Abstract Late Cenozoic tectonics affected the evolution of the Euphrates river valley in northern Syria. Data on the height and composition of terraces and new K–Ar dating of overlying basalts are presented for the area between the Assad Reservoir and the town of Abou Kamal. The presence of the Late Cenozoic Euphrates Fault, longitudinal with respect to the valley, is established by the lower height of the terraces on the NE side of the valley compared with the same terraces on the SW side. Geophysical profiling (dipole axial sounding; correlation refraction method and georadar) across the southern side of the valley (opposite the town of Ar Raqqa) confirms the offset on the fault as >25 m. Movements along the transverse Rasafeh–El Faid fault zone and the Halabiyeh–Zalabiyeh deformation zone have resulted in local uplift and the splitting of river terraces. During the Pliocene–Early Pleistocene, uplift and strong incision of the Euphrates valley propagated from near the Syrian–Turkish border to near the Iraq–Syrian border. The Euphrates began to deposit alluvium onto the pre-existing low-lying Mesopotamian Foredeep at c. 3.5 Ma. Intense incision began by late Late-Pliocene time to form terrace IV. Comparable incision further downstream began during the Early Pleistocene to form terrace III.

Abstract The Jurassic System (199.6-145.5 Ma; Gradstein et al. 2004 ), the second of three systems constituting the Mesozoic era, was established in Central Europe about 200 years ago. It takes its name from the Jura Mountains of eastern France and northernmost Switzerland. The term ‘Jura Kalkstein’ was introduced by Alexander von Humboldt as early as 1799 to describe a series of carbonate shelf deposits exposed in the Jura mountains. Alexander Brongniart (1829) first used the term ‘Jurassique', while Leopold von Buch (1839) established a three-fold subdivision for the Jurassic (Lias, Dogger, Malm). This three-fold subdivision (which also uses the terms black Jura, brown Jura, white Jura) remained until recent times as three series (Lower, Middle, Upper Jurassic), although the respective boundaries have been grossly redefined. The immense wealth of fossils, particularly ammonites, in the Jurassic strata of Britain, France, Germany and Switzerland was an inspiration for the development of modern concepts of biostratigraphy, chronostratigraphy, correlation and palaeogeography. In a series of works, Alcide d'Orbigny (1842-51, 1852) distinguished stages of which seven are used today (although none of them has retained its original strati graphic range). Albert Oppel (1856-1858) developed a sequence of such divisions for the entire Jurassic System, crucially using the units in the sense of time divisions. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries many additional stage names were proposed - more than 120 were listed by Arkell (1956) . It is due to Arkell's influence that most of these have been abandoned and the table of current stages for the Jurassic (comprising 11 internationally accepted stages, grouped into three series) shows only two changes from that used by Arkell: separation of the Aalenian from the lower Bajocian was accepted by international agreement during the second Luxembourg Jurassic Colloquium in 1967, and the Tithonian was accepted as the Global Standard for the uppermost stage in preference to Portlandian and Volgian by vote of the Jurassic Subcommission ( Morton 1974 , 2005 ). As a result, the international hierarchical subdivision of the Jurassic System into series and stages has been stable for many years.

Abstract The mining of metallic and non-metallic commodities in Central Europe has a history of more than 2000 years. Today mainly non-metallic commodities, fossil fuels and construction raw materials play a vital role for the people living in Central Europe. Construction raw materials, albeit the most significant raw material, are not considered further here; for details refer to thematic maps issued by local geological surveys and comprehensive studies such as the textbook by Prentice (1990) . Even if many deposits in Central Europe, especially metallic deposits, are no longer extensive by world standards, the huge number and variety of deposits in Central Europe is unique and allows the student of metallogenesis to reconstruct the geological history of Central Europe from the Late Precambrian to the Recent in a way best described as ‘minerostratigraphy’. The term ‘deposit’ is used in this review for sites which were either mined in the twentieth century or are still being operated. A few sites that underwent exploration or trial mining have also been included in order to clarify certain concentration processes. They are mentioned explicitly in the text to avoid confusion with real deposits. Tonnage and grade are reported in the text only for the most important deposits. Production data for the year 2005 are listed in Table 21.1 for the countries under consideration. Reserves and production data of hydrocarbons in Central European basins are given in Table 21.2 . In the present study, Central Europe covers the Variscan core zones in the extra-Alpine part of Central Europe stretching from eastern France (Massif Central) into Poland where the contact between the Variscan Orogen and the Baltic Shield is concealed by a thick pile of platform sediments. In a north-south direction, Central Europe stretches from central Denmark to the southern boundary of the Po Plain in Italy, making the entire Variscan Foreland Basin, the Alpine Mountain Range, the Western Carpathians and the North Dinarides part of the study area. An outline of the geological and geographical settings is shown in Figure 21.1 . The precise geographical position of mineral sites, wells of special interest, hydrocarbon provinces, oil shale deposits and coal fields may be deduced from Tables 21.3 to 21.11 and the map ‘Mineral and energy resources of Central Europe’, at a scale 1:2 500 000 (see CD inside back cover).

ABSTRACT A recent fad in the historiography of geology is to consider the Scottish polymath James Hutton’s Theory of the Earth the last of the “theories of the earth” genre of publications that had begun developing in the seventeenth century and to regard it as something behind the times already in the late eighteenth century and which was subsequently remembered only because some later geologists, particularly Hutton’s countryman Sir Archibald Geikie, found it convenient to represent it as a precursor of the prevailing opinions of the day. By contrast, the available documentation, published and unpublished, shows that Hutton’s theory was considered as something completely new by his contemporaries, very different from anything that preceded it, whether they agreed with him or not, and that it was widely discussed both in his own country and abroad—from St. Petersburg through Europe to New York. By the end of the third decade in the nineteenth century, many very respectable geologists began seeing in him “the father of modern geology” even before Sir Archibald was born (in 1835). Before long, even popular books on geology and general encyclopedias began spreading the same conviction. A review of the geological literature of the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries shows that Hutton was not only remembered, but his ideas were in fact considered part of the current science and discussed accordingly. The strange new fashion in the historiography of geology has been promulgated mostly by professional historians rather than geologists and seems based on two main reasons: (1) a misinterpretation of what geology consists of by considering methods rather than theories as the essence of the science, and (2) insufficient attention to the scientific literature of geology through the ages. In only one case, the religious commitment of a historian seems a reason for his attempt to belittle Hutton’s contribution and to exalt those of his Christian adversaries, hitherto considered insignificant. To write a history of geology it is imperative that extra-scientific considerations such as religion or political ideology or even the mental state of the scientist(s) examined must not be mixed, overtly or covertly, into the assessment and the writer should have a good knowledge of, and experience in doing, geology. Social considerations may tell us why science is done or not done in a society, but they cannot tell us anything on the origin and evolution of its content . In understanding the intellectual development of geology, in fact science in general, sociological analysis seems not very helpful.