.

The ®rst NE±SW trending normal system is locatednear the northern basin border and is developed in thewestern part of the basin, individual faults having over2500 m o�sets (Figs. 4 and 5). An associated antithetic

character of the normal faults is observed through therotation of the re¯ectors and strata (e.g., Fig. 6).

The second WNW±ESE trending normal system islocated roughly in the middle of the basin and is devel-oped only in the eastern areas (Figs. 4, 7 and 8). Here,the normal faults de®ne an important WNW±WSEtrending pre-Miocene tilted block, which divide twomajor sub-basins. The largest 1.5 to 2 s o�set alongthese faults is observed along the southern sub-basin.A major normal fault with o�set greater than 2000 mdevelops at the same time with narrowing of the exten-sional basin (Fig. 7d).

A large scale transfer zone is observed between thetwo systems (Fig. 4). An increased number of ENE±WSW to E±W oriented normal faults with decreasedo�sets (Figs. 6 and 7) de®ne the transfer of the exten-sional deformation from west to east and also fromthe northern basin border southward.

Because of the locally unclear seismic sections, onecan interpret part of the normal faults footwall in thenorthern part of the basin, as south to SW-ward re-lated thrusting. However this local interpretation can-not be laterally prolonged in most of the other placeswhere the normal faulting is not ubiquitous. In ad-dition, this interpretation cannot be conciliated withcoeval normal faulting taking place along similar

Fig. 8. Interpreted seismic pro®les 13±14, across the eastern area of the Getic Depression. No separation and correlation of the seismic sequences

has been performed due to the low number of seismic data. Figure conventions as in Fig. 4. (a) Interpreted pro®le 13; (b) interpreted pro®le 14.


oriented NNE±SSW normal faults, developed in thesouthern part of the basin.

During the Early Miocene times, the tectonic ac-tivity can be closely followed in the sedimentary recordon the basis of the separation and correlation of theseismic sequences (sequences 1±5, Fig. 5), especially in

the westernmost areas, where later Miocene defor-mations are reduced.

A representative pro®le can be observed in Fig. 9,where the seismic sequences are developed in closeconnection with the adjacent normal fault. In this sec-tion, the ®rst analysed seismic facies unit (sequence 2)

Fig. 9. Seismic pro®le I and interpretation along the western area of the Getic Depression. Depth in TWT seconds. Discussion in the text, lo-

cation of pro®le in Fig. 1.


has an wedge shape and is characterised by chaotic/subparallel re¯ectors, truncations and onlap towardsthe hanging-wall. These characters indicate typical rift-initiation features, with lateral, probably subaerial,sedimentary transport, as suggested by the total lackof marine fauna and the coarse facies observed in theneighbouring deep wells. The end of this sequence ismarked by truncations along the downlap surface,which may be related to the antithetic character of thenormal fault. The next sequences (3 and 4, Fig. 9) arecharacterised by prograding bodies downlappingtowards the hanging-wall, having a chaotic seismicfacies near the main fault, which may be interpreted asa the rift-climax system tract. This sequence is built-upby footwall fans, and records the maximum displace-ment along the main normal fault. Due to this largedisplacement, the fault footwall becomes the main

sedimentary source for this early rift-climax systemtract, dominated by mass-transport processes (see alsoProsser, 1993), as demonstrated by the direction ofprogradation and the normal fault footwall erosion.The following seismic sequence (5, Fig. 9) developsover a new unconformity, with mound-shaped bodieswith lateral onlap, local channels and levee, interpretedas axial turbidites. This seismic sequence represents amid-rift climax system tract, the basin becomingstarved and open marine. This observation is in con-cordance with the ®rst occurrence of a marine faunaduring the Middle Burdigalian. The next re¯ectorpackage has a parallel con®guration with onlap towardthe fault footwall (sequences 7±10, Fig. 9), draping theLower Miocene sediments. The coastal onlap advancesand oversteps the footwall source area (late rift climaxsystem tract and post rift system tract), revealing a

Fig. 10. Seismic pro®le II and interpretation along the central±western area of the Getic Depression. Depth in meters. Discussion in the text,

location in Fig. 1.


decreased tectonic subsidence and the beginning of thebasin ®ll.

Further to the east, in the area of changing strike ofthe normal faults from NE±SW to WSW±ENE (Figs.5d±6b), the tectonic subsidence starts earlier, observedin sequence 1 Ð rift initiation Ð followed by sequence2 Ð rift climax.

3.2. Late Burdigalian±Badenian deformations

Starting with the Late Burdigalian, the major struc-tural feature is the presence of reverse faults, whichstructurally de®ne various uplifted areas along theforedeep. The deformation is mainly characterised bythe formation of an imbricated thrust system withWNW±ESE strike, associated with the development oflocal piggy-back basins (Fig. 4). The pre-Miocene±Lower Burdigalian basin ®ll was thus inverted andthrusted towards the Moesian platform. The age ofthis tectonic event is constrained by the truncation ofthe Upper Burdigalian sediments (e.g., sequences 4, 5,the Ticleni±Bilteni structure, Figs. 6 and 10), the syme-trical onlapping of the Sarmatian deposits (sequence 7,Fig. 10), and the Badenian age of the piggy-back basin

®ll (sequence 5a, Fig. 6d), and surface timing indi-

cators (Lower Sarmatian sediments unconformable

covering Burdigalian thrusted deposits in the Sohodol

valley area, Mat° enco, 1997).In the central±eastern area (Figs. 1, 4, 6d, 7 and 8),

the Pre-Miocene transtensional structures are inverted

leading to the formation of an imbricated thrust sys-

tem. The piggy-back basins are ®lled with Badenian

salt deposits (sequence 5a). A coeval uplift of the Pre-

Miocene blocks takes place, as demonstrated by the

re¯ectors truncation in the hanging-wall of the thrust

sheets (Fig. 7c and d). Local di�erences in the thrust

characteristics can be related to these inherited pre-

Miocene blocks, their presence in the eastern areas

favouring the thrusting migration towards the fore-

land.

Westward, the thrusting amplitude decreases, being

con®ned only to small-scale thrusting and folding (e.g.,

Ticleni Bilteni structures, Figs. 6a and 10). Most of the

Middle Miocene thrusts were reactivated by later Late

Miocene NW±SE dextral transpressive deformations

(see further), which makes di�cult to separate all the

Middle Miocene thrusts.

Fig. 11. Seismic pro®le III and interpretation along the E±W strike of the central area of the Getic Depression. Depth in TWT seconds.

Location in Fig. 1. Note the development of large scale dextral Jiu Fault (JF) and Motru Fault (MF) up to 6 s TWT at depth. Note the strike

(sub)horizontal Late Burdigalian±Badenian thrust faults, truncated by later large scale Sarmatian strike-slips. A reactivated Early Burdigalian

normal fault can be observed in the western area.


Fig.12.Seism

icpro®le

IVandinterpretationalongthecentral±easternareaoftheGetic

Depression.Depth

inTWT

seconds.

Discussionin

thetext,locationin

Fig.1.Note

thereactivationof

theEarlyBurdigalianextensional/transtensionalstructuresbylaterLate

Burdigalianthrust

faults.


3.3. Sarmatian±Early Pliocene deformations

The Sarmatian deformations represent the most im-portant tectonic event recorded in the GeticDepression foredeep (Dicea 1995, 1996; SaÆ ndulescu,1988; Tari, HorvaÂ th & Rumpler, 1992). Deformationis mainly characterised by the formation of transpres-sional strike-slip duplexes and ¯ower structures (e.g.,Figs. 10±12) associated with the frontal thrusting ofthe foredeep upon the Moesian platform (e.g., Fig. 8).Although deformation was continuous during theSarmatian±Early Meotian, two peaks with di�erentcharacteristics can be de®ned on the basis of structuralcharacteristics and deformation ages. An Early toMiddle Sarmatian moment is characterised by dextraltranspressional NW±SE trending faults, shortly pre-dating a second Late Sarmatian±Early Meotianmoment, characterised by sinistral N±S trending faults(Figs. 1 and 4) (see also Mat° enco et al., 1997;Ratschbacher et al., 1993).

Four major zones can be observed in the foredeep,on the basis of the deformation character.

In the western area (Figs. 4 and 5) the Sarmatian de-formations are reduced, the pre-existing normal faults

and the sin-extensional sediments being truncated byNW±SE to N±S trending sub-vertical reverse faults or-ganised in positive ¯ower structures. The ®rst dextralmoment has maximum o�set during the sequences 7, 8(Early to Middle Sarmatian), as demonstrated by thetruncation and onlapping of the internal re¯ectors(e.g., Fig. 5b and c). The second sinistral moment ischaracterised by maximum activity at the top ofsequence 9 (late Sarmatian), where small-scale struc-tural uplifts develop on N±S trending strike-slip faultswithout re¯ector truncation, but with symmetricalonlap at the base of sequence 10 (e.g., Fig. 5b).Locally, activity along these faults could be furthercontinued during the Early Pliocene (Fig. 5d).

Further to the east (Fig. 6a±c), the Sarmatian defor-mation increases, the largest transpressional structuresin of the Getic foredeep being interpreted in the sub-surface. NW±SE trending dextral faults are organisedin transpressional strike-slip duplexes, inverting thepre-existing Late Burdigalian±Badenian thrusts. Agood example is o�ered by the Ticleni±Bilteni uplift(Figs. 10 and 11), where the Late Burdigalian±Badenian structures are truncated by a large scale posi-tive ¯ower structure with NW±SE strike, with typical

Fig. 13. Seismic pro®le V and interpretation along the eastern area of the Getic Depression. Depth in TWT seconds. Discussion in the text, lo-

cation in Fig. 1.


vertical o�set in the order of 0.5 s. The Early toMiddle Sarmatian age is proven by the truncation ofsequence 7 and the symmetrical onlapping of sequence8 (see also Fig. 6b and c). In the same area, the secondSarmatian deformation (the Late Sarmatian±EarlyPliocene) is characterised by N±S trending sinistraltranspressional ¯ower structures, their activity beingrecorded from the end of sequence 8 (e.g., Colibasi±West, Fig. 6c) up to the end of sequence 14 (e.g.,Bibesti±Early Upper Pliocene, Fig. 6c).

Eastward, the structural style of the Sarmatian tec-tonic event changes to an E±W trending imbricatedthrust system formed in a strike-slip regime with N±Scompression direction (see also Mat° enco et al., 1997).Activation of this system is related to the inversion ofpre-existing E±W trending Lower Miocene transten-sional structures (Figs. 4±7). The imbricated thrust sys-tem is composed of medium to high angle reversefaults, which truncate deposits as young as the LowerSarmatian (sequence 7). The whole system is thrustedover the Paleogene±Lower Miocene deposits of theMoesian Platform. Locally, the thrust system is con-®ned to the area south of the large scale extensionalblock formed during previous Lower Early Mioceneextension (Fig. 7c and d). The NW±SE trending trans-pressional structures are organised in positive ¯owerstructures (Vladimiri, Piscu Stejarului, Bustuchini-East,ZaÆ treni, DraÆ ganu, Fig. 4) with maximum uplift duringsequence 8 and developed up to sequence 9(Uppermost Miocene).

The easternmost area of the Getic Depression (Figs.1 and 8) is dominated by the imbricated thrust system,deformation generally increasing eastward. TheMiocene basin ®ll was thrust southward over theSarmatian of the Moesian Platform for a larger dis-tance than in the western areas, de®ning along thefrontal sole thrust, the Pericarpathian fault.Deformation begins also during the same Sarmatian,being characterised by local piggy-back basins (Fig.8a), and is prolonged up to the Middle Pliocene (Fig.8b). Locally, along the Early Miocene extensionalstructures both Sarmatian and Meotian are truncatedalong the uplifted blocks. The large scale thrusting isassociated with local ¯ower structures (e.g., Botes° ti,Fig. 8b).

3.4. Middle Miocene±Pliocene sequence analysis

The seismic sequence analysis of the MiddleMiocene±Lower Pliocene deposits has revealed a clearpost-rift sedimentological character, being controlledby the evolution of compressional/transpressionalstructures and by sea-level changes. Major character-istics of the basin are linked with the development ofeight major correlable seismic sequences (e.g., 7±14,Fig. 9) with major sedimentological constraints.

Unconformities were de®ned using the re¯ector termin-ations and the internal geometry.

The seismic sequence development mirrors the lat-eral variations in the structural style of the GeticDepression. Three major areas can be de®ned on thebasis of the seismic sequences characteristics.

In the western Getic Depression (west of Jiu valley,Figs. 4, 5 and 9) Middle Miocene to Pliocene re¯ectorshave a parallel con®guration and onlap over the exten-sional blocks. Clinoforms develop during the LowerPliocene, controlled by the extensional blocks position,earlier prograding bodies being observed only in thehinterland of these blocks. All the seven regional seis-mic sequences (6±14) are well visible in the seismicpro®les, having a clear di�erent sedimentological sig-ni®cance. Sequence 6 (Upper Miocene Ð Fig. 5b and c)with a mounded shape, characterised by chaoticseismic facies, is interpreted as a LSST-bfc/turbiditicbodies (Vail et al., 1977). Sequence 7 records also theLSST period with parallel con®guration and coastalonlapping surfaces, but without prograding complexfeatures. At sequence 7 top, local small progradingbodies can be observed symmetrically to the positive¯ower structures (Fig. 5b and c). Sequences 8 and 9start with onlapping surfaces (Figs. 5a, b and 9), showa base level drop and represent LSST intervals, withnon-correlable turbiditic bodies. However, NW-wardof the extensional blocks, HSST prograding bodies canbe observed during the same time span (Figs. 5a, band 9). Seismic sequences 10 and 12 (Lower Pliocene)have unconformity relationships with sequence 9, par-allel and prograding re¯ectors and form a singledepositional sequence. The ®nal seismic sequence (14),which represent a new one (Vail et al., 1977), has thesame parallel and prograding re¯ectors and basalonlap surfaces.

In the central±eastern Getic Depression (Figs. 6a±cand 10) important changes take place at sequence 7and 8 level. In this area, with a higher degree of defor-mation, an increased number of local unconformities(onlap and truncation) de®ne new seismic sequences Ð7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 8c Ð, equivalent of the western 7 and 8seismic ones. Towards the foreland, the separation ofthese sequences is no longer valid, except the originalunconformity between sequences 7 and 8.

In the eastern Getic Depression (east of pro®le 8,Figs. 6d, 7, 8 and 12), the activity of the imbricatedthrust system is recorded slightly earlier, at sequence 5level. This sequence is further separated in pre/syn-compressional in®ll by the development of the piggy-back basins. Increased tectonic activity vs the westernregions is recorded at sequences 7 and 8 level, whereonlapping unconformities surrounding the active tec-tonic areas are associated with new downlapping sur-faces (sequence 8b) and turbiditic bodies (ssq. 8b ').Along the easternmost analysed pro®les 11 and 12


(Fig. 8), an increase in the southern thrusting defor-mation is linked with new local unconformities devel-oped up to sequence 14. A good example is o�ered bybasal symmetrical onlap around the RomaÃ nesti uplift.The northern area is characterised by symmetricalonlap relationship in respect to the basin axis (Fig.7c).

4. Structural and sedimentological model of theMiocene±Pliocene evolution of the Getic Depression

The Getic Depression is the result of a complex sedi-mentologic and tectonic evolution, four major episodesbeing recognised during the Tertiary, namely the EarlyMiocene transtension, the Middle Miocene positiveinversion, the late Miocene (Intra-Sarmatian) right-lat-eral transpression and the Early Pliocene sinistralstrike-slip.

4.1. Early Miocene transtension and syn-riftsedimentation

During this timespan, the Getic Depression starts itsdistinct tectonic and sedimentological evolution. Largescale transtensional structures can be observed alongthe whole basin, being mainly characterised by steepnormal faults (Fig. 17). Faults strike changes fromNE±SW in the west to WNW±ESE in the east, syntec-

tonic sediments reaching their maximum thickness inthe intermediate area (Figs. 4 and 14). The width ofthe extensional basin is gradually decreasing towardsthe eastern and western basin borders, where largero�sets can be recognised along individual normalfaults (Fig. 14). An associated antithetic character ofthe normal faults can be de®ned on the basis of foot-wall strata rotations. The exact age of the transten-sional deformation is still to be worked out due touncertainties in dating the ®rst syn-rift sequences.However, this age is constrained by the datedOligocene deposits in the footwall of the normal faultsand by the well dated Middle Burdigalian age of thesecond syntectonic sequences (rift climax Ð sequences3 and 4).

During this time span, sedimentation has a clearsyn-tectonic character with high subsidence rate visibleat sequences 1±5 level. The sedimentation has a pro-nounced tectonic control, deposition being similar withthe Prosser (1993) model, which assumes a low eustaticcontrol. This interpretation is supported by the lateralvariation of the pre-rift, rift initiation and rift climaxsystem tracts which closely follow the tectonic controlalong the normal faults. The lateral variation can bedemonstrated along the interpreted seismic pro®les bythe time migration of the hummocky seismic con®gur-ation of the rift-initiation, and of the downlapping sur-faces of the rift-climax system tracts. As a consequencethe seismic sequences 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 represent tectonic

Fig. 14. Lower Burdigalian isopach map obtained through direct interpolation of the Lower Burdigalian vertical thickness measured in the inter-

preted seismic lines. Values are TWT seconds, fault o�sets were neglected due to direct interpolation procedure. Note the large depocenter in the

central±western part of the basin and the development of several sub-basins in the eastern areas.


system tracts (Prosser, 1993) and their boundaries rep-

resent tectonic control unconformities.

According to earlier interpretations (e.g., Stefanescu

& working group, 1988), the uplifted position of the

Early Miocene normal faults footwall was related to

thrusting, in direct connection to the Late Miocene ac-

tivity of the Pericarpathian thrust, which according to

these authors should westward follow the bending of

the South Carpathians, in a position similar to the

normal faults de®ned in the map view in the western-

most part of the Getic Depression. Southward, the

thrusting along the Pericarpathian sole fault would be

transferred to dextral displacement along the Timok/

Cerna fault system (Royden & BaÂ ldi, 1988;

SaÆ ndulescu, 1988). According to these authors, the

South Carpathians foredeep becomes tectonically

active only in Late Miocene, further Pliocene defor-

mations being restricted to small scale thrusts and

folds (e.g., restoration in Fig. 15).

The westward interpretation of the Pericarpathian

lineament and prolongation along the Timok fault

relies just on one well (structure Ciovarnasani, pro®le

2, Fig. 5), where Cretaceous of Carpathian type is

structurally in a higher position than the Burdigalian

of foredeep type. Our seismic interpretation relates this

structural inversion to the activity of the Late Miocene

strike-slip system, which can be closely followed alongthe whole western part of the studied area.

The opening of an extensional basin in the westernpart of the Getic Depression is supported by geophysi-cal and tectonic modelling arguments. The anomalousshape of the Bouguer anomaly in the SouthCarpathians, whose minimum (ÿ135 mgals) is placedin the middle of the foredeep and shows the largestdensity contrast for the Romanian Carpathians (e.g.,Sza®an, 1999), the large foredeep heat ¯ow anomaly,as well as the thermally young lithosphere with lowe�ective elastic thickness (Mat° enco, 1997) indicate alarge amount of sediments deposited during and aftera relative young stretching tectonic episode.

4.2. Middle Miocene±Pliocene tectonics

4.2.1. Middle Miocene inversionDuring the late Burdigalian±Early Badenian, the de-

formation changes to a NNE±SSW compressionalstress regime (Mat° enco et al., 1997), contractional de-formation being recognised along the whole studiedarea (Fig. 16) (Fig. 17). The large scale structuresrelate mainly to ESE±WNW directed thrusts andfolds. Associated small scale piggy-back with ESE±WNW strike can be observed in the central-easternpart of the basin. The thrust o�sets decrease from

Fig. 15. Balanced cross section in the western part of the Getic Depression (after Mat° enco, 1997), using the method for zones with multiple de-

formations (Woodward, Boyer & Suppe, 1989). Note that only the Pliocene deformations were restored. Earlier deformations were not restored

due to transcurrent movements (plane-strain assumption, e.g., Woodward et al., 1989).


NNE to SSW, probably disposed in a foreland-break-ing sequence (Fig. 4).

The inversion of the pre-existing transtensionalbasin takes place especially along newly formed thrustplanes, truncating the earlier normal faults (e.g., Fig.12). Locally, such as in the central area (e.g., Fig. 13),inversion of the NNE dipping normal faults can bedocumented during the Late Burdigalian. In theseareas, the syn-rift deposits are thrust on top of thepre-Miocene tilted blocks. The shortening increaseseastward, as documented by the larger number ando�set of the thrust faults and associated folds, organ-ised in imbricated fans. In this area the larger contrac-tion degree generates regional scale anticlines withUpped Miocene syntectonic sedimentation (e.g., Fig.8).

4.2.2. Late Miocene dextral transpressionStarting with the Middle Sarmatian times, large

scale transcurrent motions were recorded in the GeticDepression (Fig. 17). Deformation is characterised

mainly by transpressive strike-slip duplexes with NW±SE strike. Transpressional structures with signi®cantuplift are well marked by the oil structural lineamentsde®ned by the petroleum industry, such as PiscuStejarului±T° icleni, Colibasi±Bustuchini (Fig. 4).

One main strike-slip system (Jiu±BaÃ lteni±T° icleni±Piscu Stejarului, Fig. 4), observed up to 7 s TWT onseismic lines (e.g., Fig. 11) separates areas with di�er-ent kinematics. While to the west, deformation relatesmainly to NNW±SSE trending transpressive structures,in the eastern areas, the NW±SE trending transcurrentmotion is coeval with large scale reactivation of theWNW±ESE to W±E trending Late Burdigalianthrusts. The Pericarpathian thrust is the main structure(re)activated during this timespan and divides thedeformed foredeep in the north (the Subcarpathiannappe), from the undeformed part, developed south-ward. The large scale thrust structures developed inthis transpressional regime are related to the shape ofthe downbending Moesian platform, which under-thrust the South Carpathians nappe pile during this

Fig. 16. Synthetic correlation of the recorded base level curves in the Getic Depression. Columns represent the interpreted seismic pro®les. Pro®le

10 has not been plotted, being similar to pro®le 11. Note the superposition of the tectonically active areas with the large local variations of the

base level.


tectonic event. In fact, the whole Subcarpathiansnappe, as classical de®ned in the geological literature,was emplaced during this transpressional regime, andcan be recognised with large thrusting characteristicsonly east of the Olt valley (Fig. 1).

4.2.3. Early Pliocene sinistral strike-slipThe last deformation episode recorded in the area is

related to a NNE±SSW trending sinistral transcurrentdeformation during the Early Pliocene (LatestSarmatian±Meotian) (Figs. 4 and 17). Coeval conju-gate NE±SW trending right-lateral faults are alsoobserved. An associated small-scale transpressionalcharacter can be de®ned along the strike-slip faults.The o�set of the sinistral strike-slip faults is in theorder of 3±5 km.

Large scale uplifted areas develop at the intersectionbetween the Late Miocene dextral faults and the EarlyPliocene sinistral ones, well marked by the largest oil-

bearing structures, such as Bilteni, Ticleni, Colibasi,Piscu Stejarului (Fig. 4).

4.3. Middle Miocene±Pliocene sedimentological model

Due to the lateral variations of the structural pat-terns, the Middle Miocene±Pliocene evolution of theGetic Depression can be divided into three di�erentsedimentological models, in correspondence with thetectonic areas de®ned in the basin.

In the western areas (west of Jiu valley, Figs. 4 and16), where the deformations are limited, the seismicsequences are controlled by the eustatic/climaticchanges. The system tract package has non-typical fea-tures in comparison with the Vail et al. (1977) model,due to the pre-existing extensional paleomorphologycreated by the Early Miocene tectonic episode.Generally, the TST-s are almost lacking, the LSST arewell developed and are dominated by the parallel con-®gurations in relationship to the lateral transport. TheHSST do not prograde on top of the LSST, becausewhen a small base level rise occurs, an important lat-eral migration of the depocenter takes place. Thismoment appears when the morphological high due toPre-Miocene tilted block becomes submerged.Horizontal compensation between the HSST-s andLSST-s depocenters takes place at small base levelvariations. The HSST sediments are not entirelyeroded during the LSST periods, because of the paral-lel-basin morphological breaks, but these sediments arere-deposited in subaerial fans. This type of evolution isattenuated upward, as the extensional structures arecovered. The transpressional tectonic control is con-®ned to local small-scale prograding bodies, developedaround the NW±SE trending transpressional uplifts.

In the central±western area (west of Gilort valley,Figs. 4 and 16) the Middle Miocene±Pliocenesequences are genetically connected to NW±SE trend-ing uplifts due to coeval strike-slip structures. Theseuplifted areas generate local tectonic unconformities,well marked by truncations and the symmetrical onlap-ping on both uplift ¯anks. Such an unconformity rep-resents a marker for the moment when themorphological high is large enough to involve achange in the geometry of the sedimentary bodies, anddoes not assume major paleobathymetric variations.Locally, small prograding bodies could have theuplifted area as sediment source. As well as in the wes-tern area, the same eustatic unconformities are alsoobserved, di�erences being recorded in the tectonicallyactive areas, and remain the same on southern unde-formed margin of the basin. Such structures becomeimportant hydrocarbon traps, sealing littoral sands indistal pelitic deposits. Termination pattern maps showtheir juxtaposition over the major NW±SE/N±S trans-pressional structures (Fig. 18, comparison with Fig. 4).

Fig. 17. Sketch of the Tertiary tectonic evolution of the South

Carpathians foredeep. Description in the text.


These structures divide small-scale sub-basins, wherethe main sediment transport is probably longitudinal,towards the major basin located SE-ward.

In the central-eastern area (west of Olt valley, Fig.16), the main features relate to the development of theE±W trending imbricated thrust system, at the sametime as the activation of the NW±SE trending trans-pressional uplifts. The lowermost Sarmatian seismicsequences are divided into a large number of ``tec-tonic'' system tracts, with apparent eustatic control.

The hanging-wall of the thrust faults de®ne a ®rstorder active morphological zone and a newly formedsource area, which is parallel with the basin margin.Thus, the thrust fault trace represents a subsidencehinge line, the basin being divided in di�erent sedimen-tation areas in respect to this fault. The evolution isfurthermore complicated by the second order upliftedareas induced by the transpressional faults, orientedtransverse to the basin margins. These areas allowsediments transfer across the previously mentioned

Fig. 18. Stratal termination pattern map of the Upper Miocene±Lower Pliocene period. A, Sarmatian level; B, Meotian level


®rst order uplifted areas (Fig. 18). In contrast, sedi-mentation records eustatic variations in places whereno signi®cant tectonic uplift occurs.

5. Discussions and conclusions

We have demonstrated in the previous sections thatthe Tertiary evolution of the South Carpathians fore-deep is mainly characterised by large scale EarlyMiocene (Early Burdigalian) extension/transtension,Middle Miocene (Late Burdigalian±Badenian) contrac-tion and Late Miocene±Early Pliocene (Sarmatian±Early Meotian) transpression.

Accepted plate tectonic models for the Carpathians±Pannonian system (e.g., Csontos, 1995; Ratschbacheret al., 1993; SaÆ ndulescu, 1984) generally assume thatthe Carpathians orogen formed as a consequence of Nand E-ward translation of one or more continentalblocks (Dacidic and other) and subsequent collisionwith the Moesian platform in the south and the EastEuropean platform in the east and north.

During the Early Miocene (Early Burdigalian), thelarge scale clockwise rotation of the Rhodopian frag-ment (Csontos, 1995), associated with its NE-wardmovement (Mat° enco, 1997), induced the transtensionalopening of the Getic basin along a roughly E±Woriented shear corridor, de®ning a regional dextralpull-apart basin (Fig. 17). Clockwise rotation of theSouth Carpathians created major dextral transten-sional deformations at the contact with the MoesianPlatform and di�erent normal fault patterns within theGetic basin, their strike changing from NE±SW in thewest to WNW±ESE in the east (Fig. 17). Further east-ern deformation is taken up by the Intramoesian fault,with NW±SE trending dextral character. ThePaleogene NE±SW to E±W opening of the Petros° anibasin (Ratschbacher et al., 1993) and the large scaleE±W orogen parallel extension observed at the contactbetween the Getic/Danubian nappes (Schmid, Berza,Diaconescu, Froitzheim & Fuegenschuh, 1998) in theSouth Carpathians nappe pile would suggest the mi-gration in time of the transtensional/extensional defor-mation towards the foreland.

The Miocene±Pliocene sedimentological evolution ofthe Getic basin is mostly resumed in base level vari-ation curves (Fig. 16). The tectonic control is wellmarked on these curves, both on the syn-rift sediments(Early Miocene) and on the syn-compressional/trans-pressional sediments (Middle/Late Miocene±EarliestPliocene). The eustatic sequence boundaries changetheir character in the active morphological areas, butstill remain unconformities. The parts of a eustaticsequence boundary (ESB) which develop both undertectonic and eustatic control could be considered as amixed sequence boundary (MSB).

In the active tectonic areas, due to the MiddleMiocene±Pliocene deformations, many local seismicsequences appear, which can be still considered to bedepositional sequences. The limited lateral extent, con-trolled by the active morphological areas, reveal thatthese depositional sequences do not record eustaticvariations, but show mainly a tectonic control of localbase level changes. The tectonic uplift values are highenough to mask the eustatic control, for instance theSarmatian uplift reached 1 m/1000 years (RaÆ baÆ gia &FuÈ lop, 1994). The unconformities which divide the tec-tonic sequences can be de®ned as tectonic sequenceboundaries (TSB), being characterised by low lateralcorrelation, low paleobathymetrical variations andtime/space evolution linked to the basin structural pat-terns.

This ®nding supports the conclusion of the domi-nant tectonic control of the sedimentary sequences inthe foreland basins. The eustatic control may be as-sociated, but has a clear subordinated character.

Acknowledgements

This paper is the result of a common cooperationwork between the Prospect° iuni S.A., HydrocarbonDivision, Bucharest and Faculty of Geology andGeophysics, University of Bucharest. Special thanksare addressed to A. M. FuÈ lop for the creative supportin understating the eastern Getic Depression, to O.Dicea and C. Dinu for useful ideas, helpful commentsand continuing support. M. TaÆ raÆ poancaÆ is thanked forunderstanding the kinematics of the Intramoesianfault.

References

Berza, T., & DraÆ gaÆ nescu, A. (1988). The Cerna-Jiu fault system

(South Carpathians, Romania), a major Tertiary transcurrent

lineament. D.S. Inst. Geol. Geo®z., 72(73), 43±57.

Bojar, A. V., Neubauer, F., & Fritz, H. (1998). Jurassic to Cenozoic

thermal evolution of the southwestern South Carpathians: evi-

dence from ®ssion-track thermochronology. Tectonophysics,

297(14), 229±249.

Burch®el, B. C. (1976). Geology of Romania. Spec. Paper. 158,

Geological Society of America, 82 pp.

Codarcea, A. (1940). Vues nouvelles sur la tectonique du Banat et

du Plateau du Mehedint° i. An. Inst. Geol. Rom., XX, 1±74.

Crumeyrolle, P., Rubino, J., & Clauzon, G. (1991). Miocene deposi-

tional sequences within a controlled transgressive-regressive cycle,

Sedimentation, tectonics and eustasy, International Association of

Sedimentologists, Special Publication, 12, 374±390.

Csontos, L. (1995). Tertiary tectonic evolution of the Intra-

Carpathian area: a review. Acta Vulcanologica, 7, 1±13.

Dicea, O. (1995). The structure and hydrocarbon geology of the

Romanian East Carpathians border from seismic data. Petroleum

Geoscience, 1, 135±143.

Dicea, O. (1996). Tectonic setting and hydrocarbon habitat of the


Romanian external Carpathians. In P. A. Ziegler, & F. Horvath,

Peri-Tethys Memoir 2: Structure and prospects of Alpine basins

and forelands (pp. 403±425). In MeÂmoires du Museum national

d'Histoire naturelle, 170.

Jipa, D. (1980). Sedimentological features of the basal paleogene in

the VaÃ lsan valley, in cretaceous and tertiary molasses. In The

Eastern Carpathains and Getic Depression. Guidebook ®eldworks

group 3.3. Bucharest: Inst. Geol. s° i Geo®z.

Jipa, D. (1982). Explanatory notes to the lithotectonic pro®le of the

Getic Paleogene deposits (Southern Carpathians, Romania)

(Sedimentological Comment to Annex 13). Vero�. Zentralinst.

Phys. Erde AdW DDR, 66, 137±146.

Jipa, D. (1984). Large scale progradation structures in the Romanian

Carpathians: Facts and hypothesis. An. Inst. Geol. Geo®z., LXIV,

455±463.

Leckie, D.A., Smith, D.G. (1992). Regional setting, evolution and

depositional cycles of the Western Canada foreland basin.

Foreland basins and fold belts, Macqueen, R.W., & Leckie, D.A.,

(Eds.) AAPG Memoir, pp. 9±46.

Mat° enco, L. (1997). Tectonic evolution of the Romanian Outer

Carpathians: Constraints from kinematic analysis and ¯exural

modeling. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 160 pp.

Mat° enco, L., Bertotti, G., Dinu, C., & Cloetingh, S. (1997). Tertiary

tectonic evolution of the external South Carpathians and the

adjacent Moesian platform (Romania). Tectonics, 16, 896±911.

Mat° enco, L., & Schmid, S. (1999). Exhumation of the Danubian

nappes system (South Carpathians) during the Early Tertiary:

inferences from kinematic and paleostress analysis at the Getic/

Danubian nappes contact. Tectonophysics (in press).

Motas° , C. (1983). Nouvelles donneÂ s sur les rapports structuraux

entre les Carpathes MeÂ ridionales et la deÂ pression geÂ tique. Lucr.

Congr. XXI Assoc. Carp-Balc. An. Ist. Geol. Geo®z., 60, 141±146.

Murgoci, G. M. (1905). Contributions aÁ la tectonique des Karpathes

MeÂ ridionales. C. R. Acad. Paris, 23, 23±47.

Paraschiv, V. (1975). Geologia zacamintelor de hidrocarburi din

Romania. Ed. Tehnica, Bucures° ti, 350 pp.

Prosser, S. (1993). Rift related linked depositional system and their

seismic expression, Tectonics and Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy,

Geological Society Special Publication, 71, 35±66.

Ratschbacher, L., Linzer, H. G., Moser, F., Strusievicz, R. O.,

Bedelean, H., Har, N., & Mogos, P. A. (1993). Cretaceous to

Miocene thrusting and wrenching along the central South

Carpathians due to a corner e�ect during collision and orocline

formation. Tectonics, 12, 855±873.

RaÆ baÆ gia, T., & FuÈ lop, A. (1994). Syntectonic sedimentation history

in the Southern Carpathians foredeep, Berza, T., ALCAPA II:

Geological Evolution of the Alps±Carpathian±Pannonian System,

Abstracts volume, Romanian Journal of Tectonics and Regional

Geology, 75, 48.

Royden, L. H., & BaÂ ldi, T. (1988). Early Cenozoic tectonics and

paleogeography of the Pannonian and surrounding regions. In L.

H. Royden, & F. Horvath, The Pannonian Basin, a study in basin

evolution (pp. 1±16). In AAPG Memoir, 45.

Robertson, A. H. F., Eaton, S., Follows, E. J., & McCallum, J.

(1991). The role of local tectonics versus global sea-level change,

the Neogene evolution of the Cyprus active margin,

Sedimentation, tectonics and eustasy, International Association of

Sedimentologists, Special Publication, 12, 331±369.

RoÈ gl, F. (1996). Stratigraphic correlation of Paratethys Oligocene

and Miocene. Mitt. Ges. Geol. Bergbaustud. OÈsterr., 41, 65±73.

Sanders, C. A. E. (1998). Tectonics and erosion. Competitive forces

in a compressive orogen. A ®ssion track study of the Romanian

Carpathians. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 204 pp.

SaÆ ndulescu, M. (1984). Geotectonica RomaÃniei (in Romanian), Ed.

Tehnica, Bucharest, 450 pp.

SaÆ ndulescu, M. (1988). Cenozoic tectonic history of the Carpathians.

In L. H. Royden, & F. Horvath, The Pannonian Basin, a study in

basin evolution (pp. 17±25). In AAPG Memoir, 45.

Schmid, S. M., Berza, T., Diaconescu, V., Froitzheim, N., &

Fuegenschuh, B. (1998). Orogen-parallel extension in the South

Carpathians during the Paleogene. Tectonophysics, 297, 209±228.

Steckler, M. S., & Watts, A. B. (1978). Subsidence of the Atlantic-

type continental margin o� New York. Ear. Pl. Sci. Lett., 41, 1±

13.

Stefanescu, M., & working-group (1988). Geological cross sections at

scale 1:200.000, no. B1-B6. Inst. Geol. Geo®z., Bucharest.

Sza®an, P. (1999). Gravity and tectonics: A study case in the

Pannonian basin and the surrounding mountain belt. PhD Thesis,

Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 154 pp.

Szasz, L. (1975). Biostratigra®a s° i paleontologia Cretacicului superior

din bazinul Brezoi. DaÆri de seamaÆ ale s° edintelor, LXII, 189±220.Tari, G., HorvaÂ th, F., & Rumpler, J. (1992). Styles of extension in

the Pannonian basin. Tectonophysics, 208, 203±219.

Vail, P. R., Mitchum, R. M., Todd, R., Widmier, J., Thompson, S.,

Sangree, J., Bubb, J., & Hatlelid, W. (1977) Seismic stratigraphy

and global changes of sea level: Application of seismic re¯ector

con®guration to stratigraphic interpretations, Seismic stratigra-

phy-application to hydrocarbon exploration, AAPG Memoir, 36,

129±144.

Watts, A. B., Karner, G. D., & Steckler, M. S. (1982). Lithosphere

¯exure and the evolution of sedimentary basins. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 305, 249±281.

Woodward, N. B., Boyer, S. E., & Suppe, J. (1989). Balanced geo-

logical cross sections: An essential technique in geological

research and exploration. Short course in geology, 6. AGU, 132

pp.


Documents

Tertiary tectonic and sedimentological evolution of the ...1… · Fig. 1. Geological structural map of the external part of the South Carpathians. Compiled from geological maps 1:200.000,