SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni / 2026 / Cilt: 69 Sayı: 4 Özel Sayı

Geological Heritage and Geotourism Potential of Adıyaman Province

Adıyaman İlinin Jeolojik Miras ve Jeoturizm Potansiyeli / Geological Heritage and Geotourism Potential of Adıyaman Province

Oğuz Mülayim(Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortaklığı)0000-0003-3283-8070
Pages
1–26
Publication Date
2026-05-17
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that despite its geographically small area, Adıyaman possesses extraordinary geodiversity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to establish a geological heritage (geosite) inventory for Adıyaman Province and to evaluate the geotourism potential of this heritage.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within the scope of the study, geosites throughout the province were systematically cataloged based on the ProGEO (1998) and Kazancı et al. (2015) classifications, their geographical distribution was mapped, and they were categorised according to their scientific, educational, and visual/aesthetic values.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that despite its geographically small area, Adıyaman possesses extraordinary geodiversity.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Doğal miras · Jeolojik miras · Jeosit

Abstract

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

Özet

Bu çalışma, Adıyaman ilinin jeolojik miras (jeosit) envanterini oluşturmayı ve bu mirasın jeoturizm potansiyelini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında, ProGEO (1998) ve Kazancı vd. (2015) sınıflandırmaları temel alınarak il genelindeki jeositler sistematik olarak kataloglanmış, coğrafi dağılımları haritalanmış ve bilimsel, eğitimsel, görsel/estetik değerleri açısından sınıflandırılmıştır. Adıyaman, Afrika, Arap ve Avrasya levhalarının çarpışmasıyla oluşan Bitlis-Zagros Orojenezi'nin karmaşık tektonik yapıları üzerinde yer almaktadır. Bu jeolojik geçmiş, ulusal ve uluslararası öneme sahip çok sayıda jeolojik miras unsurunun ortaya çıkmasını sağlamıştır. Bulgular, Adıyaman'ın coğrafi olarak küçük yüzölçümüne rağmen, olağanüstü bir jeoçeşitliliğe sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu zengin jeolojik ve doğal varlık birikimi, bölgenin henüz değerlendirilmemiş önemli bir jeoturizm potansiyeli taşıdığını ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle, tespit edilen jeolojik mirasın Nemrut Dağı’nın arkeolojik zenginliği ile bütünleştirilmesi, sürdürülebilir bölgesel kalkınma için stratejik bir fırsat sunmaktadır. Ancak, taş ocakçılığı, vandalizm ve yasal boşluklar gibi antropojenik tehditler bu mirası risk altına sokmaktadır. Çalışma, bu tehditlere karşı alan koruma, tampon bölge oluşturma, yerel istihdam, tematik jeorotaların geliştirilmesi ve bir UNESCO Küresel Jeopark'ı kurulmasına yönelik kapsamlı jeokoruma ve jeoturizm stratejileri önermektedir. Sonuç olarak, Adıyaman'ın jeolojik mirasının sürdürülebilir bir şekilde korunması ve jeoturizm yoluyla bölgesel kalkınmaya dönüştürülmesi için kurumlar arası iş birliği, bilimsel araştırmalar ve toplumsal farkındalığın artırılması kritik öneme sahiptir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Mülayim, O. (2026). Geological Heritage and Geotourism Potential of Adıyaman Province. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, Cilt: 69 Sayı: 4 Özel Sayı, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1751975

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (66)

  1. Aksu., R. ve Mülayim., O. (2015). Adıyaman ve Çevresinin Jeolojisi Teknik Gezi Kılavuzu. TPAO 2332, 1–107 (in Turkish).
  2. Alkaç, O., Köroğlu, F. & Mülayim, O. (2024). Assessing the Contribution of Clastic Sedimentary Rocks to Geosite Potential and Geoscience Education: An Example of Coarse-grained Turbidite Sequences, Baskil (Elazığ, Türkiye). Geoheritage, 16, 109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-024-01014-z
  3. Brilha, J., Andrade, C., Azerêdo, A., Barriga, F. J. A. S., Cachão, M., Couto, H., Cunha, P. P, Crispim, J. A., Dantas, P., Duarte, L. V., Freitas, M. C., Granja, M. H., Henriques, M. H., Henriques, P., Lopes, L., Madeira, J., Matos, J. M. X., Noronha, F., Pais. J., Piçarra, J., Ramalho, M. M., Relvas, J. M. R. S., Ribeiro, A., Santos, A., Santos, V. & Terrinha, P. (2005). Definition of the Portuguese frameworks with international relevance as an input for the European geological heritage characterisation. Episodes, 28(3),177–186. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2005/v28i3/004
  4. Brilha, J. (2016). Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage, 8, 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0139-3
  5. Brilha, J. (2018). Geoheritage: Inventories and evaluation. Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier Inc.
  6. Bruno, D. E., Crowley, B. E., Gutak, J. M., Moroni, A., Nazarenko, O. V., Oheim, K. B., Ruban, D.A., Tiess, G. & Zorina, S. O. (2014). Paleogeography as geological heritage: Developing geosite classification. Earth-Science Reviews, 138, 300-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.06.005
  7. Cater, J. M. L. & Tunbridge, I. P. (1992). Palaeozoic tectonic history of SE Turkey. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 15(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-5457.1992.tb00864.x
  8. Cleal, C. J., Thomas, B. A, Bevins, R. E. & Wimbledon, W. A. P. (1999). Geosites–an international geoconservation initiative. Geology Today 15(2), 64–68
  9. Çoruh, T., Yakar, H., Ediger, V.S. (1997). Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi otokton istifinin biyostratigrafi atlası (Atlas of biostratigraphy for the autochthonous succession of the Southeastern Anatolian Region). TPAO Araştırma Merkezi Grubu, Eğitim Yayınları, Ankara 30, 401 pp.
  10. Dean, W. T., Martin, F., Monod, O., Günay, Y., Kozlu, H. & Bozdoğan, N. (1997). Precambrian? and Cambrian stratigraphy of the Pembeğli-Tut inlier, southeastern Turkey. Geological Magazine, 134(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001675689700650X
  11. Dilek, Y., Thy, P., Moores, E. M. & Ramsden, T. W. (1990). Tectonic evolution of the Troodos Ophiolite within the Tethyan Framework. Tectonics, 9(4), 881-823. https://doi.org/10.1029/TC009i004p00811
  12. Dixon, G. (1996). Geoconservation: An International Review and Strategy for Tasmania. Miscellaneous Report (pp 1–101). Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania.
  13. Dowling, R. K. & Newsome D. (2005). Geotourism. Elsevier.
  14. Duman, T.Y., Emre, Ö. (2013). The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics. In Robertson, A.H.F., Parlak, O. & Ünlügenç, U. C. (Eds.), Geological Development of Anatolia and the Easternmost Mediterranean Region (pp. 495–529). Geological Society, London, Special Publications 372.
  15. Fourcade, E., Dercourt, J., Günay, Y., Azema, J., Kozlu, H., Bellier, J.P., Cordey, J.P., Cros, F., De Eever, P., Enay, P., Hernandez, R., Lauer, J. & Vrielynck, B, (1991). Stratigraphie et paléogéographie de la marge septentrionale de la platforme arabe au Mesozoique (Turquie de Sud-East). Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 162(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.2113/gssgfbull.162.1.27
  16. Golonka, J. (2004). Plate tectonic evolution of the southern margin of Eurasia in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Tectonophysics, 381(1–4), 235–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2002.06.004
  17. Gray, M. (2004). Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK
  18. Güven, A., Dinçer, A., Tuna, E.M. & Çoruh, T. (1991). Stratigraphic evolution of the Campanian–Paleocene autochthonous succession of the Southeast Anatolia. Ozan Sungurlu Symposium Proceedings, pp. 238–261.
  19. Henriques, M. H., Canales, M. L., García-Frank, A. & Gomez-Heras, M. (2019). Accessible geoparks in Iberia: a challenge to promote geotourism and education for sustainable development. Geoheritage, 11, 471-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-0300-5
  20. Henriques, M. H., Pena dos Reis, R., Brilha, J. & Mota, T.S. (2011). Geoconservation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage, 3(2),117-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-011-0039-8
  21. Herece, E. (2008). Atlas of East Anatolian Fault (EAF). General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Special Publication Series 1–3.
  22. Herrera-Franco, G., Mata-Perelló, J., Caicedo-Potosí, J. & Carrión-Mero, P. (2023). Vulnerability in Geosites: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Leal Filho, W., Frankenberger, F. & Tortato, U. (Eds), Sustainability in Practice. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham.
  23. Hose, T. A. (2005). Geotourism and interpretation. In Dowling, R.K. & Newsome, D. (Eds), Geotourism. Elsevier
  24. IUGS (2022). International Union of Geological Sciences (2022). The First 100 IUGS Geological Heritage Sites (pp. 301). ISBN: 978-1-7923-9975 6. International Union of Geological Sciences Publication.
  25. Kaya, T., Şen, Ş., Mayda, S., Saraç, G., Metaıs, G. (2012). Adıyaman dolaylarındaki (Güneydoğu Türkiye) Geç Miyosen memeli fosilleri. 65.Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı. Bildiri özeti, 2-6 Nisan/April 2012.
  26. Kazancı, N. (2010). Jeolojik Koruma; Kavram ve Terimler. Jeolojik Mirası Koruma Derneği.
  27. Kazancı, N. (2012). Geological background and three vulnerable geosites of the Kızılcahamam–Çamlıdere Geopark project in Ankara, Turkey. Geoheritage 4(4), 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-012-0064-2
  28. Kazancı, N., Şaroğlu, F. & Suludere, Y. (2015). Geological heritage and framework list of the geosites in Turkey. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration, 151, 259-268. (in Turkish)
  29. Kazancı, N., & Gençoğlu Korkmaz, G. (2023). Konya İlinin Doğal Varlıkları ve Jeolojik Miras Potansiyeli / Natural Assets and Geological Heritage Potential of Konya Province. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 66(3), 403-420. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1321896
  30. Köroğlu, F. & Mülayim, O. (2023). Geoconservation strategies of Türkiye. Geoheritage, 15, Article 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00862-5
  31. Köroğlu, F. (2025). Paleobiyolojik Jeosit Kavramı: Doğu Karadeniz’in K/Pg Jeositlerinde Referans Bir Çalışma, KD Türkiye. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 68(1), 33-84. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1570386
  32. Köroğlu, F., Mülayim, O. & Alkaç, O. (2025). A proposal for a new educational model: Geoconservation Education (GEOEDU) model. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 13(1), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2024.10.001
  33. Meriç, E., Oktay, F.Y. & Özer, S. (1985). New observations on the stratigraphical development of the Besni Formation to the northwest of Alidamı (KahtaAdıyaman). Jeoloji Mühendisliği, 25, 51–54 (in Turkish with English abstract).
  34. Meriç, E., Oktay, F.Y., Toker, V., Tansel, I. & Duru, M. (1987). Sedimentary geology and biostratigraphy (foraminifera, nannoplankton and ostracods) of the Upper Cretaceous–Eocene sequence in the Adıyaman area, southeast Turkey. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 30(2), 19–32. https://www.jmo.org.tr/resimler/ekler/2547f5a44d87da3_ek.pdf
  35. Meriç, E. & Görmüş, M. (2001). The Genus Loftusia. Micropaleontology, 47, 1–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486146
  36. Mikhailenko, A. V., Ruban, D. A. & Ermolaev, V. A. (2021). Accessibility of geoheritage sites—a methodological proposal. Heritage, 4(3), 1080–1091. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030060
  37. Mülayim, O., Özkul, M., Nazik, A. & Tekin S. (202a5). Adıyaman'ın Jeolojik Mirası Çalıştayı Workshop On Geoheritage of Adıyaman Bildiri Özleri Kitabı ve Saha Gezisi Rehberi Abstracts Book and Field Trip Guidebook. TMMOB Jeoloji Mühendisleri Odası (JMO) ISBN: 978-605-01-1464-5. p. 80.
  38. Mülayim, O., Köroğlu, F. & Alkaç, O. (2025b). Volcanic Geoheritage and Geotourism Values of the Siverek Columnar Basalts, Şanlıurfa (SE Türkiye). Geoheritage, 17 Article 103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-025-01154-w
  39. Okay, A.I. & Tüysüz, O. (1999). Tethyan Sutures Northern Turkey. In The Mediterranean Basins: Tertiary Extension Within The Alpine Orogen, 156. Geological Society, London, Special Publication, pp. 475–515.
  40. Ólafsdóttir, R. & Tverijonaite, E. (2018). Geotourism: A Systematic Literature Review. Geosciences, 8(7), Article 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8070234
  41. Özer, S. & Mülayim, O. (2022). Geoconservation and geotourism potential of vulnerable rudist fossil geosites from SE Anatolia (Turkey). Geoheritage, 14, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00650-7
  42. Özkul, M., Gül, A., Semiz, B., Koralay, T., Topal, S., Gökgöz, A., Özen, H., Erten, H., Hançer, M. ve Kumsar, H. (2025). Denizli İlinin (GB Türkiye) Jeoçeşitliliği ve Önemli Jeositleri / Geodiversity and Significant Geosites of the Denizli Province (SW Türkiye). Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 68(4), 145-188. https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.1559108
  43. Patzak, M. & Eder, W. (1998). “UNESCO GEOPARK”. A new programme-a new UNESCO label. Geologica Balcanica, 28, 33-35. https://doi.org/10.52321/GeolBalc.28.3-4.33
  44. Perinçek, D. (1979a). Geology of the Hazro-Korudağ-Çüngüs-Maden-Ergani-Hazar Elazığ-Malatya region. The Geology of Hazro-Korudağ-Çüngüs-Maden-Ergani Hazar-Elazığ-Malatya area. Special Publication of the Geological Society of Turkey, pp. 1–33.
  45. Perinçek, D. (1979b). Çelikhan-Sincik-Koçali (Adıyaman) bölgelerinin jeolojik incelemesi (Geological Investigation of the Region between Çelikhan-Sincik-Koçali (city of Adıyaman)), (Report, 1394). Turkish Petroleum Corporation,, pp. 130 (in Turkish with English abstract).
  46. ProGeo Group, (1998). A first attemt at a geosites framework for Europe- an lUGS initiative to support recognition of World heritage and European geodiversity. Geologica Balcanica 28, 5-32. https://doi.org/10.52321/GeolBalc.28.3-4.5
  47. Prosser, C. D., Murphy, M. & Larwood, J. G. (2006). Geological site conservation. In Geological conservation—a guide to good practice (pp. 15–36). English Nature.
  48. Prosser, C. D., Díaz-Martínez, E. & Larwood, J. G. (2018). The Conservation of Geosites. In Geoheritage (pp. 193–212). Elsevier
  49. Reynard, E. & Brilha, J. (Eds.), (2018). Geoheritage: Assessment, Protection, and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
  50. Rigo de Righi, M. & Cortesini, A. (1964). Gravity tectonics in foot hills structure belt of southeast Anatolia. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bullettin, 48(12), 1911–1937. https://doi.org/10.1306/A66334D8-16C0-11D7-8645000102C1865D
  51. Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O. & Ustaömer, T. O. (2013a). Late Palalaeozoic–Early Cenozoic tectonic development of Southern Turkey and the easternmost Mediterranean region: evidence from the inter-relations of continental and oceanic units. In Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O. & Ünlügenç, U.-C. (Eds.), Geological Development of the Anatolian Continent and the Eastern Mediterranean Region (pp. 9–48). Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 372.
  52. Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O., Ustaömer, T., Taslı, K., Inan, N., Dumitrica, P. & Karaoğlan, F. (2013b). Subduction, ophiolite genesis and collision history of the Eurasian continental margin: new evidence from the Eastern Pontides, Turkey. Geodinamica Acta, 26, 230–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2013.877240
  53. Robertson, A. H. F., Parlak, O., Dumitrica, P., Taslı, K. & Yıldırım, N. (2014). Structural, Sedimentary and Igneous Evidence for the Genesis and Emplacement of the Rifted Continental Margin of the Southern Neotethys, SE Turkey. EGU General Assembly Conference, Geophysical Research Abstracts, April 2014.
  54. Ruban, D. A. (2010). Quantification of geodiversity and its loss. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 121, 326-333.
  55. Ruban, D. & Kuo, I.-L. (2010). Essentials of geological heritage site (geosite) management: A conceptual assessment of interests and conflicts. Natura Nascosta, 41, 16–31.
  56. Serrano, E. & Ruis-Flano, P. (2007). Geodiversity: a theoretical and applied concept. Geographica Helvetica, 62(3), 140-147.
  57. Stampfli, G. M., Borel, G. D. (2002). A Plate Tectonic Model for the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Constrained by Dynamic Plate Boundaries and Restored Synthetic Oceanic Isochrons. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 196, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00588-X
  58. Sungurlu, O. (1973). Gölbası-Gerger bölgesinin saha jeolojisi (Field geology of the region between Gölbası-Gerger, District-VI.), (Report 802). TPAO, unpublished, 30 pp.
  59. Şengör, A. M. C., Yılmaz, Y. (1981). Tethyan evolution of Turkey: a plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics 75(3-4), 181–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(81)90275-4
  60. Şengör, A. M. C., Görür, N. & Şaroğlu, F. (1985). Strike-slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study. In Biddle, K. T. & Christie-Blick, N. (Eds.), Strike-slip Deformation, Basin Formation and Sedimentation (pp. 227–264). Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publications 37.
  61. Uzunçimen, S., Tekin, U.K., Bedi, Y., Perinçek, D., Varol, E. & Soycan, H. (2011). Discovery of the Late Triassic (Middle Carnian–Rhaetian) radiolarians in the volcano-sedimentary sequences of the Koçali Complex, SE Turkey: correlation with the other Tauride units. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 40(1), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.08.004
  62. Varol, E., Tekin, U. K. & Temel, A. (2007). Dating and geochemical properties of Middle to Late Carnian basalts from the Alakırçay Nappe of the Antalya Nappes, SW Turkey: implications for the evolution of southern branch of Neotethys. Ofioliti 32(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.4454/ofioliti.v32i2.355
  63. Yıldırım, N., İlhan, S., Yıldırım, E. & Dönmez, C. (2012). The Geology, Geochemistry and Genetical Features of the Ormanbaşi Hill (Sincik, Adiyaman) Copper Mineralization. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration, 144, 75-104.
  64. Yılmaz, Y. (1993). New evidence and model on the evolution of the southeast Anatolian Orogen. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 105, 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1993)105%3C0251:NEAMOT%3E2.3.CO;2
  65. Yılmaz, E. ve Duran, O. (1997). Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi otokton ve allokton birimler stratigrafi adlama kılavuzu ‘‘Lexicon’’– guide for stratigraphic nomenclature of the autochthonous and allocthonous units in the Southeast Anatolian Region. Turkish Petroleum Company, Educational Publication, vol. 31, pp. 1–460.
  66. Perinçek, D. (1979b). Çelikhan-Sincik-Koçali (Adıyaman) bölgelerinin jeolojik incelemesi (Geological Investigation of the Region between Çelikhan-Sincik-Koçali (city of Adıyaman)), (Report, 1394). Turkish Petroleum Corporation,, pp. 130 (in Turkish with English abstract).