32 
Steffens, 1976; Steininger, Rogl & Martini, 1976; Hsu, in Ross et 
al., 1978; Régl et al., 1978; Steininger & Papp, 1979; Hsu, 1983; 
Baldi, 1984; Rog] & Steininger, 1983, 1984; Steininger & Rogl, 
1984; Voronina & Popov, 1984; Iossofova, 1985; Popescu, 1985; 
Rusu, 1985; Steininger, Rabeder & Rogl, 1985; Steininger, Rogl 
& Nevesskaya, in Steininger, Senes, Kleeman & Régl, 1985; 
Voicu, 1985; Bernor et al., 1987; Nevesskaya et al., 1987; 
Panakhi & Buare Mamadu Lamin, 1987; Veto, 1987; Mamedov, 
1989: Olteanu, 1989; Adamia et al., 1990; Dercourt et al., 1990; 
Tchoumatchenko et a/., 1990; Kerimov et al., 1991; Spiegler & 
Régl, 1992; Pevzner & Vangengeim, 1993), and in part on 
previously unpublished maps. 
It should be noted that the calibration against the global 
sequence stratigraphic framework and eustatic sea-level curve of 
Haq et al. (1988) is tentative. Fig. 5 demonstrates where 
biostratigraphic control exists in order to constrain the 
calibration. In the absence of such constraint, calibration is 
made by matching patterns of transgression and regression 
within a looser stratigraphic framework. The correlation 
between Eastern Paratethyan and global sequence stratigraphy 
and eustatic sea-level appears good, with all of the global 
eustatic sea-level trends finding their expression in Eastern 
Paratethys. It could be argued that this apparent correlation is 
entirely fortuitous. However, the stratigraphic signature of the 
mid-late Cenozoic appears remarkably consistent throughout 
the world, presumably because at this time it was an “ice-house’ 
world characterised by over-riding glacio-eustacy (Vail et al., 
1991). Indeed, it may be that not only third-order but also higher 
frequency sea-level oscillations are recognisable in areas 
characterised by a high sedimentation rate such as Eastern 
Paratethys (and the Gulf of Mexico (see, for instance, Beard er 
al., 1982; Lamb et al., 1987; Pacht et a/., 1990; Wornardt & Vail, 
1990; see also Fig. 6)). 
General features of Eastern Paratethyan stratigraphy have 
been discussed by, among others, Bogdanowicz (1947), Muratov 
(1960), Subbotina et al. (1960), Dzhanelidze (1970), Mamedova 
(1971, 1987), Stocklin & Setudehnia (1971, 1972), Azizbekov 
(1972) (and authors cited therein), Lupov et al. (1972), Cicha et 
al. (1975), Jiricek (1975), Ross et al. (1978), Nikiforova & 
Dodonov (1980), Verisharin et al. (1982) (and authors cited 
therein), Alekseyev & Nikiforova (1984), Iossofova (1985), 
Popov & Voronina (1985), Semenenko & Lulieva (1985), 
Skalbdyna (1985), Volkova et al. (1985), Yakhemovich ef al. 
(1985), Muratov & Nevesskaya (1986), Kereudren & Thibault 
(1987), Nigarov & Fedorov (1987), Benyamovskoy et al. (1988), 
Steininger et al. (1989), Yanko (1990a—b, 1991), Zubakov & 
Borzenkova (1990), Ghanbari (1991), Ali-Zade et al. (1994a, 
1994b, 1995, in press), Jones (1996), Reynolds et a/. (in press) 
and Simmons ef al. (in press). Correlations within Eastern 
Paratethys and between Eastern and Central Paratethys have 
been discussed by Papp (1969), Chelidze (1973), Rogl, Steininger 
& Muller (1978), Paramonova et al. (1979), Semenenko (1979, 
1984), Semenenko & Pevzner (1979), Steininger & Papp (1979), 
Steininger & Rogl (1979, 1984), Baldi (1980), Semenenko & 
Lulieva (1982), Rogl & Steininger (1983, 1984), Nevesskaya et al. 
(1984, 1985, 1987), Velichko (1984a), Yakhimovich, Bludorova, 
Zhidovinoy et al. (1984), Chepalyga et al. (1985), Nevesskaya & 
Nosovsky (1985), Nosovsky (1985), Pevzner & Vangengeim 
(1985), Rogl (1985a), Senes (1985a—b), Senes & Steininger, in 
Steininger et al. (1985), Yakhimovich, Bludorova, Chiguryaeva 
et al. (1985), Zosimovich et al. (1985), Yassini (1986), Mekhtiev 
& Pashaly (1987), Muzylev & Golovina (1987), Steininger et al., 
in Royden & Horvath (1987), Olteanu (1989), Rog] et al. (1991), 
Fedorov (1994), Markova & Mikhailesku (1994) and Jones 
R.W. JONES AND M.D. SIMMONS 
(1996). A comprehensive bibliography of general stratigraphic 
references (to 1984) is given by R6gl (1985b). 
Petroleum geological aspects have been discussed by, among 
others, Khain et al. (1937), Ismailov & Idrisov (1963), Ali-Zade 
et al. (1966), Shilinski (1967), Ismailov et al (1972), 
Buryakovsky (1974, 1993), Alikhanov (1977), Nikishin (1981), 
Ulmishek & Harrison (1981), Babayan (1984), Panakhi & Buare 
Mamadu Lamin (1987), Bagir-Zade et al (1988), 
Akramkhodzhaev et al. (1989), Kerimov et al. (1991), Kleschev 
et al. (1992), Narimanov (1993) and Reynolds et ai. (in press). 
Additional comments on petroleum geology are inserted as 
appropriate in the succeeding sections. 
Maykopian (Figs 7-8) 
The Maykopian takes its name from a town in the Caucasus 
(Likharev, 1958). The term Maykopian refers to essentially 
argillaceous rocks of Oligocene to Early Miocene age. The 
Zeivar Formation of Northern Iran and Lower Red Formation 
(predominantly clastics) of Central Iran (the latter locally 
contains age-diagnostic lepidocyclinid and nummulitid larger 
benthonic foraminifera) appear correlative, as does the Qom 
[Qum] Formation (predominantly carbonates) of Central Iran 
(which contains numerous age-diagnostic species of alveolinid, 
lepidocyclinid and miogypsinid larger benthonic foraminifera 
(Rahaghi, 1973)) (St6cklin & Setudehnia, 1971, 1972). The 
Maykopian (in particular the Khadumian) is an important 
regional source rock (e.g., Veto, 1987). It also constitutes a minor 
reservoir in the Kobustan-Kura region of the South Caspian 
(Ali-Zade et al., 1966). 
Details of Maykopian stratigraphy have been discussed by 
Muratov (1960), Ali-Zade (1966), Ali-Zade & Mamedov (1970), 
Mamedova & Mamedova (1970), Azizbekov (1972), Lupov et al. 
(1972), Khalilov & Mamedova (1973), Bolli & Krasheninnikov 
(1977), Ali-Zade & Atayeva (1982), Krasheninnikov & Muzylev 
(1975), Krasheninnikov, Muzylev & Ptukhian (1985), 
Nevesskaya & Nosovsky (1985), Bugrova (1986), Koshkarly 
(1986, 1993), Krasheninnikov (1986), Krasheninnikov & 
Ptukhian (1986), Koshkarly & Baldi-Beke (1987), Gasanov & 
Kyazamov (1988), Nagymarosy (1992) and Koshkarly & 
Alekperov (1993). 
Microbiostratigraphic study of the Maykopian is hindered by 
massive reworking, reflecting deposition in a foreland basin in 
front of the emerging Caucasus. Maykopian samples can 
contain >90% reworked (especially Eocene) microfossils. 
The Maykopian has been divided into five sub-stages by 
various authors (see Fig. 5). In ascending stratigraphic order, 
these are the Khadumian, Roshenian, Caucasian, Sakaraulian 
and Kozakhurian. The Khadumian is dated as Early Oligocene 
on the evidence of planktonic foraminifera and calcareous 
nannofossils and can therefore be calibrated against global 
standard biostratigraphic zonation schemes and absolute 
chronostratigraphic time-scales (see below). In contrast, the 
Roshenian is dated as Late Oligocene and the Caucasian to 
Kozakhurian as Early Miocene essentially only on the evidence 
of benthonic foraminifera (see, for instance, Nevesskaya & 
Nosovsky, 1985). 
The youngest sub-stages of the Maykopian appear to be 
absent in the Dacian Basin in the Western Black Sea region 
(Steininger et a/., in Royden & Horvath, 1987). 
Micropalaeontology and Nannopalaeontology. The Khadumian | 
has been dated as Early Oligocene on both planktonic 
foraminiferal and calcareous nannoplankton evidence. Ali-Zade 
