Kinematics and evolution of the northern branch of theNorth Anatolian Fault (Ganos Fault) between the

Sea of Marmara and the Gulf of Saros

Cenk Yalt|rak a;b;�, Bedri Alpar c

a I�stanbul Technical University, Faculty of Mines, 80626 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkeyb I�stanbul Technical University, Institute of Eurasian Earth Sciences, 80626 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

c I�stanbul University, Institute of Marine Sciences and Management, 34470 Vefa, Istanbul, Turkey

Received 2 May 2001; accepted 19 February 2002

Abstract

The WSW^ENE-trending Ganos Fault is a dextral strike-slip fault running parallel to and southwest of the WestMarmara Trough and south of the Saros Trough. Dextral structures started evolving in the early Miocene, and at thistime the Ganos fault system developed from a part of the Thrace^Eskis3ehir fault system. Beginning in the latePliocene (V3.5 Ma), the North Anatolian transform fault propagated into the Marmara region and captured theGanos Fault. Subsequently, this fault has accommodated the westward movement of the Anatolian Block. Because ofthe curvature of the microplate boundary in this area, the Ganos fault system has tended to rotate counterclockwise.Farther west in the Gulf of Saros, the strike-slip motion was accommodated by a new fault on the northern margin ofthe gulf, rather than along the northern coast of the Gelibolu Peninsula as previously thought. This interpretationdiffers from previous assessments of the position of the northern strand of the North Anatolian fault (Marmarasegment) in the Marmara Sea and in the Gulf of Saros. The role of the Ganos Fault proposed in this paper isconsiderably different from that proposed by earlier studies. While the revised orientation of the North Anatolianfault on land is about 7‡ different than specified by previous authors, at sea it is different by V32‡ counterclockwiseand V23‡ clockwise in the West Marmara and Saros submarine depressions, respectively. The revised position of theGanos Fault in the Marmara Sea, derived from shallow and conventional seismic reflection data, calls into questionthe validity of evolutionary models previously used in kinematic and stress-failure analyses. In particular, it is notpossible to regard the Marmara Sea as a pull-apart basin and the Gulf of Saros as a transtensional half-graben.Furthermore, palinspastic maps taking into account the revised position of the Ganos Fault and GPS slip vectorssupport the idea that a dextral master fault is present to the north of the Saros Trough with a sinistral oblique faultdominated by normal offset (Gelibolu Fault) to its south. The Gelibolu Fault is reactivated in a limited region.; 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gulf of Saros; Aegean; Marmara Sea; active faulting; seismic re£ection; North Anatolian Fault; Ganos Fault

1. Introduction

The portion of the North Anatolian fault be-tween the western Marmara Sea and the Gulf of

0025-3227 / 02 / $ ^ see front matter ; 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 0 2 5 - 3 2 2 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 3 5 4 - 7

* Corresponding author. Fax: +90-212-2856119.E-mail address: yaltirak@itu.edu.tr (C. Yalt|rak).

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366

www.elsevier.com/locate/margeo

Saros is known as the Ganos fault system or zone(Fig. 1A) (Yalt|rak, 1996). The Ganos fault sys-tem is composed of a series of faults disposed tothe north and south of a master fault observed onland, that cover the western part of the MarmaraSea and the North Aegean Trough (Fig. 1B).These faults lie sub-parallel to the master fault.They are generally strike-slip and thrust faultson land and normal oblique faults at sea (Yal-t|rak, 1996; Yalt|rak et al., 1998).

Gutzwiller (1923) was the ¢rst to notice a faultbetween the Gulf of Saros and the Marmara Sea.According to Sieberg (1932), the Gulf of Saros isthe northernmost depression in the Aegean gra-ben system, which is connected with the MarmaraSea depressions by the Ganos Fault. Later, P|nar(1943) proposed a hypothetical fault extending theGanos^Eksamil Fault (Gutzwiller, 1923) west-ward into the Gulf of Saros, and eastward toIzmit Bay through the Marmara Sea depressions.Pfannenstiel (1944), combining the proposals ofAndrussov (1890) and Sieberg (1932), de¢nedthe elements of the Ganos fault system as thewestern part of a west-trending rhomboidal struc-ture and proposed that the Saros Trough repre-sents a graben structure.

Following the identi¢cation of the North Ana-tolian fault as an active dextral strike-slip fault byKetin (1948), Pavoni (1961) postulated the Ganosfault system as the northernmost branch of theNorth Anatolian fault, where it bifurcates intowestward-trending segments. Kopp et al. (1969),based on studies in Thrace, considered the GanosFault an extension of a fault centred in the deepMarmara Sea troughs. Following these ap-proaches, Dewey and S3engo«r (1979) consideredGanos (Is3|klar) mountain as a zone of compres-sion (restraining bend) and later S3engo«r (1979)took the view that the Ganos mountain is athrust-generated uplift above the basement ofthe Marmara Sea. In that case, the Gulf of Sarosshould be considered as a NE^SW-striking grabenproduced by N^S extension caused by the devia-tion of the master fault (S3engo«r et al., 1985).

Early seismic re£ection data available in theMarmara Sea (Barka and Gu«len, 1988) supportedthe oblique extensional model (Barka, 1983),prompting Barka and Kadinsky-Cade (1988) to

advance their well-known pull-apart model, whichwas discussed during the 1970s by many research-ers but without su⁄cient seismic data for its con-¢rmation. Meanwhile, Saner (1985) interpreted re-£ection data acquired in the Gulf of Saros andcon¢rmed the strike-slip character of the GanosFault along the Gelibolu Peninsula; he suggested,however, that it behaved as a normal fault in theGulf of Saros. Subsequently, Oº nal (1986) sug-gested that the structural elements on the Gelibo-lu Peninsula formed as a result of compressionoblique to the Ganos Fault.

The extension of the Ganos Fault into the Mar-mara Sea was ¢rst considered in the framework ofa model of strike-slip faults alternating with pull-apart basins (Erkal, 1991). However, Wong et al.(1995) and Ergu«n and Oº zel (1995) realised thattheir new high-resolution shallow seismic datawere not consistent with the pull-apart model.They recognised ¢ve blocks, consisting of threerhombus-shaped basins and two NE^SW-trendingintervening transpressional push-up structuresaligned oblique to the dextral North Anatoliantransform fault. In their model, the Ganos Faultforms the extension of the Marmara trough com-posed of these three basins, with strike-slip char-acter on land giving way to a south-dipping nor-mal fault at sea between Gaziko«y and Kumbagfl.

Yalt|rak (1996), who de¢ned the fault system tothe west of the Marmara Sea and named it theGanos fault system, proposed that this systemwas active in ¢ve geologic periods: Cretaceous^Palaeocene, early^middle Eocene, middle Eo-cene^late Oligocene, early Miocene^late Miocene,and Plio^Quaternary. In addition, the basins thatwere controlled by these faults were superimposedon the Saros and West Marmara troughs. Thisstudy concluded that the dextral Ganos fault sys-tem developed by separating from the Thrace^Es-kis3ehir fault system (Sak|nc3 et al., 1999) as a ‘¢sh-bone structure’ (Bozkurt and Koc3yigflit, 1996) inthe early Miocene^early Pliocene and was subse-quently repeatedly reactivated. This tectonic re-gime was superimposed on the North Anatoliantransform fault regime and continues today (Yal-t|rak, 2002). A similar relationship is observedbetween the North Anatolian fault and both theYagflmurlu^Ezinepazar fault zone and Almus fault

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366352

Fig. 1. (A) Tectonic setting of the eastern Mediterranean. GFZ: Ganos Fault Zone, TEFZ: Thrace^Eskis3ehir Fault Zone,BFFZ: Burdur^Fethiye Fault Zone, NAFZ: North Anatolian Fault Zone, YEFZ: Yagflmurlu^Ezinepazar Fault Zone; AFZ: Al-mus Fault Zone. Figures compiled from Yalt|rak et al. (1998) and Bozkurt (2001). (B) Geological map of the study area.(C) Generalised stratigraphic column of the post-Neogene units in the study area. Figures compiled from Yalt|rak (1996), Yal-t|rak et al. (1998), Sak|nc3 et al. (1999) and Yalt|rak et al. (2000a,b).

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366 353

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366354

zone (Fig. 1A) (Bozkurt and Koc3yigflit, 1996; Boz-kurt, 2001).

The Ganos Fault is an active tectonic structuralelement, con¢rmed by its accommodation of thelarge 1912 earthquake (Ambraseys and Finkel,1987). Palaeocurrent measurements in upper Plio-cene^lower Pleistocene £uvial units on the Geli-bolu Peninsula indicate that the material wastransported from the direction of the Gulf ofSaros (Yalt|rak, 1995a). It was suggested thatthe reason for this is that the development ofthe Anafartalar thrust fault on the Gelibolu Pen-insula has been constricted by the North Anato-lian fault. In order to examine this new hypoth-esis, which contradicts the notion that the NorthAnatolian fault is a strike-slip fault in the Gulf ofSaros with an extensional component, Yalt|rak(1996) examined the kinematic features of the Ga-nos fault system. On the basis of fold axes andfaults mapped on the Gelibolu Peninsula andalong the coastal area of the Gulf of Saros, Yal-t|rak (1996) identi¢ed a dextral shearing mecha-nism for the northern coastal area of the Gulf ofSaros, and a sinistral shearing mechanism startingfrom the town of Gelibolu on the Gelibolu Pen-insula. Based on the premise that the Gulf ofSaros was a pre-North Anatolian fault structure,Yalt|rak (1996) proposed that the Ganos Faultextends into the Gulf of Saros as a sinistralstrike-slip fault. This is a necessary condition forthe development of the transpressional Anafarta-lar thrust fault and the west-trending folds ob-served on the Gelibolu Peninsula.

In order to explain the kinematics of the region,a high-resolution single-channel marine re£ectionsurvey was carried out in the Gulf of Saros. Theresults together with ¢eld surveys (Yalt|rak et al.,1998) also support dextral shearing to the northand sinistral shearing to the south. Subsequently,the same research group carried out a similar

high-resolution re£ection study in the Strait ofC3anakkale (Alpar et al., 1996). The Strait ofC3anakkale (Dardanelles) is a narrow valley thatresulted from regional uplift of the Gelibolu andBiga Peninsulas in the Pliocene. As a consequenceof that uplift, the area was ruptured by N^S-trending normal faults under the in£uence of sin-istral shearing forces (Yalt|rak et al., 2000a). Tak-ing into account this fault pattern and GPS slipvectors, Yalt|rak et al. (2000a) constructed a mod-el in which the Ganos Fault crosses the northernmargin of the Gulf of Saros, rather than followingthe steep northern shores of the Gelibolu Penin-sula. The conventional seismic re£ection pro¢lespublished in Saatc3|lar et al. (1999) and Kurt et al.(2000) now allow us to test this hypothesis.

In summary, it has been widely assumed thatthe Ganos Fault runs along the northern shoresof the Gelibolu Peninsula (Tu«ysu«z et al., 1998;Okay et al., 1999; Saatc3|lar et al., 1999; Kurt etal., 2000). However, recent marine seismic dataand regional GPS studies have brought this as-sumption into question. The most important ofthese doubts concerns the position of the GanosFault in the Gulf of Saros and in the westernMarmara Sea (Yalt|rak et al., 1998, 2000a,b;Sak|nc3 et al., 1999) and has been discussed byArmijo et al. (1999) and Yalt|rak et al. (2000b).At the root of the present disagreement are thefault patterns used in con£icting models. For ex-ample, Saatc3|lar et al. (1999) and Kurt et al.(2000) adopted the generally assumed fault posi-tions in interpreting the regional signi¢cance oftheir seismic pro¢les, even though the assumedfaults have not been mapped on land (Tu«ysu«z etal., 1998; Armijo et al., 1999).

The apparent basic tectonic misconception con-cerning the location of major faults on land andat sea forces us to question published assessmentsof seismic hazards, the probability of strong shak-

Fig. 2. Tectonic and bathymetric map of the Ganos Fault System and its surrounds. WMR: West Marmara Ridge, ST: SarosTrough, MMT: Middle Marmara Trough, WMT; West Marmara Trough. The faults in the Gulf of Saros were redrawn fromshallow seismic investigations of Yalt|rak et al. (1998, 2000a,b) and from the conventional seismic data of Saatc3|lar et al. (1999)and Kurt et al. (2000). The faults in the Marmara Sea were redrawn from the conventional seismic data of Okay et al. (1999)and Siyako et al. (2000). The master fault is coloured white and outlined in black. Bathymetry data are from Yalt|rak et al.(1998, 2000a) and Aksu et al. (1999).

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366 355

ing, and the way in which stress is accommodatedin the Marmara Sea (e.g. Nalbant et al., 1998;Hubert-Ferrari et al., 2000; Parsons et al.,2000). The discrepancies and di¡erences betweenthe various articles published during the last de-cade are, evidently, due to a lack of integratedmarine and land-based studies of the structuraland kinematic evolution of the region. Due tohigh estimates of the percentage probability(62 V 15%) of strong shaking in the MarmaraSea within the next 30 years (Parsons et al.,2000), the region has become a natural laboratoryfor earth scientists (Le Pichon et al., 1999). Theprimary aim of the present study is to combinethe results of shallow and conventional marineseismic investigations with structural elements ob-served on land so as to delineate actual ratherthan theoretical fault patterns.

2. Seismic data

Marine seismic data relevant to the evolution ofthe Gulf of Saros and its surroundings have beenpublished in six papers: Yalt|rak et al. (1998),Saatc3|lar et al. (1999), Okay et al. (1999), Yalt|raket al. (2000a), Kurt et al. (2000) and Siyako et al.(2000). These data sets were collected and pro-cessed by various institutions or groups.

Shallow re£ection data used by Yalt|rak et al.(1998) consist of 560 line-km of high-resolutionanalogue sparker (1 kJ) pro¢les acquired by theDepartment of Navigation, Hydrography andOceanography (DNHO) in 1995^96. The pro¢lesare located in the Gulf of Saros (15), in the areabetween Go«kc3eada (Imbros) island and the Geli-bolu Peninsula (15) and in the area between Boz-caada (Tenedos) island and the Biga Peninsula(6). In Yalt|rak et al. (2000a), two di¡erent datasets were considered: 270 analogue Uniboom (200J) pro¢les (1240 line-km) acquired by DNHO inthree legs between 1977 and 1991 along the Straitof C3anakkale, and 11 digital Sparker (1.25 kJ)pro¢les (260 line-km) recorded by the Marine Sci-ences and Management Institute of Istanbul Uni-versity at the Aegean exit of the strait in 1997(Fig. 2A,B).

We have also re-interpreted three multi-channel

pro¢les acquired in the Marmara Sea, two ofwhich were published by Okay et al. (1999) andthe other by Siyako et al. (2000), and nine con-ventional 12-fold multi-channel re£ection pro¢leswhich were acquired in the Gulf of Saros by theInstitute of Mineral Research and Exploration(MTA) during cruises in 1996^97. These latterdata were used in the studies of Saatc3|lar et al.(1999) (nine pro¢les, 275 line-km) and Kurt et al.(2000) (seven pro¢les, 159 line-km).

In this paper, we develop a structural blockdiagram of the Gulf of Saros and the West Mar-mara Trough using all the available seismic data,and de¢ne the tectonic pattern of the Ganos faultsystem between these regions (Fig. 2C). To ac-complish this, we have correlated deeper struc-tures on the multi-channel data with shallow tec-tonic elements and then mapped them in a mannerconsistent with Yalt|rak et al. (1998, 2000a).

3. Stratigraphy

The stratigraphy of the study area can be divid-ed into two sectors: north and south of the GanosFault Zone (GFZ). Although the post-Palaeogenestratigraphy shows no important discrepancies be-tween these sectors, the thicknesses of the depositsdi¡er as a result of variable fault activity. Theborehole data (Fig. 3) as well as lateral facieschanges observed on land (Fig. 1B,C) con¢rm this.

3.1. Sector north of the GFZ

The oldest Neogene strata are the middle Mio-cene £uvial sandstones to the south of Kes3an(Fig. 1) (Uº nay and de Bruijn, 1984). In the regionbetween Enez and Erikli, the stratigraphic se-quence starts with lacustrine and meandering-£uviatile mudstones and terminates with upperMiocene^lower Pliocene (?) limestone layers inter-calated with shallow marine clastic sediments(Ternek, 1949; Saner, 1985; Sak|nc3 et al., 1999).The only volcanics are middle-upper Miocene ba-saltic layers, intercalated within the Neogeneunits, outcropping in the central parts of Thraceas small-scale patches (Su«mengen et al., 1987;Tap|rdamaz and Yalt|rak, 1997). Radiometric

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366356

dating of outcrops at Mahmutko«y (Fig. 1B) givesan age of 6.7 V 0.7 Ma (Su«mengen et al., 1987).The most prominent feature of the northern sec-tor is a period of non-deposition and denudationduring the middle to late Pliocene (3.7^3.4 Ma,Yalt|rak et al., 2000b). This hiatus indicates thatthe area started to uplift after early Pliocene. Atpresent, even the Pleistocene units crop out tensof metres above the elevation at which they weredeposited because of the uplift (Yalt|rak et al.,2002).

3.2. Sector south of the GFZ

Basalts are present in the Palaeogene sequencenear Yeniko«y (Gelibolu) (Fig. 1B). Since thesebasalts supplied detritus to the widely distributedterrestrial units of the lower-middle Miocene Gaz-hanedere formation, they must be older. The Pa-laeogene units to the south of the GFZ are over-lain by multicoloured meandering-£uviatilemudstones deposited in the early(?)^middle Mio-cene (Uº nay and de Bruijn, 1984). These deposits

Fig. 3. The correlation of the post-early Miocene units drilled along the western Marmara Sea and Gulf of Saros (TPAO bore-hole data; Yalt|rak, 1996; Yalt|rak et al., 2000a).

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366 357

include the well-known Gazhanedere formation.They usually lie with an angular unconformityon the older Palaeogene strata, as seen aroundthe towns of Gaziko«y, Mu«refte, s3arko«y and Gel-ibolu; bedding above and below the unconformitymay be parallel locally, such as near the town ofB. Anafarta (Salt|k, 1974; Siyako et al., 1989;Yalt|rak, 1995a,b; Yalt|rak et al., 1998, 2000b;Sak|nc3 et al., 1999). On top of these mudstones,with lateral and vertical transitions, rests the Kir-azl| Formation, made of massive and semi-con-solidated sandstone representing beach andback-beach lithofacies of the late Miocene (Salt|k,1974; Siyako et al., 1989; Yalt|rak, 1995a,b; Yal-t|rak et al., 1998, 2000b; Sak|nc3 et al., 1999). TheKirazl| Formation is conformably overlain by theAlc3|tepe Formation, which is made of cross-bedded calcareous sandstones and gravels, repre-senting shallow-marine and lacustrine deposition-al environments (Oº nem, 1974; Yalt|rak, 1995a,b;Yalt|rak et al., 1998, 2000b; Sak|nc3 et al., 1999).Above the Alc3|tepe formation are upper Mio-cene^lower(?) Pliocene, mactra-bearing lime-stones, deposited in marine to lagoonal deposi-tional environments (Taner, 1979; Yalt|rak,1995a). In the vicinity of the transpressional Ana-fartalar Thrust Fault, the middle Miocene^lowerPliocene (?) sequence is overlain at a parallel-to-angular (sub-parallel) unconformity by upperPliocene^lower Pleistocene alluvial-fan depositswidely distributed on the Gelibolu Peninsula.This, the Conkbay|r| Formation, is made up ofmudstone^sandstone^pebblestone intercalations

with an increasing grain size upward and contain-ing polygenic pebbles (Salt|k, 1974; Su«mengen etal., 1987; Yalt|rak, 1995a; Yalt|rak et al., 1998,2000b; Sak|nc3 et al., 1999). Finally, the Oº zbekand Marmara formations, made up of fossilifer-ous siliciclastics, unconformably overlie the Con-kbay|r| formation. These were formed in a coastalenvironment during the late Pleistocene and arepresently found between the towns of C3anakkaleand Gaziko«y (Fig. 1B,C) (Sak|nc3 and Yalt|rak,1997; Yalt|rak et al., 2000a,b).

Based on stratigraphical and structural evi-dence, Armijo et al. (1999) proposed that allu-vial-fan deposits of the Conkbay|r| formationshow lateral transitions into the shallow-marineto lagoonal deposits of the Alc3|tepe formation.They also claimed that both formations were de-posited atop an angular unconformity above theKirazl| Formation following Messinian desicca-tion. However, there is no unconformity at thisstratigraphic level (Sak|nc3 et al., 1999; Yalt|rak etal., 2000b). Our detailed ¢eld observations haveindicated that the apparent angular discordance isin fact an illusion.

4. Structural framework

In the study area, all structures developedabove the axis of the modern Ganos Fault havebeen subjected to inversion tectonics. The inver-sion has also a¡ected the distribution of deposi-tional environments and morphology of the ter-

Fig. 4. The relationship between the North Anatolian fault and the Thrace^Eskis3ehir fault during the period 4^3 Ma.

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366358

rain. These structures are related to the NorthAnatolian fault only for the last 3.5 million years.However, the Thrace^Eskis3ehir fault previouslya¡ected these deposits, from the beginning ofthe neotectonic period at the end of the earlyMiocene (Sak|nc3 et al., 1999). This implies twodi¡erent neotectonic periods in which the Ganosfault system interacted ¢rst with the Thrace^Es-kis3ehir fault and subsequently with the NorthAnatolian fault (Yalt|rak, 2002, this volume).These can be de¢ned as early and late neotectonicperiods. The early neotectonic period covers theearly Miocene-early Pliocene, when the GanosFault was a branch of the Thrace-Eskis3ehir fault,while the late neotectonic period covers late Plio-cene-Present, when the Ganos Fault was a branchof the North Anatolian fault (Yalt|rak, 2002). TheGanos fault system was ¢rst activated as a part ofthe Thrace^Eskis3ehir Fault Zone in the form of a‘¢shbone structure’ (Fig. 4A). In the late Pliocene,when the North Anatolian transform faultreached the Marmara Sea region, the Ganos faultsystem was captured by the North Anatolian faultsystem (Fig. 4B).

4.1. Ganos Fault, its position and features

The Ganos Fault is the main element of theGanos fault system (Fig. 2). The Ganos Faultis believed to have a¡ected and shaped all thestrata to its north and south (Yalt|rak, 1996).The Ganos Fault starts in the West MarmaraTrough, passes through the towns of Gaziko«yand Evres3e, the Gulf of Saros, and reaches Samo-thraki Island in the northern Aegean Sea.

4.1.1. The West Marmara TroughThe Ganos Fault strikes east into the western

Marmara Sea (Fig. 2). The fault passing along thesouthern edge of the West Marmara Trough rep-resents a typical negative £ower structure on seis-mic sections (Fig. 5). The contemporaneous Plio^Quaternary strata on both sides of the Ganosfault have di¡erent seismic character. They showreleasing seismic character to the north (greatersubsidence), while compressional seismic charac-ter is dominant to the south. At ¢rst glance thisstructural di¡erence may seem odd. The compres-

sion observed on the southern block can be ex-plained by dextral shearing along the curved Ga-nos Fault. The releasing seismic characterobserved on the northern block could have beengenerated by oblique extension, which is domi-nant in a limited region in the West MarmaraTrough due to the WSW-oriented migration ofthe southern block. In other words, the foldingobserved to the south of the master fault is dueto a 7‡ counterclockwise rotation of the GanosFault as it approaches the town of Gaziko«y(Fig. 2). Okay et al. (1999) have identi¢ed a com-pressional structure on the multi-channel re£ec-tion pro¢les, which is oblique to the master faultand positioned somewhere on this curved faultsegment; they interpreted this to coincide withthe Ganos Fault. Therefore, they concluded thatthe Ganos mountain was uplifted on a NW-strik-ing thrust. This inferrred thrust is of small scale,having an aspect ratio of V1:18, comparable tothe greater size of the Ganos mountain (Okay etal., 1999; Figs. 2 and 8A).

The master fault starts from the deepest end ofa submarine depression and extends to the townof Gaziko«y. The orientation of the West Mar-mara Trough fault segment is N57‡E in the stud-ies of Barka (1992), Ergu«n and Oº zel (1995), Wonget al. (1995) and Armijo et al. (1999). However,the seismic sections published in the studies ofOkay et al. (1999) and Siyako et al. (2000) indi-cate that this segment strikes N89‡E (Figs. 2and 5).

4.1.2. Gaziko«y^Evres3e segmentStarting from the east, the fault ¢rst passes

from the north of Gaziko«y village to the southernfoot of the Ganos mountain where it is delineatedby a de¢nite contact between Eocene basementand the overlying Miocene strata (Fig. 1B).Young valleys between Mursall| and Gaziko«y vil-lages are the only places where direct detailed ¢eldobservations of the fault plane are possible. O¡-sets measured on the fault cutting the young de-posits in these valleys are of the order of 1^5 m.Similar o¡sets were also observed along the roadsto Mursall| and Gu«zelko«y villages. These o¡setsare the result of the most recent (1912) earth-quake. A reverse component was observed along

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366 359

the open fault surface between Mursall| and Gaz-iko«y villages. The orientation of these surfaces is055‡/87NW and 060‡/85NW. The width of theshear zone between Mursall| and Gu«zelko«y is10 m. The fault bifurcates at the town of Go«lcu«k,forming a pressure ridge. Young alluvial deposits,which can be observed near the dammed lakealong the road going to the Evres3e plain fromYeniko«y village (Fig. 1B), are a few tens of metresfrom the Ganos Fault. These westward-dippingdeposits are on the southern block. At this local-ity, marine deposits of the Upper PleistoceneMarmara formation have been uplifted about30 m above their original position (Sak|nc3 andYalt|rak, 1997). Farther west, the Ganos Faultreaches Kavak village (Fig. 2), displacing the Ka-vak creek in a right-lateral sense. The results of atrench study at this locality (Rockwell et al., 1997)indicated that the southern block was uplifted andthrust a little northward.

Sak|nc3 and Yalt|rak (1997) proposed that thebasement of the Gulf of Saros was uplifted undercompression, citing evidence of the uplifted terra-

ces around the gulf. The Gelibolu uplift is a com-pressive block between the Anafartalar and Gel-ibolu faults. The other e¡ect of this compressionis the westward motion of the Saros Block form-ing Saros Trough between the Gelibolu and Ga-nos faults (Fig. 6). S|g›|ndere Thrust Fault (Fig.2C) is a further structural element that resultedfrom this compression. Other faults, with similarcharacteristics, pass from the northern and south-ern foot of the Doluca Tepe mountain to thenorth of Mu«refte (Fig. 2C) (Yalt|rak, 1996).

4.1.3. Saros TroughThe Ganos Fault runs through the Evres3e plain

and enters the Gulf of Saros approximately at themouth of the Kavak creek (Fig. 2). In previousstudies, the western extent of the Ganos Fault inthe gulf was drawn solely according to bathyme-try and morphology (Tu«ysu«z et al., 1998; Okay etal., 1999; Armijo et al., 1999). An alternative ap-proach was proposed by Yalt|rak et al. (2000a),who tried to determine the position of the GanosFault in the gulf and to explain its sinistral strike-

Fig. 5. Re-interpreted seismic pro¢les at the western Marmara Sea. Seismic lines are from Okay et al. (1999) and Siyako et al.(2000).

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366360

slip activity using kinematic data. Other research-ers realised that seismic data would be of value,had the Ganos Fault crossed the northern conti-nental slope. Therefore, they proposed a wedgemodel squeezed by two rulers oblique to eachother to explain evolution of the Ganos Fault(Fig. 6). In this model, the GPS slip vectors(Straub and Kahle, 1997), which are parallel tothe fault bounding the northern side of the Gulfof Saros, suggest that the Anafartalar ThrustFault developed in a transpressional regime (Yal-t|rak et al., 1998).

Recent papers on the Gulf of Saros, the north-ern Aegean Sea and the Marmara Sea, continueto draw the Ganos Fault in the direction N58‡E,even though all of our shallow seismic studiestogether with recently published new multi-chan-nel seismic data contradict that interpretation.Shallow seismic interpretation (Yalt|rak et al.,

1998), kinematical models (Yalt|rak et al.,2000a,b) and GPS slip vectors (Straub et al.,1997) all indicate that the true strike is N81‡E(Fig. 2). This trend is also evident on the blockdiagram (Fig. 7) produced from the multi-channelre£ection data of Saatc3|lar et al. (1999) and Kurtet al. (2000). Contrary to what is widely proposed,the structural element bounding the Gelibolu Pen-insula to the north seems to be a normal fault onthe seismic data. This is not the Ganos Fault, butanother fault which terminates in the neighbour-hood of Go«kc3eada island with a similar slope tothat of the Anafartalar Thrust Fault (Fig. 8A,B).Therefore, it should be renamed and we havecalled it the Gelibolu Fault. This fault was initi-ated by the re-activation of a normal fault whichhad started to evolve in the Eocene^Oligoceneperiod. Around the crossing point of two seismicsections at the western end of the Gelibolu Pen-

Fig. 6. Tectonic evolution model of the Western Marmara Sea and Gulf of Saros. (A) GPS slip vectors (Straub and Kahle,1997). (B) Kinematic model in which the Ganos Fault forms the boundary between block I and blocks II and III, while the Geli-bolu Fault migrates westward as the northwestern boundary of block III. During this migration, the northern boundary of thetriangular block II moves dextrally while the southern boundary moves sinistrally. The normal faults observed on the GeliboluPeninsula and its western extension are oriented N^S, while the fold axes are E^W (Fig. 2). These orientations con¢rm the defor-mation indicated on the strain ellipses. In addition, the folds parallel the Anafartalar and S|g›|ndere thrust faults (Fig. 2), andcorroborate compressional movement given by the GPS slip vectors in the region, parallel to the master fault, but oblique to theGelibolu Fault. The sediments in front of the Gelibolu Fault (see Fig. 7B,C) and their dips show a pattern consistent with com-pressional inversion of a normal fault. The sinistral movement attributed to the Gelibolu Fault is also consistent with the com-pression of the Gelibolu Peninsula. There is harmonious agreement between the tectonic evolution model and the geometric set-ting of folds and faults, which show dextral movement to the north and compression to the south.

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366 361

insula, there is a blind thrust to the southwest ofthe Gelibolu Fault that was pushed forward intothe Gulf of Saros (Fig. 7A). The sedimentaryunits wedge toward the Gelibolu Fault. The unitsdip northwest toward the fault (Fig. 7B,C), con-trary to the expected geometry for normal faults.When the North Anatolian fault started to a¡ectthe region, the Anafartalar Fault gained a thrustcharacter, the dip of the Gelibolu Fault becamesteeper and some slumps and folds occurred in thesediments in front of the Gelibolu Fault (seeSaatc3|lar et al., 1999, ¢g. 4; Kurt et al., 2000,¢gs. 4, 5 and 6). These events were the result ofoblique compression applied to the Gelibolu Pen-insula by the Anatolian Block. In addition, thedip of the Anafartalar Thrust Fault, which is

well-known on land (Yalt|rak et al., 1998,2000b) and demonstrated on the seismic sectionsby Kurt et al. (2000; see Fig. 4), was shown to betoward the south-west by Saatc3|lar et al. (1999).However, toward the south-west the structure isnot a fault but rather an unconformity zonewhich developed by regional compression betweenthe Palaeogene and Neogene. In this study, werecognise a thrust fault located just north of theseaward extension of the Anafartalar ThrustFault, extending towards the NW edge of theGelibolu Peninsula (Fig. 7). This implies thatthe northern coast of the Gelibolu Peninsula isassociated with a thrust fault, and the GeliboluFault corresponds to a normal fault developedin front of the thrust.

Fig. 7. Re-interpreted seismic pro¢les in the Gulf of Saros. Seismic lines are from Saatc3|lar et al. (1999) and Kurt et al. (2000).(A) A fence diagram showing the position of the North Anatolian fault in the Gulf of Saros. Two insets (B and C) showthe Anafartalar Thrust Fault at di¡erent angles in detail. Also shown in an inset are the locations of the seismic lines shown inA^C.

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366362

5. Discussion and conclusions

The Ganos fault system was initially a part ofthe Thrace^Eskis3ehir fault and subsequently be-came a part of the North Anatolian fault(Fig. 4). This structure can be considered as a‘horsetail’ like those encountered along otherstrike-slip faults. It presents as a positive £ower

structure on blocks along the Ganos fault systemto the east of the Gulf of Saros, a positive £owerstructure on the Gelibolu Peninsula, and a nega-tive £ower structure in the Gulf of Saros and inthe Marmara Sea, east of Gaziko«y (Fig. 8B).Thus, the western end of the Ganos fault systemrepresents an example in which both positive andnegative £ower structures interact. Furthermore,

Fig. 8. (A) Fence diagram constructed from interpreted line drawings. (B) Block diagram of the Gulf of Saros. View is lookingeast; north is to the left. Horizontal curves represent topographic pro¢les. STF: S|g›|ndere Thrust Fault, ATF: AnafartalarThrust Fault, GF: Gelibolu Fault, NAF: North Anatolian Fault.

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366 363

as proposed ¢rst in Yalt|rak (1996), the relativelyfaster movement of the Saros Block within thedextral shearing zone gives rise to a sinistral fault(Fig. 8B). The substantial marine seismic datawhich support this interpretation were releasedonly in 1999 (Fig. 7). These data and the kinemat-ic model have generated a new discussion of thetrend of the Ganos Fault, which constitutes thenorthern strand of the North Anatolian fault(Figs. 2, 7 and 8). The Ganos Fault is an approx-imately ENE^WSW-trending structure (Fig. 2).Therefore, the angular di¡erence between thetrends of the Ganos Fault and the fault on whichtectonic evolution and deformation analyses havebeen executed in Armijo et al. (1999) is about 14‡clockwise (Fig. 2). While the di¡erence in orienta-tion is about 7‡ on land, it increases to V32‡counterclockwise and V23‡ clockwise in theWest Marmara and Saros submarine depressions,respectively. This revised position of the GanosFault in the Marmara Sea, as derived from theshallow and conventional seismic re£ection data,calls into question the validity of the evolutionarymodels used in previously published kinematicand stress-failure analyses. The most importante¡ect of this di¡erence is on the tectonic modelsexplaining the evolution of the Marmara Sea. Thestress-transfer analyses applied to the MarmaraSea depend on the location of faults (commonlyhypothetical faults) in these models. The west-ward extension of the master fault in the Mar-mara Sea along the southern edge of the Ganosdepression is evident on seismic data (Fig. 5)(Okay et al., 1999; Kurt et al., 2000; Siyako etal., 2000). Detailed ¢eld studies have clearly de-¢ned its western extension on land between thetown of Go«lcu«k and the Marmara Sea (Fig. 2)(Yalt|rak, 1996). Until now, relying solely onmorphology, researchers have assumed that themaster fault was located where the Evres3e plainended. In their trenching studies, Rockwell et al.(1997) showed that the master fault lies farthernorth than its previously postulated position(Fig. 2). This trend corresponds to the extensionof the canyon in the bathymetry map given inYalt|rak et al. (1998) (Fig. 2). In this same study,faults were observed along the northern margin ofthe Gulf of Saros on the seismic sections, while

there are apparently no active faults along thesouthern margin. Therefore, based on the pre-vious studies and also on the steep morphologyalong the continental slope, the main fault wasthought to be closer to the northern coast of theGelibolu Peninsula than is actually the case (Yal-t|rak et al., 1998).

Contrary to the ¢ndings of previous studies, itis now plain that the Ganos Fault neither showssouthward bending nor follows the northernshore of the Gelibolu Peninsula (Fig. 8B). Seismicsections (Fig. 7) given by Saatc3|lar et al. (1999)and Kurt et al. (2000), detailed ¢eld observations(Yalt|rak, 1995a,b, 1996; Tap|rdamaz and Yal-t|rak, 1997; Sak|nc3 et al., 1999; Yalt|rak et al.,2000b), marine seismic studies (Yalt|rak et al.,1998, 2000a) and GPS studies (Straub et al.,1997) now more clearly show the North Anatoli-an fault pattern from the Marmara Sea into thenorthern Aegean Sea (Figs. 2 and 7). The masterfault is in the shape of a large-radius arc strikingalmost WSW^ESE. This appearance may explainwhy the GPS slip vectors in the southern Mar-mara Sea point more or less westward (Fig. 6).The almost E^W trend of the master fault pro-posed in this paper requires that stress-transferanalyses (i.e. Nalbant et al., 1998; Hubert-Fer-rari et al., 2000; Parsons et al., 2000) be recon-sidered. Furthermore, this proposed trend sup-ports the existence of the Great Marmara fault(Le Pichon et al., 1999; Aksu et al., 2000; Yal-t|rak, 2002), a single buried fault crossing theMarmara Sea, compared to pull-apart or enechelon fault models suggested for the MarmaraSea.

Acknowledgements

We thank D.J.W. Piper for his encouragementto prepare this article, M. Sak|nc3 and F.Y. Oktayfor their assistance during ¢eld studies. We thankMarine Geology reviewers R.J. Twiss and R.Evans for their helpful suggestions, and R.N. His-cott for a thorough editing of the ¢nal manu-script. Part of this study was supported by Istan-bul University Research Fund Grants O-593/160399. Other funding and in-kind support for

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366364

¢eld surveys were provided by the C.E.P. Foun-dation.

References

Aksu, A.E., Calon, T.J., Hiscott, R.N., Yas3ar, D., 2000. Anat-omy of the North Anatolian fault zone in the Marmara Sea,Western Turkey: Extensional basins above a continentaltransform. GSA Today 10, 3^7.

Alpar, B., Yu«ce, H., Dogflan, E., 1996. Gas-charged late Qua-ternary sediments in Strait of C3anakkale (Dardanelles).Turk. J. Mar. Sci. 2, 155^169.

Ambraseys, N.N., Finkel, C.F., 1987. The Saros-Marmaraearthquake of 9 August 1912. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.15, 189^211.

Andrussov, N., 1890. Die Schichten von Cap Tschauda. Ann.d.k.k. Nat. Hof., Vol. 66.

Armijo, R., Meyer, B., Hubert, A., Barka, A., 1999. Westwardpropagation of the North Anatolian fault into the northernAegean: timing and kinematics. Geology 27, 267^270.

Barka, A.A., 1983. Bu«yu«k magnitu«dlu« depremlerin episantralanlar|n|n o«nceden belirleyebilecek jeolojik veriler. Turk.Jeol. Kurumu Bu«l. 26, 21^30.

Barka, A.A., 1992. The North Anatolian Fault Zone. Ann.Tecton. 6, 164^195.

Barka, A.A., Gu«len, L., 1988. New constraints on age andtotal o¡set of the North Anatolian fault zone; implicationsfor tectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean region. In: Proc.1987 Melih Tokay Symp., Spec. Publ. Middle East Techni-cal University, Ankara, pp. 39^65.

Barka, A.A., Kadinsky-Cade, K., 1988. Strike-slip fault geom-etry in Turkey and its in£uence on earthquake activity. Tec-tonics 7, 663^684.

Bozkurt, E., 2001. Neotectonics of Turkey ^ a synthesis. Geo-dyn. Acta 14, 3^30.

Bozkurt, E., Koc3yigflit, A., 1996. The Kazova basin: an activenegative £ower structure on the Almus Fault Zone, a splayfault system of the North Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey.Tectonophysics 265, 239^254.

Dewey, J.F., S3engo«r, A.M.C., 1979. Aegean and surroundingregions: complex multiplate and continuum tectonics in aconvergent zone. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. Part I 90, 84^92.

Ergu«n, M., Oº zel, E., 1995. Structural relationship between theSea of Marmara Basin and North Anatolian Fault Zone.Terra Nova 7, 278^288.

Erkal, T., 1991. Trakya’da Kuzey Anadolu Fay zonunda gel-is3mis3 normal faylar|n olus3umuna yaklas3|mlar (in Turkishwith English abstract). Bull. Turk. Assoc. Pet. Geol. 3, 87^99.

Gutzwiller, O., 1923. Beitrage zur Geologie der Umgebung vonMerfete (Mu«refte) am Marmara Meer. Basel University,Basel, 25 pp.

Hubert-Ferrari, A., Barka, A.A., Jacques, E., Nalbant, S.S.,Meyer, B., Armijo, R., Tapponnier, P., King, G.C.P., 2000.

Seismic hazard in the Marmara Sea region following the 17August 1999 Izmit earthquake. Nature 404, 269^273.

Ketin, I., 1948. Uº ber die Tektonisch-Mechanischen Folgerunaus der gassen Anatolischen Erdbeben des letzten Dezen-niums. Geol. Rundsch. 36, 77^83.

Kopp, K.O., Pavoni, N., Schindler, C., 1969. Geologie Thra-kiens IV: Das Ergene Becken. Beih. Geol. Jahrb. 76, 136 pp.

Kurt, H., Demirbagfl, E., Kus3c3u, I., 2000. Active submarinetectonism and formation of the Gulf of Saros, NortheastAegean Sea, inferred from multi-channel seismic re£ectiondata. Mar. Geol. 165, 13^26.

Le Pichon, X., Taymaz, T., S3engo«r, A.M.C., 1999. The Mar-mara Fault and the future Istanbul earthquake. In: Karaca,M., Ural, D.N. (Eds.), Proc. ITU-IAHS International Con-ference on the Kocaeli Earthquake, 17 August 1999. Istan-bul Technical University Press, Istanbul, pp. 41^54.

Nalbant, S.S., Hubert, A., King, G.C.P., 1998. Stress couplingbetween earthquakes in northwest Turkey and the NorthAegean Sea. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24469^24486.

Okay, A., Demirbagfl, E., Kurt, H., Okay, N., Kus3c3u, I., 1999.An active, deep marine strike-slip basin along the NorthAnatolian fault in Turkey. Tectonics 18, 129^147.

Oº nal, M., 1986. Gelibolu Yar|madas| orta bo« lu«mu«nu«n sed-imanter fasiyesleri ve tektonik evrimi, KB Anadolu, Tu«rkiye.Jeol. Mu«hendis. 29, 37^46.

Oº nem, Y., 1974. Gelibolu Yar|madas| ve C3anakkale dolay-lar|n|n jeolojisi. TPAO Tech. Rep. 877, 30 pp.

Parsons, T., Toda, S., Stein, R., Barka, A., Dieterich, J.H.,2000. Heightened odds of large earthquakes near Istanbul:An interaction-based probability calculation. Science 288,661^665.

Pavoni, N., 1961. Die Nordanatolische Horizontalverschie-bung. Geol. Rundsch. 51, 122^139.

Pfannenstiel, M., 1944. Diluviale Geologie des Mittelmeerge-bietes: die diluvialen Entwicklungstadien und die Urge-schichte von Dardanellen, Marmara Meer und Bosphorus.Geol. Rundsch. 34, 334^342.

P|nar, N., 1943. Marmara Denizi Havzas|n|n Sismik Jeoloji veMeteorolojisi. PhD Thesis, Institut de Ge¤ologie, Institut dePhysique Ge¤ne¤rale de l’Universite¤ d’Istanbul, Kenan Mat-baas|, Istanbul, 64 pp.

Rockwell, T., Barka, A., Thorup, K., Dawson, T., Akyu«z, S.,1997. Paleoseismology of the Gaziko«y-Saros segment of theNorth Anatolian fault, Northwestern Turkey: Implicationsof regional seismic hazard and models of earthquake recur-rence. International Symposium on Recent Development onActive Fault Studies, Istanbul Technical University, Istan-bul, pp. 34^48.

Saatc3|lar, R., Ergintav, S., Demirbagfl, E., Inan, S., 1999. Char-acter of active faulting in the North Aegean Sea. Mar. Geol.160, 339^353.

Sak|nc3, M., Yalt|rak, C., 1997. Trakya’n|n gu«ney sahillerininPleyistosen paleocogflrafyas| ve evrimi. MTA Derg. 119, 43^62.

Sak|nc3, M., Yalt|rak, C., Oktay, F.Y., 1999. Palaeogeograph-ical evolution of the Thrace Neogene Basin and the Tethian-

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366 365

Paratethian relations at northwest Turkey (Thrace). Palaeo-geogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 153, 17^40.

Salt|k, O., 1974.S3arko«y-Mu«refte sahalar|n|n jeolojisi ve petrololanaklar|. TPAO Rap. 879, 30 pp.

Saner, S., 1985. Saroz Ko«rfezi dolay|n|n c3o«kelme isti£eri vetektonik yerles3imi; Kuzeydogflu Ege Denizi, Tu«rkiye. Turk.Jeol. Kurumu Bu«l. 28, 1^10.

S3engo«r, A.M.C., 1979. The North Anatolian transform fault:Its age, o¡set and tectonic signi¢cance. J. Geol. Soc. London136, 269^282.

S3engo«r, A.M.C., Go«ru«r, N., S3arogfllu, F., 1985. Strike^slipfaulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonicescape: Turkey as a case study. Soc. Ecol. Paleontol. Min-eral. Spec. Publ. 37, 227^264.

Sieberg, A., 1932. Untersuchungen u«ber Erdbeben und Bruch-schollenbau im o«stlichen Mittelmeer. Denkschr. Med. Na-turwiss. Ges., Jena.

Siyako, M., Bu«rkan, K.A., Okay, A.I., 1989. Biga ve Geliboluyar|madalar|n|n Tersiyer jeolojisi ve hidrokarbon olanaklar|(with English abstract). Bull. Turk. Assoc. Pet. Geol. 1, 183^199.

Siyako, M., Tan|s3, T., S3arogfllu, F., 2000. Marmara Denizi aktiffay geometrisi. TUº BITAK Bilim Tek. Derg. 388, 66^71.

Straub, C., Kahle, H.G., 1997. Recent crustal deformation andstrain accumulation in the Marmara Sea region, NW Ana-tolia, inferred from repeated GPS measurements. The Mar-mara Poly-Project. Eidgeno«ssische Technische Hochschule,Zurich, pp. 417^447.

Straub, C., Kahle, H.G., Schindler, C., 1997. GPS and geo-logic estimates of the tectonic activity in the MarmaraSea region, NW Anatolia. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 27587^27601.

Su«mengen, M., Terlemez, I., S3entu«rk, K., Karako«se, C., Er-kan, E., Uº nay, E., Gu«rbu«z, M., Atalay, Z., S3entu«rk, K.,1987. Gelibolu Yar|madas| ve gu«neybat| Trakya Tersiyerhavzas|n|n stratigra¢si, sedimantolojisi ve tektonigfli. MTAReport 8128 (unpublished technical report).

Taner, G., 1979. Die Molluskenfauna der Neogenen Forma-tion Der Halbinsel-Gelibolu. VII Int. Congr. on Mediterra-nean Neogene, Athens. Ann. Geol., Pays Hellen. III, 1189^1194.

Tap|rdamaz, C., Yalt|rak, C., 1997. Trakya’da Senozoyik vol-

kaniklerinin paleomanyetik o«zellikleri ve bo«lgenin tektonikevrimi. MTA Derg. 119, 27^42.

Ternek, Z., 1949. Geological Study of the Region Kes3an-Kor-udagfl. Unpubl. PhD Thesis, Science Faculty, Istanbul Uni-versity, Istanbul, 78 pp.

Tu«ysu«z, O., Barka, A.A., Yigflitbas3, E., 1998. Geology of theSaros graben and its implications for the evolution of theNorth Anatolian fault in the Ganos-Saros region, North-western Turkey. Tectonophysics 293, 105^126.

Uº nay, E., de Bruijn, H., 1984. On some Neogene rodent as-semblages from both sides of the Dardanelles: Turkey.Newslett. Stratigr. 13, 119^132.

Wong, H.K., Lu«dman, T., Ulugfl, A., Go«ru«r, N., 1995. The Seaof Marmara: a plate boundary sea in an escape tectonicregime. Tectonophysics 244, 231^250.

Yalt|rak, C., 1995a. Tectonic mechanism controlling the Plio^Quaternary sedimentation in the Gelibolu Peninsula (inTurkish with English abstract). Geophysics 9/10, 103^106.

Yalt|rak, C., 1995b. Sedimentary and tectonic characteristicsof the area between Gaziko«y-Mu«refte (Tekirdagfl) (in Turkishwith English abstract). Bull. Turk. Assoc. Pet. Geol. 6, 93^112.

Yalt|rak, C., 1996. Tectonic history of the Ganos fault system(in Turkish with English abstract). Bull. Turk. Assoc. Pet.Geol. 8, 137^156.

Yalt|rak, C., 2002. Tectonic evolution of the Marmara Sea andits surroundings. Mar. Geol. 190, S0025-3227(02)00360-2.

Yalt|rak, C., Alpar, B., Yu«ce, H., 1998. Tectonic elementscontrolling the evolution of the Gulf of Saros (NortheasternAegean Sea). Tectonophysics 300, 227^248.

Yalt|rak, C., Alpar, B., Sak|nc3, M., Yu«ce, H., 2000a. Origin ofthe Strait of C3anakkale (Dardanelles) : regional tectonicsand the Mediterranean-Marmara incursion. Mar. Geol.164, 139^156 with Erratum 167, 189^190.

Yalt|rak, C., Sak|nc3, M., Oktay, F.Y., 2000b. Westward prop-agation of North Anatolian fault into northern Aegean:Timing and kinematics. Comment. Geology 28, 187^188.

Yalt|rak, C., Sak|nc3, M., Aksu, A.E., Hiscott, R., Galleb, B.,Uº lgen, U.B., 2002. Late Pleistocene uplift history alongsouthwestern Marmara Sea determined from raised coastaldeposits and global sea level variations. Mar. Geol. 190,S0025-3227(02)00351-1.

MARGO 3169 3-10-02

C. Yalt|rak, B. Alpar /Marine Geology 190 (2002) 351^366366