Int Journ Earth Sciences (2000) 88 : 708±724 � Springer-Verlag 2000

ORIGINAL PAPER

C. Scheibner ´ J. Kuss ´ A. M. Marzouk

Slope sediments of a Paleocene ramp-to-basin transition in NE Egypt

Received: 9 November 1998 / Accepted: 6 October 1999

Abstract Sedimentary structures, microfacies andstratigraphy of a late Paleocene ramp-to-basin transi-tion have been studied in the Galala Mountains in thenorthern part of the Eastern Desert of Egypt. Threephases of ramp progradation were observed. Duringnon-progradation hemipelagic sediments were inter-calated. These progradational phases are indicated bymass-transport deposits of glides slumps and debrisflows which came from different directions exceptfrom the south. At least two of these mass-transportdeposits may reflect deposition during sea-level low-stands, whereas the hemipelagic intercalations indicatetransgressive phases. Microfacies analysis providedevidence of a change in the origin of the debris flowdeposits. They show a transition from a basinal-to-out-er-ramp setting to a middle-to-inner-ramp setting anda change in organism distribution. While coralline redalgae prevailed on the inner ramp in the Selandian toThanetian, nummulitids dominated in the late Thane-tian.

Key words Middle to Late Paleocene ´ Glides ´Slumps ´ Debris flows ´ Microfacies analysis ´ Algalshoals ´ Nummulitidae shoals

Introduction

The area of the Galala mountains (Eastern Desert,Egypt) has been the focus of numerous studies mostlydealing with biostratigraphy and lithostratigraphy (Is-

mail and Abdallah 1966; Abdou et al. 1969; AbdelKireem and Abdou 1979; Strougo et al. 1992; Faris1994). Only a few studies have dealt with the overallarchitecture of the depositional system (Bandel andKuss 1987; Kuss and Leppig 1989; Kulbrok 1996; Gietl1998; J. Kuss et al., submitted). These authors proposea stuctural high during late Cretaceous times, situatedat the central and southern parts of the North Galalaincluding the Wadi Araba area to the south. Late Cre-taceous slope deposits of the mid-outer ramp areexposed at the monastery of St. Anthony (Fig. 1);however, they are not present further south at themonastery of St. Paul where only their basinal equiv-alents occur (Kulbrok and Kuss 1995). Ramp progra-dation continued during the Paleogene. The firstramp-derived allochthonous sediments were trans-ported during the Selandian from northerly directionsto the St. Paul area. The sections studied, west of themonastery of St. Paul, represent a segment of a rampto basin transition within that southward-progradingramp system.

This paper concentrates on an excellent, continuousoutcrop near the monastery of St. Paul, 360 m wideand 50 m high, including a massive layer (20 m) com-posed of various units of mass-transport sediments(Figs. 1, 2). They exhibit multiple transitions betweenglides and debris flows (DFs), composed mainly ofcarbonates with only minor contents of quartz. Thin-section analysis of allochthonous carbonates indicatesa wide spectrum of components originally formed indifferent environments of the Paleogene carbonateramp situated further north. Many limestones withinthe different allochthonous units are comparable toshallow-water autochthonous ramp environmentsdescribed previously by Gietl (1998). Moreover, wediscuss various stages of ramp progradation during thelate Paleocene.

C. Scheibner ()) ´ J. KussDepartment of Geology, Bremen University, Fachbereich 5,P.O. Box 330440, D-28334 Bremen, Germanye-mail: scheibne@uni-bremen.deFax: +0421-2184515

A. M. MarzoukDepartment of Geology, Faculty of Science, Tanta University,ET-31527 Tanta Egypt

709

Geological setting

During Maastrichtian to early Eocene times, a south-dipping carbonate ramp evolved in the northern partsof the Eastern Desert of Egypt (Galala Heights;Fig. 1). Predominantly carbonate sediments weredeposited along an E±W running tectonically induceduplift that covered parts of the present North Galalaand Wadi Araba. This uplift represents the southern-most area affected by the Syrian Arc fold belt (Mous-tafa 1995). It was formed as a consequence of the clos-ing Tethys since Turonian times (Lüning et al. 1998).

The lower to upper Paleocene strata in the area ofSt. Paul reflect a transition from distal ramp settings,with basinal hemipelagic sediments, to settings in-fluenced by carbonate mass-transport deposits andshallow-water limestones. The Danian to Selandian

(Planktic Foraminifers P1±P3 biochrons) basinal marlsoverlie upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) basinalchalks with marly intercalations of up to 12 cm thick-ness, whereas the chalky layers reach maximum thick-nesses of 75 cm. In the upper part of the upper Maas-trichtian succession, a few thin black shale intervalsare intercalated.

A biostratigraphically continuous record across theK/T boundary is well documented in most sections ofthe St. Paul area, where sediments of the upper Maas-trichtian calcareous nannoplankton Micula prinsiizone are overlain by Paleocene strata of the plankticforaminifer P1a zone (middle part of calcareous nan-noplankton zone NP1, Strougo et al. 1992; Faris 1995).

Marls prevail up to zone P3b (Fig. 2) and are dis-conformably overlain by limestones. Carbonate depo-sition was interrupted by two prominent marly inter-calations during late NP5 and NP6 (Figs. 3, 4).

29°

32° 33°

29°

32° 33°

St. Paul

Ras Gharib

Zafarana

Ain SukhnaG

ulf of Suez

Sinai

0 50

km

North Galala

South Galala

Wadi Araba

28° 28°

0 400

35°30°25°

30°

25° Luxor

Cairo Suez

Egypt

km

St. Anthony

St. Paul

S9S1-S8

km

0 2

28 °50´

28 °52´

28°50´

28°52´

32°30´ 32°35´

32°30´ 32°35´

Strougoet al. 1992

300

m

600 m

600

m

900 m

900

m

1200 m

1200 m

300 m

Wadi A

bu Silim

300

m

400

m

500

m600 m

700

m

Fig. 1 Topography of theGalala Mountains, EasternDesert, Egypt, with inset mapsof Egypt and the vicinity ofthe monastery St. Paul. Sec-tions are indicated

710

Few shallow-water communities of organic buildupsrecovered from the late Maastrichtian to early Paleo-cene biotic crisis (Schuster 1996). Diversity of carbon-ate communities began to increase again during thelate Paleocene. Organic buildups were composedmainly of corals and red algae, although bryozoansare also reported locally (Bryan 1991; Vecsei andMoussavian 1997). The Eocene, however, was a timewhen larger foraminifers (mainly nummulites) thrivedin shallow-water environments (Aigner 1983). Anoverview of the paleoecology of reefal foraminifersand algae in the Cenozoic is given by Ghose (1977).

Materials and methods

The ramp to basin transition was studied along aroughly WSW±ENE striking wadi ridge within thefoothills south of the rising escarpment of the SouthGalala heights (Fig. 1) situated 2.5 km west of the

monastery of St. Paul (E 32�31,2889; N 28�50,7189).The outcrop was subdivided into six distinct lithostrat-igraphic units.

The study is based on a detailed facies analysis(macro- and microscale) of eight vertical sections(S1±S8), taken along a lateral profile. Eighty-sevenlimestone samples were studied through thin-sectionanalyses and 42 marly-shale samples for micropalaeon-tological studies (Fig. 4). A detailed mapping of allsedimentological and structural features along the out-crop was supported by a photomosaic (Figs. 2, 5).Additionally, one parallel section (S9) was takenapproximately 1 km to the SE of the profile presentedhere (Fig. 1) and covers the uppermost Cretaceous tolower Eocene succession. Sixty washed samples and 15thin-section samples were studied from this sectionand yield supporting data but are discussed in a forth-coming paper by J. Kuss et al. (submitted).

Biostratigraphy

The biostratigraphic framework is based on bothplanktic and larger foraminifers, and calcareous nan-noplankton. The biozonal and chronostratigraphic

Fig. 2 a Investigated outcrop. b Sketch of outcrop with sedimen-tological features and location of sections. c Outcrop with loca-tion of close-up photographs shown in Fig. 5

711

standards of Berggren et al. (1995) and Olsson et al.(1999) are used for planktic foraminifers, Martini(1971) for calcareous nannoplankton biozonation, andHottinger et al. (1964), Serra-Kiel et al. (1998), andGietl (1998) for larger foraminifers biozonation(Fig. 3).

Planktic foraminifers

Planktic foraminifers were found in marls of Units A,B, C and E. A well-preserved assemblage of Acarininastrabocella, Morozovella angulata, M. conicotruncata,Igorina albeari, Globanomalina chapmani, Gl. hauns-bergensis occurs in Unit A. Globanomalina pseudome-nardii, Acarinina subsphaerica and A. mackanni werenot found in this unit, indicating biozone P3b. Formsmorphologically similar to M. acuta were found aswell but may belong to M. conicotruncata. Two sam-ples of Unit B contain poorly preserved planktics,which could not support a biostratigraphic assessment.

A similar assemblage of planktic foraminifers as inUnit A was observed in Unit C. Moreover, the firstspecimens of M. velascoensis were found, which couldbe attributed to biozone P4 (Fig. 4).

Unit E was also attributed to biozone P4, suggestedby typical M. velascoensis with well-pronounced dec-oration, and the first occurrence of Acarinina sp. Theindex fossil G. pseudomenardii was not found. Luger(1985) indicated that G. pseudomenardii is seldomfound in Egypt.

Larger foraminifers

Several index species were identified in thin sections:Glomalveolina sp., Hottingerina lukasi and the twoconical species Fallotella kochanskae persica and F.alavensis. According to Drobne (1975), H. lukasiranges within the A. (G.) primaeva biozone in Slov-enia; however, White (1994) demonstrated this speciesranging from A. (G.) primaeva to A. (A.) ellipsoidaliszones in Oman. Serra-Kiel et al. (1998) described it asindex fossil of shallow benthic zone SBZ 4. Gietl(1998) and Kuss and Leppig (1989) described H.lukasi in the Galala Mountains from the A. (G.) levisbiozone. Fallotella alavensis was found by Leppig(1987) in Spain coinciding with the A. (G.) primaevabiozone, and according to Hottinger and Drobne(1980) and Serra-Kiel (1998) this species is restrictedto the A. (G.) primaeva biozone. The same is true for

65

60

55

50

Ear

lyP

aleo

cene

Eoc

ene

Tha

netia

nD

ania

nS

elan

dian

Ypr

esia

n

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P1

b

a

c

a

b

b

a

c

b

a

NP13

NP12

NP11

NP10

NP9

NP8

NP6

NP5

NP4

NP3

NP2

NP1

SBZ10

SBZ11

SBZ9

SBZ7

SBZ8

SBZ6

SBZ3

SBZ5SBZ4

A.(G.) primaeva

A.(G.) levisA.(A.) cucumiformisA.(A.) ellipsoidalis

A.(A.) moussoulensis

A.(A.) corbarica

A.(A.) trempina

A.(A.) schwageri

A.(A.) dainellii

NPZone larger foraminifersP Zone

Age

Epo

ch

Pa & P0

A

B

E

D

C

F

units(Ma.)

Lat

eP

aleo

cene

Berggrenet al.

(1995)Martini(1971)

Serra-Kielet al.

(1998)

TimeHottinger, Lehmann& Schaub (1964);

Gietl (1998)

NP7

P2

SBZ

SBZ2

SBZ1

Hardenbolet al. (1999)

Sel1

Th1

Th2

Th3

Th5

Th4

ThSin1

ThSin2

ThSin3

ThSin4

ThSin5

cycle boundaries

Lüning et al.(1998)

This work

SelGal2

ThGal1

SelGal?

Fig. 3 Paleocene to Eocenetime scale. The time (Ma),epoch, age and planktonicforaminifers zonation are fromBerggren et al. (1995). Cal-careous nannoplankton zona-tion is from Martini (1971),the shallow benthic zonation isfrom Serra-Kiel et al. (1998)and the larger foraminiferzonation is from Hottinger etal. (1964) and Gietl (1998).The broad grey band reflectsthe current opinion on theposition of the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. The blackrectangle marks the strati-graphic interval investigated insections S1±S8. Within the rec-tangle the units described andcycle boundaries are marked.Comparisons of cycle bounda-ries are based on absoluteages. Mismatches are due todifferent biostratigraphic con-cepts used by the authors

712

F. kochanskae persica (Hottinger and Drobne 1980).In contrast, Gietl (1998) and Kuss and Leppig (1989)found this species in the A. (G.) levis biozone fromthe Galala Mountains. On the basis of this classifica-

tion, the association of H. lukasi, F. kochanskae persi-ca, F. alavensis, Mis. rhomboidea, Discocyclinidae,Broeckinella, A (G.) dachelensis, Ranikothalia andArcheolithothamnium has been used to define the A.(G.) levis biozone, coinciding with SBZ 4 of Serra-Kiel et al. (1998).

Small larger foraminifers were also found withinthe hemipelagic marls of Unit E.

Fig. 4 Stratigraphic correlation of sections S1±S8 with their typi-cal sedimentological features. Sample numbers are indicated

Fig. 5a±l Photographs (left side or upper side) and illustratedsketchs (right side or lower side) of close-ups. For location andlegend of close-ups see Fig. 2. Scale is in the lower right cornerof the photographs. The letters within the sketches indicate theunits present. The different types of debris flows (DF) presentare illustrated in a±c. a Debris flow 1a, with very small clasts ofapproximately 1 cm, is present in one DF east of section S8. bDebris flow 1 with heterogeneous size distribution rangingbetween DF 1a and DF 1b. This is the most common DF type. cDF 1b with very large clasts of 25±50 cm is present in one DFin section S8. d±l Close-ups of the outcrop. d In contrast to allother DFs which are shaped convex-upward, this one is shapedconvex-downward. Probably it was deposited within a channel. eErosional contact of hemipelagic marly chalks of Unit E and adebris flow of Unit F (profile S1). f Typical convex-upward-shaped DF. The surrounding strata show onlap structures. gWestern end of lateral profile. Here Unit B is composed ofheavily slumped beds which are disconformably overlain by UnitD. The more or less horizontal carbonate layers of Unit D1 areoverlain on the left by a massive slightly layered nodular lime-

stone and on the right by a DF (for detail see Fig. 5b). h Gener-ally east-dipping beds of Unit B. Note the wavy bed thinning tothe left. Here one of the two DFs within Unit D1 is seen. Thehorizontal layers of D1 are onlapping Unit B. On top a typicalslump to DF deposit is visible. i The contrast of the east-dippingbeds of Unit B (20�) and the west-dipping, partly thinning bedsof Unit D1 is clearly visible. The top is composed of slump todebris flow deposits and a debris flow. j Onlap pattern of mas-sive, slightly bedded nodular limestone on a debris flow in UnitD2. Note the slumps in Units B and D1. The hemipelagic marlychalk deposits of Unit E clearly separate the shallower depositsof Units D and F. k Nearly horizontal layers of Unit B are over-lain by a slump to DF. Again Unit E separates Units D and F. lThe eastern end of the lateral profile. A fault and debris on theleft side make the correlation to the rest of the profile difficult.Note the debris flow in Unit B with typical onlap structures ofsurrounding sediments. The DF of Unit D is characterised byDF type 1b with large clasts. For detail see Fig. 5c. Unit F iscomposed of slightly layered nodular limestones with changinginclination

713

a 30 cm

b 60 cm c 60 cm d 2 m

E

D2

F

D1

D2

E

D2

B

C

D1

D2

714

B3 m

C

B

3 m

C

5 m

20 cm

E

F

D2

D2

D1

D2

D1

D2

B

A

C

D1

e

f

g

h

715

5 m

A

B

CD

FE

l

k 5 m

BC

EF

j 5 m

BC

E F

B

F

5 mi

C

E

D2

D1

D2

D1

D1

D2

716

Benthic foraminifers

Whereas the benthic foraminifers of Unit A indicate aposition on the deeper shelf, the samples of Units Cand E contain a mixture of autochthonuous deeper(mixed Midway and Velasco Fauna, indicating a waterdepth of ca. 500 m) and allochthonous shallower shelfforms (Speijer 1994; R.P. Speijer pers. commun.).

Calcareous nannoplankton

Well-preserved microfloras have been identified inmarls of Units A, B, C and E. Unit A was attributedto biozones NP4 (S2-1 to 8) with Markalius inversus,Chiasmolithus tenius, Ellipsolithus macellus (indexform) and Coccolithus pelagicus. Units B and C havebeen attributed to NP5 (Fig. 4). NP5 (S1-1 to 3; S2-9to 13; S4-5 to 7; S7-1 to 4; and S8-1 to 7) is character-ised by the above mentioned species and Fasciculithustympaniformis (index form), F. janii, F. bitectus andChiasmolithus consuetus. Samples S4-20 and S4-21 ofUnit E hold specimens of NP6 with the index formHeliolithus kleinpellii.

Lithostratigraphic units

Unit A

Unit A (thickness 5±10 m) consists of marls at thebase which are of early to early late Paleocene(P1±P3) age disconformably overlain by limestones ofUnit B. The sharp contact between both units, whichis often covered by alluvial gravel (Figs. 2a,b), is wellexposed in sections S1, S2, S8 and S9. Following thecontact laterally from S1 in the west to S8 in the east,its erosive character becomes obvious: several inci-sions of Unit B into the soft lithologies of Unit Aform a conspicuous large-scale undulating boundaryalong the profile (Fig. 2).

Unit B

Unit B (thickness 4±6 m) is characterised by hard,massive carbonates with various textural character-istics. Peloidal micrites prevail together with a varyingdegree of quartz. The latter is also frequent in washedsamples (S1-5 and S2-14).

The carbonates include undisturbed horizontally toeastward-dipping bedding planes, glides and slumps.The intensity of disturbance within this unit decreasesfrom west to east. At the western end of the profile(lateral distance, LD = 1±10 m; Fig. 2), a chaoticmelange occurs with only few slumped beds thatexhibit an S-shape. Next to this, an area of slumpedbeds occurs that are still in original sedimentary con-tact (LD 15 m, Fig. 5g). A little further to the east (ld

30 m), no obvious slumps occur but the beds dip at amaximum angle of 20� to the east. Dipping is best vis-ible in the upper parts of Unit B due to its constantbed thickness. But a few basal beds exhibit changingthicknesses (Fig. 5h). Here, the younger limestonebeds clearly show overlapping patterns. Further to theeast, slumping ceases (LD 85 m) and the strata dip tothe east with less and less inclination. East of LD270 m (Fig. 2), no overlapping is visible but all bedshave a smooth waveform appearence. Abundant Tha-lassinoides burrows were found at the top of Unit B insections S3, S5 and S6 (Fig. 4).

Unit B is composed mainly of glides and slumpsexcept one DF at the easternmost part of the profilebetween sections S7 and S8 (Figs. 2b, 5l). Prather etal. (1998) classified slope deposits from the Gulf ofMexico on the basis of seismic facies; their facies A+Bl of chaotic rotated slump blocks exhibit similarcharacteristics of the slumps, submarine slides and DFdescribed here.

Unit C

Unit C (thickness 5±8 cm) consists of a few-centime-tres-thick marly intercalation exposed in sections S3and S5 only. Units B and D overlie one another dis-conformably in all other sections without exposingUnit C. The correlation of Unit C with a 20-cm-thickchalk layer in section S8 is based on lithostratigraphyonly, and could not be confirmed due to a fault andgravel cover between sections S7 and S8 (Fig. 5l).

Unit D

Unit D (thickness ~10 m) forms a steep cliff andallows detailed mapping of the internal sedimentologi-cal architecture based on both, field observations andthe use of a photomosaic. The prevailing DFs andslump deposits in the upper part of the unit (D2) con-formably overlie nearly horizontally bedded, slightlywest-dipping deposits of the lower parts (D1). Theseare composed of mainly well-bedded carbonates witha large-scale undulating lower boundary and smallslumping structures. In contrast to Unit B with a gen-eral eastward-dipping direction (maximum inclinationof 20�), the strata of Unit D1 dip to the west (maxi-mum inclination of 10�). A few small-scale DFs with amaximum width of 20 m and a height of 2 m directlyoverlie Unit C (Fig. 5f) and, moreover, overlappingpatterns are obvious. In section S6 a 2-m-thick strati-fied sand layer at the base of D1 disconformablyoverlies Unit B (Fig. 4); small bivalves are orientedhorizontally in several layers of that carbonate-ce-mented sandstone.

At the western end of Unit D2, the lateral profileconsists of poorly bedded to massive carbonatesclearly Overlapping a debris flow from west to east

717

(Fig. 5g). East to this debris flow, a 25-m-wide, poorlyexposed area was mapped, followed by a 40 m wideunit (ld 90 m) of a slump to debris flow, exhibitingboth partly stratified beds and true DF deposits.Within the next 70 m (LD 150 m), poorly beddednodular limestones occur dipping to the east with aninclination of 10� (Fig. 5j). Onlapping patterns are dis-cernible where these poorly bedded layers overlie a50-m-wide true DF, laterally grading into a slump toDF unit of 70 m width. Further to the east (LD300 m), another 30-m-wide DF continues. Fine gravelcovers Unit D2 in the eastern parts of the profile,where prevailing bedded strata have been discerned.At the easternmost end of the lateral profile, again asmall DF has been mapped, unconformably overlainby bedded nodular limestones of Unit F (Fig. 5l). Sim-ilar to Unit B Thalassinoides burrows were found atthe top. Carbonates of Unit D1 reflect deeper shelf toshallow slope deposits, compared with hemipelagicdrape deposits on slopes (Prather et al. 1998). Theintercalated sandstone layer (section S6) reflects a dis-continuous channelised body that has been interpretedas sediment derived from submarine canyons. Unit D2comprises all lateral and vertical transitions fromslumps to DFs. A clear separation between them isnot always possible (see discussion for Unit B).

Unit E

Unit E (thickness 20±40 cm) unconformably overlyingUnit D consists of a thin chalk-marl couplet. It couldbe traced from east to west throughout the entire pro-file and was also identified in section S9 (Fig. 1).

Unit F

Unit F (thickness 10±12 m) could not be mapped indetail neither in the field nor with the photo-mosaicbecause of the poor exposure and strong weatheringof this topmost Unit F. Two macroscopically deter-mined facies have been distinguished: bedded carbon-ates and DFs. The DFs of Unit F consist mainly ofclasts with only little surrounding matrix, in contrastto the DFs from the lower units (B and D) with aminor volume of clasts. Few of the bedded carbonatesshow internally nodular structures. In section S1 theoverlying Unit F is composed of a small debris flowwith single to few clasts (Fig. 5e), here with a clearlyvisible erosive contact between them.

Whereas the debris flows of Unit F exhibit a plasticinternal mechanical behaviour, the nodular limestonesargue for an elastic behaviour formed within trans-lational slides (glides sensu Cook and Mullins 1983).

Microfacies types (MFT)

In Table 1 the important components are listed andtheir distribution within the microfacies types ismarked. Figure 6 shows the microfacies-type distribu-tion throughout sections S1±S8 with stratigraphic cor-relation.

MFT1 Planktic foraminifers micrite

It was formed as hemipelagic mud in deeper shelfareas, not or only slightly influenced by nearby shal-low-water deposits. The relatively high quartz contentmay be derived from submarine canyons and reflectssediment bypassing (Fig. 7).

MFT2 Micrite with quartz

The co-occurrence of planktic foraminifers, filaments,and further small bioclasts in MFT2 combined withthe absence of shallow-water biota is interpreted asbeing characteristic of outer ramp environments, againinfluenced by siliciclastic sediment bypassing.

MFT3 Discocyclina micrite

Bryan (1991) described Discocyclina from deep fore-reef and upper-basin slope environments similarly toGhose (1977), who described long, flat Discocyclinafrom the fore-reef. Gietl (1998) reported Discocylinafrom the middle-ramp facies of the Galala areas.MFT3 was attributed to autochthonous middle- to out-er-ramp environments because of the abundance oflong, flat Discocyclina and Asterocyclina and the smallquantity of other biota.

MFT4 Micritic sandstone

The quartz grains are derived from siliciclastic shoalsof the shallow ramp (Gietl 1998). We interpret theiroccurrence in section S6 as a result of transportationdownslope via submarine canyons. An amalgamationwith DFs cannot be excluded due to their similaritiesto MFT2.

MFT5 Corallinacean nummulitid micrite to sparite

The coralline algae can be used for palaeobathymetricinterpretations. According to Bosence (1991) smallsolitary and branching forms occur in medium energyreefs and buildups such as marl or back-reef mounds.Autochthonous floatstones with coralline algae havebeen described by Gietl (1998) from upper Paleocene

718

MF-types

interpretation

biogene components

1-Plankticforaminifers micrite

2-Micrite withquartz

3-Discocyclinamicrite

4-Micriticsandstone

5-Corallinaceannummulitidmicrite to sparite

6-Coral micrite

7-Nummulitidmicrite to sparite

8-Miliolid biopelsparite to micrite

3

10

2

3

26

11

18

10

all

B,D

D

D

D,F

D,F

F

F

b

c,b

c,b

c,b

c,b

c,b

c,b

c,b

abiogenecomponents

matrix

w

w,p

w,p

p

p

p

p

p

hemipelagic mud

outer ramp

outer to middle ramp

outer ramp

shoal, middle to inner ramp

coral-algal reef

nummulitid shoal,middle to inner ramp

inner ramp

rare common abundant very abundant

quar

tz

plan

ktic

fora

min

ifers

glom

alve

olin

a

coni

cal f

oram

inife

rs

Hot

tinge

rina

luka

si

dasy

clad

acea

ns

mili

olid

s

disc

ocyc

linid

ae

pelo

ids

intr

acla

sts

cora

lline

alg

ae

cora

ls

num

mul

itida

e

mis

cella

nea

spar

ite

mic

rite

echi

node

rms

occu

ranc

e:cl

ast(

c)/b

ed(b

)

num

ber

of th

inse

ctio

ns

prev

ailin

g in

uni

t

Dun

ham

-Cla

ssifi

catio

n

com

pone

nts

Table 1 Distribution of com-ponents in the MF types

S1-1S1-2S1-3S1-4S1-5

S1-6S1-7S1-8S1-9

S1-10

S1-11S1-12S1-13S1-14S1-15S1-16S1-17

S2-9-10S2-11S2-12S2-13S2-14

S2-15S2-16S2-17S2-18S2-19S2-20S2-21

S2-22

S3-1

S3-2S3-3S3-4S3-5S3-6

S4-5S4-6S4-7S4-8

S4-9S4-10S4-11S4-12S4-13S4-14A

S4-15S4-16S4-17S4-18S4-19S4-20S4-21S4-22S4-23S4-24S4-25S4-26S4-27S4-28S4-29S4-30

S4-14B

S4-31S4-32S4-33S4-34

S5-1S5-2

S6-1S6-2S6-3S6-4S6-5S6-6S6-7S6-8S6-9

S6-10S6-11S6-12S6-13S6-14S6-15S6-16S6-17S6-18S6-19S6-20

S7-1S7-2S7-3S7-4S7-5S7-6S7-7

S8-1-4S8-5S8-6S8-7

S8-8

S8-9S8-10S8-11S8-12S8-13S8-14S8-15

Unit

A

B

C

D

F

NP5P3

SBZ4P4c NP8/9

P4a

P4a

P4a

SBZ3

SBZ3

SBZ3

NP5/6

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8

S4-8A59.2

56.5

NP5

NP5

Microfacies types:

1

2

3

4 56

7

8 washed samples

P3 = determined biozone

NP6 = inferred biozone Basin - Outer Ramp Middle R. Shoal

samples within onedebris flow

Age = Time in MaP.F. = Planktic Foraminifer ZonesSBZ = Shallow Benthic ZonesC.N. = Calcareous Nannoplankton

Zones

Inner R.

S2-5-8S2-1-4

NP4

EP4a NP6SBZ3

Hiatus

Sample ofuncertain location

P.F. SBZ C.N.Age

Fig. 6 Microfacies-type distribution throughout sections S1±S8with stratigraphic correlation. The samples grouped togetherwith dots are from one DF. Note that the debris flows are oftenformed by only one microfacies type

719

limestones of the North Galala, where they occur indeeper environments of the inner ramp. This interpre-tation is in good concordance with observations byBuchbinder (1977) who described similar algal depos-its of Miocene back-reef platform areas in Israel.

MFT6 Coral micrite

The allochthonous coral fragments dominate MFT6which was originally formed as talus of coral algalreefs, although a reef belt has not been reported byprevious authors from the areas further north. Ourobservations suggest at least broader patch reefs. Sim-ilar small-scale Early Paleocene coral algal reefs havebeen reported by, for example, Vecsei and Moussa-vian (1997) from the Maiella Platform (Italy) andSchuster (1996) from the Abu Tartur Plateau (westernEgypt).

MFT7 Nummulitid micrite to sparite

The limestones of MFT 7 were originally formed closeto nummulitic shoal environments situated near innerto middle ramp positions (Gietl 1998). Allochthonousalveolinids and dasycladaceans demonstrate inner-ramp influences. The two subtypes reflect no truenummulitid shoal deposits as described by Gietl (1998)but are deposited in back- or fore-shoal areas.

MFT8 Miliolid biopel sparite to micrite

This MFT reflects inner-ramp environments andincludes reworked particles from restricted areas, doc-umented by the high amounts of miliolids and endoli-thic algae. This is also indicated by the occurrence ofconical imperforate foraminifers (Hottinger andDrobne 1980). The high content of nummulitids isinterpreted as a result of redeposition.

Discussion

The lateral and vertical distribution of the studied latePaleocene sediments allowed reconstruction of thesedimentation processes of a ramp-to-basin transitionduring seven successive stages (Fig. 8A±F). On thebasis of all sedimentological and stratigraphic data,the progradation of mainly allochthonous carbonateramp deposits (of outer-mid ramp to mid-shallowramp origin) and their interfingering with autochtho-nous basin sediments is illustrated.

Types of mass transport

The main transport mechanisms of the sedimentsdescribed here are mass-transport processes due togravity forces. Einsele (1991) summarized manydescriptions of prevailing siliciclastic mass-transportdeposits. Carbonate-dominated mass-transport proc-esses have been subdivided by Cook and Mullins(1983) into three types: rockfall, slides and sedimentgravity flows (Table 2). Slides can furthermore bedivided into translational (glide) and rotational(slump) types. The shear plane of glides is parallel tothe underlying beds, whereas in slumps the shearplanes are concave-upward with a backward rotationof the slumped body (Cook and Mullins 1983).Middleton and Hampton (1976) defined the term sed-iment gravity flow as ªflows consisting of sedimentmoving downslope under the action of gravityº. Theydistinguished four subtypes that differ in the supportmechanisms of the single grains within the flow: debrisflow, grain flow, fluidized sediment flow and turbiditycurrent. Lowe (1976) added the liquefied sedimentflow to these four subtypes. These classifications re-present idealized members of sediment gravity flows,and real flows can show all transitions between thegrain support mechanisms (Middleton and Hampton1976). Along a lateral transect, one subtype may alsoinduce the other, e.g. a glide may induce a DF whichitself could induce a turbidity current. Thus, theymight evolve during downslope transport, when therheological (Prior and Coleman 1984) or relief para-meters (Piper et al. 1999) change. Within the gravityflow processes, DFs (cohesive) and turbidites are the

W

E

Southern GalalaWadi Araba

MFT1

MFT2

MFT4

MFT6

MFT8

ca. 50 km

MFT3

MFT5

MFT7

Inner Ramp

Middle RampArea of St. Paul

Submarine canyon

Debris flow

Basin -

Outer Ramp

Microfacies types:

1

2 - 4

6

Basin - Outer Ramp Middle Ramp

5

7

Shoal

8

Inner Ramp

Terrestric

Fig. 7 Model of the southward-dipping ramp of the GalalaMountains. Microfacies-type distribution is inferred from theDFs of the investigated lateral profile by the monastery of St.Paul

720

main mechanisms for sediment transport (Mutti 1992),whereas the others, such as grain flows, liquefied flowsand fluidized flows, represent transient conditions thatoccur within gravity flows during transport. Furtherdetails about flow regimes in sediment gravity flowsare found in Postma (1986), Fisher (1983), Enos(1977) and Einsele (1991). In the lateral profile stud-ied, slides (represented by glides and slumps) and sed-iment gravity flows (represented by DF) includingtransitions between both are most frequent.

Debris flow deposits

Debris flow deposits vary in size and shape, both ver-tically and horizontally. Moreover, they contain differ-ent types of clasts also varying in size. The followingshort description summarizes major differences of DFsobserved macroscopically.

All DFs vary in thickness between 0.5 and 7 m andin width between 10 and 50 m; however, originallygreater thickness values may have been reduced bysubsequent erosion. The most common DF shape isrepresented by convex-upward lenses often visibleonly at one side of a DF cross section (Figs. 5f,g,j,l;see also Mutti 1992) with onlap patterns of theyounger sediments. Few DFs exhibit convex-down-ward shapes (Fig. 5d) with sharp contacts to the over-lying layers. Sharp straight contacts can also be seenin convex-upward DFs, especially the large ones ofUnit D which are directly overlain by Unit E (Fig. 4).This contact is probably an erosional feature (Fig. 5j).

Two main groups of DFs have been distinguished:matrix supported (DF 1) and clast supported (DF 2).Within the first containing well-sorted clasts (allwithin a fine matrix), two different subtypes havebeen established (DF 1a, b) ranging from small clasts

with a maximum diameter of 1 cm (DF 1a; Fig. 5a) tolarge clasts of 25±50 cm diameter (DF 1b; Fig. 5c).Both subtypes of well-sorted DFs are found only inthe vicinity of section S8, whereas all the other matrix-supported DF deposits are characterised by a lessersorting of clasts (Fig. 5b). Thirty-three clasts of DF-1deposits have been sampled for the detailed descrip-tions of MFTs given previously. We selected fossil-bearing clasts without macroscopically discerniblediagenetic overprints. Therefore, the MFT distributionshown for the entire outcrop (Fig. 6) reflects a non-statistical distribution (over-representation). Micriteswith planktic foraminifers (MFT1) are present in allDFs in varying amounts. Only few micritic sampleswere taken, resulting in an under-representation inFig. 6.

Fig. 8 Deposition mode of the units indicating the differentphases of ramp progradation and location of deposition. Unit A:hemipelagic sedimentation. Unit B: first phase of ramp progra-dation with deposition of glides and slumps from westerly direc-tions; samples indicate an outer-ramp origin. Unit C: truncationof Unit B and first hemipelagic intercalation. Unit D1: secondphase of ramp progradation with deposition of layered carbon-ates and few DFs from easterly directions. Unit D2: depositionof DFs and inter-DF sediments from westerly directions; sam-ples of Unit D indicate an outer- to middle-ramp origin. Unit E:truncation of Unit D2 and second hemipelagic intercalation.Unit F: third phase of ramp progradation with deposition ofshallow-water limestones and DFs from all directions except thesouth; samples indicate a middle- to inner-ramp origin

Rockfall

Slid

eS

edim

ent g

ravi

ty fl

ow

translational(Glide)

rotational(Slump)

Debris flowor

Mud flow

Grain flow

Liquefied flow

Fluidized flow

Turbidity current flow

Types of mass transport Transport mechanism and dominant sediment support

Freefall and rolling single blocks along steep slopes

Shear failure along discrete shear planes subparalellto underlying bed

Shear failure along discrete concave-up shear planesaccompanied by rotation of slide

Shear distributed throughout the sediment mass.Clasts supported above base of bed by cohesivestrength of mud matrix and clast buoyancy. Can beinitiated and move long distances along very lowangle slopes

Cohesionless sediment supported by dispersivepressure. Usually requires steep slopes for initiationand sustained downslope movement

Cohesionless sediment supported by upwarddisplacement of fluid. Requires slopes > 3°

Cohesionless sediment supported by upwardmotion of escaping pore fluid. Thin and short lived

Clasts supported by fluid turbulence. Can move longdistances along low angle slopes

Table 2 Major types of submarine mass transport on slopes andtheir transport mechanism and dominant sediment support.(Modified after Cook and Mullins 1983)

721

Clast-supported DFs (DF 2) have been observedonly in Unit F, often with transition to nodular lime-stones. This type of DF has little or no matrix, and incontrast to DF 1, all 22 clast samples taken containmainly fossil-bearing MFTs. Most DFs found are com-posed of only one MFT, e.g. Unit D2 of MFT5 orUnit F of MFT7 (Fig. 6).

Evolution of units

The upper Maastrichtian hemipelagic chalk-marldeposits of the area south of the South Galala con-tinue in marly lower Paleocene sediments (Unit A).Whereas the stratigraphic succession of the lateralprofile spans from zone P3 (NP4) upwards, the neigh-bouring section S9 (Fig. 1) spans an upper Maastrich-tian±Paleocene succession. In section S9 zones P1±P4and NP1±NP5 were encountered. Benthic foraminif-eral assemblage, including Gavelinella beccariformisand Nuttallides truempyi, indicate ªbathyalº deposition(R.P. Speijer, pers. commun.).

Unit B was formed during late NP5 times, but ashort-term hiatus is indicated by the basal erosive con-tact with the underlying Unit A (Figs. 3, 4). The car-bonates of Unit B originated from distal ramp settingsand represent the first phase of early late Paleoceneramp progradation onto hemipelagic sediments. Here,glides and slumps are obvious (Fig. 5g to 5k), andeven few small-scale DFs occur (Fig. 5l). Prevailingeastward-dipping directions of glides and slumps indi-cate a -west±east direction of transport (Fig. 8). Weassume that these mass-transport deposits wereformed in outer-ramp environments, as indicated bycharacteristic MFTs determined in clasts that werederived from the internal parts of DFs in sections S4and S7.

Prior to the onset of Unit C, the carbonate sed-imentation of Unit B ceases as evidenced by theoccurrence of decimetres-thick Thalassinoides burrowsat the top. Formed within aerobic environments(Zhicheng et al. 1997), these Thalassinoides burrowsindicate a decrease of sedimentation rates during lateUnit-B times and the top of the burrows may re-present a flooding surface.

The soft hemipelagic marls of Unit C (NP5) discon-formably overlie the limestones of Unit B. The ben-thic foraminifers show a mixture of autochthonousdeeper (mixed Midway and Velasco Fauna) andallochthonous shallower shelf forms (Speijer 1994;R.P. Speijer, pers. commun.). Unit C was possiblydeposited under rising sea-level conditions and marksthe transgressive part of the sea-level curve.

The exact stratigraphic position of Unit D remainsquestionable: a latest NP5 or early NP6 age is possi-ble, because Unit D is sandwiched between upperNP5 deposits of Unit C and NP6 deposits of unit E(Fig. 3). Sedimentologically, these carbonates re-present the second phase of ramp progradation and

can be subdivided into a lower Unit D1 and an upperUnit D2. The first is composed of mainly well-beddedcarbonates with onlap patterns towards the west ontoUnits B or C, clearly indicating transport directionsfrom the east (Fig. 8D). Slumpings may occur (Fig. 5j)and few DFs are present (Fig. 5h). In contrast to theDFs of Unit B (where all clasts are composed ofmicrite with abundant quartz grains), DFs here con-tain clasts exhibiting various microfacies types. Thoseof section S2 consist of corallinacean-nummulitidmicrite to sparite (MFT5) indicating shallow-watershoal deposition of the inner to middle ramp. In con-trast, DFs (and also the well-bedded carbonates) ofsection S6 are dominated by micritic sandstones,whereas all other bedded sediments of Unit D1 arecomposed of micrite-dominated limestones withoutfossils. We interpret the siliciclastic layer as beingtransported via submarine canyons that cut throughthe slope transect and thus reflect siliciclastic sedimentbypassing (Fig. 7). An amalgamation of these withvarious facies types originally formed in differentramp environments has been assumed. Similarities ofD1 limestones to those of Unit B are obvious, bothoriginally deposited at the outer ramp. The first, how-ever, exhibits a stronger influence of shallow-waterdeposition.

The upper Unit D2 is characterised by large-scaleDFs and slump to DF deposits with inter-debris flowdeposits of weakly stratified nodular limestones (sec-tion S3; Fig. 4). Most clasts of the DFs here representdeposits of the middle to inner ramp, which originallyconsisted of mainly corallinacean-dominated microfa-cies types with abundant nummulitids. In contrast toUnits D1 and B, bedded limestones with deep-watermicrofacies types are rarely present. The quartz con-tent of these sediments is low. Because of dominatingshallow-water MFTs, a more proximal outer- tomiddle-ramp position is proposed. Only the nodularlimestones of section S3 indicate transport directionsfrom west to east, whereas DFs and slump to DFdeposits exhibit no transport directions. Similar to unitB, sedimentation on top of Unit D ceased, as doc-umented by Thalassinoides burrows (section S6), andsubsequent erosion occurred. This may represent aflooding surface. The DFs and slump to DF depositsare here truncated at the top. Usually, DFs are char-acterised by convex-upward shapes (Mutti 1992), butthis feature was observed only at their sides, whereastheir tops end with sharp contacts towards the over-lying Unit E.

The marly chalky sediments of Unit E in all sec-tions disconformably overlie the limestones of Unit D(Fig. 5e). Unit E represents a second short intercala-tion of hemipelagic basinal sediments formed duringan interval when the export of carbonates from theramp was interrupted by rising sea-level conditions.Similar to Unit C this marks the transgressive part ofthe sea-level curve. Nannofossils indicate a late Paleo-cene age of biozone NP6; however, the duration of

722

the hiatus at the disconformable boundary to Unit Dbelow cannot be estimated. The exact position of theNP5±NP6 boundary is within Unit D or the hiatusthereafter (Fig. 3). The hiatus-surface at the top ofUnit E separates shallow-water deposits of the mid toinner ramp (Unit F) from hemipelagic marls ofUnit E. Similar to Unit C benthic foraminifers show amixture of autochthonous deeper (mixed Midway andVelasco Fauna) and allochthonous shallower shelfforms (Speijer 1994; R.P. Speijer, pers. commun.).Small larger foraminifers were found as well (R.P.Speijer, pers. commun.).

Unit F has been assigned to SBZ4. According tothe shallow benthic zonation (Fig. 3) given by Serra-Kiel (1998), these sediments have been correlatedwith the plankton/nannoplankton chronology of Berg-gren et al. (1995) and Martini (1971) and correlate toP4c/NP8/9. Unit F represents the third phase of rampprogradation characterised by small-scale DFs andnodular limestones (without distinct stratification),and both lithofacies are often hard to differentiate.Similar to Units B and D, reworking of sedimentsoriginating from different facies zones was evident inUnit F, with prevailing shallow-water deposits frommid- to inner-ramp settings. Imprints of the shallowestinner ramp deposits (miliolid biopel sparite to micrite)are observed. In contrast to the shoal deposits of UnitD (composed of corallinacean-nummulitid micrite tosparite), nummulitid micrite to sparite prevail here.As indicated in Fig. 8F, no dominant transport direc-tion occurs: dipping directions vary from west, southto east, suggesting a general southward-directed trans-port. The deposits of Unit F reflect middle- to inner-ramp environments.

Sea level as trigger mechanism for mass-transportdeposition

The two factors responsible for initiation of masstransports are strength reduction and stress increase(Prior and Coleman 1984). Strength reduction isessentially a product of internal sediment variations ofwater content, pore water and gas pressure. They canbe changed by sedimentary loading, pressure from sur-face waves during storms, sea-level changes, and pore-gas generation due to internal geochemical and bacte-riological processes. A gravitational stress increasemight be induced by tectonics, localized sea-floor ero-sion, waves and sedimentation (Prior and Coleman1984). Debris flows are deposited when the gravita-tional force decreases below the strength of the debrisand a sudden ªfreezingº occurs (Middleton andHampton 1976).

Among the various factors and mechanisms thatcontrol the slope sedimentation, we discuss the mass-transport deposits of St. Paul in light of fluctuations ofthe relative sea level that may influence accommoda-tion space at the ramp: sea-level drops initiate ramp

progradation. Recent studies on the Paleocene sea-level history of the Sinai (Lüning et al. 1998) suggest amain sea-level drop at the base of P4 (within NP5)and subsequent sea-level oscillations during P4, similarto the cycle boundaries of Hardenbol et al. (1998).Speijer and Schmitz (1998) reconstructed a paleao-depth curve of that interval based on studies of ben-thic foraminifers from Gebel Aweina (ca. 300 km tothe south). These authors also concluded a sea-leveldrop during lower P4 (upper part of NP5), matchingTH 1 of Hardenbol et al. (1998) and probablyTH Sin2 of Lüning et al. (1998). If the mass-transportdeposits of Units B and D and the respective cycleboundaries SelGal2 and SelGal(?) would be consid-ered as lowstand deposits, this would fit in thesequence stratigraphic frame of Lüning et al. (1998)and Hardenbol et al. (1998); however, if both mass-transport deposits would be attributed to the samesea-level lowstand, the duration of Unit C would bevery short. Another possibility is the non-correlationof one of the two cycle boundaries with any knownlowstand. This might have two reasons: the local char-acter of the lowstand, or mass-transport deposits ofone of the units are not related to a sea-level lowstandbut are triggered by other mechanisms, e.g. tectonics.However, the onset of the mass-transport deposits ofunit F (due to ramp progradation and regional low-stand) coincides with cycle boundary ThGal1 (Fig. 3),as per TH Sin5 (Lüning et al. 1998) and TH 4 (Hard-enbol et al. 1998) and a sea-level drop discussed bySpeijer and Schmitz (1998).

Conclusion

During the late Paleocene (P3±P4) interval, threephases of carbonate ramp progradation and threehemipelagic units were differentiated at the southernGalala (St. Paul). The three prograding phases areindicated by increased mass-transport deposition com-posed of glides, slumps and DFs which came from dif-ferent directions excluding the south. Each subsequentadvance of ramp progradation was more pronounced.Microfacies investigations (deduced mainly from clastsin the DF deposits) highlight the changing deposi-tional origins from a basinal outer-ramp setting to amiddle- to inner-ramp setting at the end of the Paleo-cene. Moreover, changes in organism compositionwith time were evidenced: During early P4, corallina-cean algae thrived on the ramp (especially at theinner- to middle-ramp transition and the shoal area),whereas during late P4 these areas were dominated bynummulitids.

Sea-level changes are a likely trigger for the onsetof mass-transport deposition. Comparisons withregional cycle boundary interpretations led to theattribution of at least two mass-transport deposits tolowstands. The two older mass transport deposits(Units B and D) either reflect one event (attributed

723

to a single sea-level drop) or one of them reflects alocal lowstand or has been triggered by other mech-anisms independent of sea-level change, e.g. tectonics.Both, Units B and D, show on top of the strata abun-dant Thalassinoides burrows followed by hemipelagicmarly intercalations that are probably indications for aflooding surface indicating a subsequent transgressivephase.

In contrast to the carbonate mass-transport depos-its, siliciclastic sediments are of minor importance inthe investigated area. They are probably sourced viasubmarine canyons and reflect sediment bypassing.Whereas the transport mechanism of siliciclasticdeposits has a point-source character, carbonatedeposits are dominated by a line-source character.

Acknowledgements A.M. Bassiouni (Ain Shams University) isespecially thanked for the logistical support and making work inEgypt possible for us (organisation of permits). A. MohsenMorsi (Ain Shams University) is also thanked for logistical sup-port, for providing his room for the washing of samples, and anopen ear for all problems encountered during our stay in Egypt.All other colleagues of the Department of Geology of AinShams University and the monks of the monastery of St. Paulare thanked for their hospitality. R. Speijer (University ofBremen) is thanked for help with the planktic foraminifers andcomments on a previous version of the paper. A. Scharf, R. Bät-zel and M. Brinkmann (all from University of Bremen) helpedwith sample preparation. E. Friedel read and corrected the man-uscript. The manuscript was improved by reviews by J. Grötsch,T. Bechstedt and G. Einsele. The investigations were funded bythe Graduiertenkolleg ªStoff-Flüsse in marinen Geosystemenºof the University of Bremen and the German Science Founda-tion (DFG).

References

Abdel-Kireem MR, Abdou HF (1979) Upper Cretaceous±LowerTertiary planktonic foraminifera from South Galala Plateau,Eastern Desert, Egypt. Rev Espanola Micropaleontol11 : 175±222

Abdou HF, Naim EM, Sultan IZ (1969) Biostratigraphic studieson the Lower Tertiary rocks of Gebel Umm Rokham andSaint Paul area, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Bull Faculty SciAlexandria 9 : 271±299

Aigner T (1983) Facies and origin of nummulitic buildups: anexample from the Giza Pyramids Plateau (Middle Eocene,Egypt). N Jahr Geol Paläont Abh 166 : 347±368

Bandel K, Kuss J (1987) Depositional environment of the pre-rift sediments: Galala Heights (Gulf of Suez, Egypt). Ber-liner Geowiss Abh A 78 : 1±48

Berggren WA, Kent DV, Swisher CC III, Aubry MP (1995) Arevised Cenozoic geochronology and chronostratigraphy. In:Berggren WA, Kent KV, Aubry MP, Hardenbol J (eds)Geochronolgy, time scales, and global stratigraphic correla-tion. SEPM Spec Publ 54 : 129±212

Bosence DWJ (1991) Coralline algae: mineralization, taxonomy,and palaeoecology. In: Riding R (ed) Calcareous algae andstromatolites. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp98±113

Bryan JR (1991) A Paleocene coral-algal-sponge reef fromsouthwestern Alabama and the ecology of Early Tertiaryreefs. Lethaia 24 : 423±438

Buchbinder B (1977) The coralline algae from the Miocene Ziq-lag Formation in Israel and their environmental significance.In: Flügel E (eds) Fossil algae: recent results and devel-opments. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 279±285

Cook HE, Mullins HT (1983) Basin margin environment. In:Scholle PA, Bebout DG, Moore CH (eds) Carbonate deposi-tional environments. AAPG Mem 33 : 539±617

Drobne K (1975) Hottingerina lukasi n.gen., n.sp. (Foraminifer-ida) iz srednjega paleocena v severozahodni jugoslaviji.Radzprave 18 : 242±253

Einsele G (1991) Submarine mass flow deposits and turbidites.In: Einsele G, Ricken W, Seilacher A (eds) Cycles andevents in stratigraphy. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg NewYork, pp 313±339

Enos P (1977) Flow regimes in debris flow. Sedimentology24 : 133±142

Faris M (1995) Late Cretaceous and Paleocene calcareous nan-nofossil biostratigraphy at St. Paul section, southern GalalaPlateau, Egypt. Ann Geol Surv Egypt 20 : 527±538

Fisher RV (1983) Flow transformations in sediment gravityflows. Geology 11 : 273±274

Ghose BK (1977) Paleoecology of the Cenozoic reefal foraminif-ers and algae: a brief review. Palaeogeogr PalaeoclimatolPalaeoecol 22 : 231±356

Gietl R (1998) Biostratigraphie und Sedimentationsmuster einernordostägyptischen Karbonatrampe unter Berücksichtigungder Alveolinen-Faunen. Berichte Fachbereich Geowiss UnivBremen 112 : 1±135

Hardenbol J, Thierry J, Farley MB, Jacquin T, Graciansky PCde, Vail PR (1998) Mesozoic±Cenozoic sequence chronos-tratigraphic framework of European basins. In: GracianskyPC de, Hardenbol J, Jacquin T, Vail PR, Farley MB (eds)Sequence stratigraphy of European basins. SEPM Spec Publ60 : 1±13

Hottinger L, Drobne K (1980) Early Tertiary conical imper-forate foraminifera. Radzprave 22 : 188±276

Hottinger L, Lehmann R, Schaub H (1964) Don�es actuelles surla biostratigraphie du Nummulitique MØditerranØen. MØmBur Rech Geol Min (Colloque PalØog�ne, Bordeaux)28 : 611±652

Ismail MM, Abdallah AM (1966) Contribution to the stratigra-phy of St. Paul Monastery area by microfacies. Bull FacultySci Alexandria 12 : 325±334

Kulbrok F (1996) Biostratigraphie, Fazies und Sequenzstrati-graphie einer Karbonatrampe in den Schichten der Oberk-reide und des Alttertiärs Nordost-¾gyptens (Eastern Desert,N'Golf von Suez, Sinai). Berichte Fachbereich Geowiss UnivBremen 81 : 1±216

Kulbrok F, Kuss J (1995) Sedimentary sequences of the LateCretaceous/early Tertiary succession in NE Egypt. TerraNostra 1 : 28±29

Kuss J, Leppig U (1989) The early Tertiary (middle-late Paleo-cene) limestones from the western Gulf of Suez, Egypt. NJahrb Geol Paläont Abh 177 : 289±332

Kuss J, Scheibner C, Gietl R (submitted) Late Cretaceous-earlyTertiary platform to basin transition along a Syrian Arcuplift (Eastern Desert, Egypt)

Leppig U (1987) Biostratigraphy of larger foraminifera andfacies development from the Upper Albian to the MiddlePaleocene in the Sierra de Cantabria and the Montes Oba-renes (northwestern Spain). N Jahrb Geol Paläont Mh1987 : 647±666

Lowe DR (1976) Subaqueous liquefied and fluidized sedimentflows and their deposits. Sedimentology 23 : 285±308

Luger P (1985) Stratigraphie der marinen Oberkreide und desAlttertiärs im südwestlichen Obernil-Becken (SW-¾gypten)unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Mikropaläontologie,Palökologie Paläogeographie. Berliner Geowiss Abh A63 : 1±151

Lüning S, Marzouk AM, Kuss J (1998) The Paleocene of centralEast Sinai, Egypt: ªsequence stratigraphyº in monotonoushemipelagites. J Foraminiferal Res 28 : 19±39

Martini E (1971) Standard Tertiary and Quaternary calcareousnannoplankton zonation. In: Farinacci A (ed) Proc SecondPlanktonic Conference, Rome 1970, pp 739±785

724

Middleton GV, Hampton MA (1976) Subaqueous sedimenttransport and deposition by sediment gravity flows. In: Stan-ley DJ, Swift DJP (eds) Marine sediment transport and envi-ronmental management. Wiley, New York, pp 197±218

Moustafa AR, Khalil MH (1995) Superposed deformation in thenorthern Suez Rift, Egypt: relevance to hydrocarbons explo-ration. J Petrol Geol 18 : 245±266

Mutti E (1992) Turbidite sandstones. Agip S.p.A., Milan, pp1±275

Olsson RK, Hemleben C, Berggren WA, Huber BT (1999) Atlasof Paleocene planktonic foraminifera. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington DC, pp 1±252

Piper DJW, Cochonat P, Morrison ML (1999) The sequence ofevents around the epicentre of the 1929 Grand Banks earth-quake: initiation of debris flows and turbidity currentinferred from sidescan sonar. Sedimentology 46 : 79±97

Postma G (1986) Classification for sediment gravity-flow depos-its based on flow conditions during sedimentation. Geology14 : 291±294

Prather BE, Booth JR, Steffens GS, Craig PA (1998) Classifica-tion, lithologic calibration, and stratigraphic succession ofseismic facies of intraslope basins, deep-water Gulf of Mexi-co. AAPG Bull 82 : 701±728

Prior DB, Coleman JM (1984) Submarine slope instability. In:Brunsden D, Prior DB (eds) Slope instability. Wiley, NewYork, pp 419±455

Schuster F (1996) Paleoecology of Paleocene and Eocene coralsfrom the Kharga and Farafra Oases (Western Desert, Egypt)and the depositional history of the Paleocene Abu Tarturcarbonate platform, Kharga Oasis. Tübinger Geowiss ArbeitA 31 : pp 1±96

Serra-Kiel J, Hottinger L, Caus E, Drobne K, Ferrandez C,Jauhri AK, Less G, Pavlovec R, Pignatti J, Samso JM,Schaub H, Sirel E, Strougo A, Tambareau Y, Tosquella J,Zakrevskaya E (1998) Larger foraminiferal biostratigraphyof the Tethyan Paleocene and Eocene. Bull Soc GØol France169 : 281±299

Speijer RP (1994) The late Paleocene benthic foraminiferalextinction as observed in the Middle East. Bull Soc BelgeGØol 103 : 267±280

Speijer RP, Schmitz B (1998) A benthic foraminiferal record ofPaleocene sea level and trophic/redox conditions at GebelAweina, Egypt. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol137 : 79±101

Strougo A, Haggag MAY, Luterbacher H (1992) The basalPaleocene ªGlobigerinaº eugubina zone in the EasternDesert (St. Paul's Monastery, South Galala), Egypt. N JahrbGeol Paläont Mh 1992 : 97±101

Vecsei A, Moussavian E (1997) Paleocene Reefs on the Maiellaplatform margin, Italy: an example of the effects of the Cre-taceous/Tertiary boundary events on reefs and carbonateplatforms. Facies 36 : 123±140

White MR (1994) Foraminiferal biozonation of the northernOman Tertiary carbonate succession. In: Simmons MD (eds)Micropaleontology and hydrocarbon exploration in theMiddle East. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 309±332

Zhicheng Z, Willems H, Binggao Z (1997) Marine Cretaceous±Paleogene biofacies and ichnofacies in southern Tibet, China,and their sedimentary significance. Mar Micropaleontol32 : 2±3