Geophys. J. Int. (1998) 133, 390–406
Faulting associated with historical and recent earthquakes in the
Eastern Mediterranean region
N. N. Ambraseys1 and J. A. Jackson2
1Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College of Science, T echnology and Medicine, L ondon, SW7 2BU, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
2 Bullard L aboratories, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0EZ, UK
Accepted 1997 November 17. Received in original form 1997 June 4
SU MM A RY
This paper summarizes evidence for surface faulting in historical and recent earthquakes
in the Eastern Mediterranean region and in the Middle East. Such information is
particularly important for studies of active tectonics and for palaeoseismology. We
have found 78 cases of faulting pre-1900 and 72 post-1900, some of which show that
faults that have apparently been inactive this century had already ruptured before
1900. For some cases faulting could not have been predicted from 20th century activity,
and in others it could have been expected, but has not been observed during the
instrumental period. The data are sufficient to allow the derivation of relationships
between magnitude and rupture length.
1
I NTR O D UC TIO N
Evidence for surface faulting in historical earthquakes in the
Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East is of importance
to all modern studies of tectonics and seismicity. Such evidence
not only confirms that known tectonic structures are active,
but can also identify new ones. Despite shortcomings in the
documentary evidence, information about surface faulting can
be found in contemporary accounts and this provides a
valuable reference point in the palaeoseismological record of
faults. Such knowledge is particularly important when, for
example, the activity of a fault is to be researched by trenching
methods, as it allows the completeness of the palaeoseismological investigation to be assessed.
Obviously, the most interesting cases are those which have
happened where their occurrence could not be predicted from
20th century seismicity alone or, alternatively, where surface
faulting could be expected from the 20th century seismicity
but until now is not known to have happened. Since surface
faulting is associated with large earthquakes, evidence of
faulting can also be used to assess their size, even when
historical macroseismic sources do not provide enough direct
evidence for magnitude estimates.
The area of our investigations, shown in Fig. 1(a), is within
latitude 25° and 45° north and longitude 18° and 70° east. It
comprises the Balkans, Turkey, the Caucasus and the Middle
East up to west Pakistan, a region of active tectonics and with
a history which is amply, but not uniformly, documented
throughout the period of our interest of the past two millennia.
Fig. 1(b) shows the distribution of medium and large earthquakes during this century, and Fig. 1(c) is a location map
showing some of the major fault zones referred to in the text.
390
The purpose of this paper is to present the cases of coseismic
surface faulting known to us at present, both historical and
modern, to show that faults in the region which appear to be
quiescent today have been active in historical times, sometimes
more than once, and to identify hitherto unknown active faults.
This compilation thus updates the last attempt to document
coseismic surface ruptures in the region by Ambraseys (1975),
with almost double the number of cases in this new study.
DATA
The data used have been culled from a variety of published
and unpublished sources and field investigations, in a number
of cases carried out by the first author. Because of space
limitation for events before this century, only a few references
are given, and these are chiefly collections of literary sources.
For the later period we have selected references which cover
both field data and seismological or engineering studies. It is
somewhat embarrassing but also unavoidable that one-quarter
of the works quoted are by the first author, which stems from
necessity rather than from other motives.
Pre-instrumental period
Historical sources record large surface fault ruptures, small
ruptures not being spectacular enough to attract attention.
Descriptions from which one can deduce faulting are relatively
few and hard to verify, particularly when the sources are
secondary and the recorded ground deformation is not well
described. It follows, therefore, that for the early historical
period the information presented here is incomplete, but it is
© 1998 RAS
Faulting in the Eastern Mediterranean
Figure 1. (a) Area of our investigations, showing earthquakes of m >4
b
during the period 1964–1990. ( b) Distribution of significant shallow
earthquakes during this century: open circles, M between 6 and 6.9;
s
solid circles, M ≥7.0. The largest symbols are M ≥8. (c) Location
s
s
map of the main fault area referred to in the text: NAF North
Anatolian Fault, EAF East Anatolian Fault, DSF Dead Sea Fault, CF
Chaman Fault.
put on record so that others can improve upon it by refining
it and adding new case histories.
One of the problems in these early and later descriptions of
surface faulting is that one cannot always be certain whether
ground deformation associated with an earthquake was of
tectonic origin or due to landslides, liquefaction or slumping
of the ground. In some cases ground deformation genuinely of
tectonic origin can be identified from descriptions of ground
ruptures which extended continuously or discontinuously
along considerable distances, but relative displacements are
seldom given for vertical, and never for horizontal, slip. The
information which is usually available for this period may
therefore be classified into three broad categories according to
the following criteria.
(A) or (a) Strong evidence for surface faulting explicitly (A)
or implicitly (a) described in the sources. The length of the
rupture is rarely given, and only in few cases can it be reckoned
from the distances between the localities which it traversed.
To avoid any misinterpretation of the source material we have
indicated in Tables 1 and 2 by small (a) cases for which
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
391
information about faulting is implicit as, for instance, in the
case of the #280 BC earthquake in Iran. Some examples of
the descriptions found for this category are given in Appendix
A. Other accounts of faulting are more explicit but quite a few
are only very brief, and yield no further reliable information
by being read into.
(B) Cases for which surface faulting is not supported by
clear evidence but can be inferred from the association of a
narrow and long epicentral region of a large-magnitude earthquake aligning with, or close to, a known fault. Occasionally
the length of a break can be reckoned from the length of the
long axis of the epicentral region which contains an assumed
rupture. Clearly this would not tell us exactly how far the fault
rupture extended, as it may have continued for a greater
distance into sparsely populated areas, which we are unlikely
to find reported in historical sources, but it will tell us that
the shock was probably associated with a surface rupture that
can be investigated today in the field. In these cases historical
information will not reveal the exact location and rupture
length, but it can help to define the time and the segment of
the zone that was probably ruptured.
(C) Faulting assumed because of the large size (M ≥7.0) of
s
the associated earthquake and its proximity to a known active
fault zone. This category is more tenuous than category B, but
it was included to guide further studies. There are many events
of M ≥7.0 that might have been associated with faulting, such
s
as those in and around the Marmara Sea area, in Eastern
Anatolia and Iran, but these are omitted as their epicentral
area is ill defined.
Of these three categories (A) and (a) involve some ruptures
which may not previously have been associated with known
active or Quaternary faults. Categories (B) and (C) merely
date probable breaks of segments of known faults, and help
assign size to these events. All these cases indicate recent fault
activity because the proximity of these earthquakes to known
faults was part of the evidence assigning them to these
categories.
Figs 2, 4 and 5 show the distribution of the epicentres in
Table 1 for the whole period of observation, before 1894 and
after 1893.
Instrumental period
During the instrumental period information about both the
faulting and the seismological parameters of the associated
earthquake improves: there are more detailed field observations and better instrumental data allowing the uniform
re-assessment of instrumental M magnitudes.
s
However, during the first half of this century this improvement was very slow and surface faulting continued to be
imperfectly reported. For example, the fault ruptures associated
with the Locris earthquakes of 1894 in Greece were not
properly mapped and their tectonic origin was not generally
accepted by geologists, who until relatively recently considered
this feature to have been a superficial effect of sliding. Also, of
the 360 km long fault break associated with the 1939 Erzincan
earthquake in Turkey, only its western half was visited after
the event, only part of the break was sketched rather than
mapped on a one-to-one-million scale, and measurements of
fault displacement were made at a single location. The same
applies to other major surface fault ruptures during that period
in Anatolia, Iran, and Greece.
392
N. N. Ambraseys and J. A. Jackson
Table 1. List of earthquakes associated with surface fault break.
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58a
58b
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
−464
−426
−280
17
32
37
110
115
155
181
236
368
460
499
518
551
554
601
750
856
926
967
995
1033
1035
1045
1050
1068
1114
1157
1170
1202
1254
1296
1336
1408
1419
1493
1505
1544
1595
1646
1651
1653
1661
1666
1668
1721
1740
1752
1759
1780
1784
1789
1796
1822
1825
1829
1837
1838
1840
1855
1855
1861
1864
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Dec
–
May
–
Oct
Apr
Sep
–
–
Aug
Apr
–
Dec
Aug
Sep
–
Dec
May
Apr
Aug
Mar
Nov
Aug
Jun
May
Oct
Jul
Oct
Dec
Mar
Jan
Jul
Jan
Sep
Apr
Jun
Feb
Mar
Sep
Aug
Apr
Oct
Jul
Nov
Jan
Jul
May
Apr
Aug
–
May
Jan
–
Jul
Feb
Apr
Dec
Dec
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
13
–
3
–
11
7
–
–
–
15
–
–
22
–
–
–
5
–
5
5
18
29
12
29
20
11
17
21
29
15
10
6
22
22
7
7
22
15
23
17
26
5
29
25
8
18
28
26
13
–
5
1
–
2
28
11
26
7
Epicentre
N E
M
s
Az
deg.
Mec
L
km
H
cm
V
cm
Q
Location
Ref
37.0–22.4
38.9–22.7
35.6–51.4
38.5–27.8
40.5–31.5
36.0–36.0
37.3–36.5
39.5–33.5
35.8–36.3
40.1–27.5
40.5–31.0
40.9–36.0
40.5–29.5
40.3–27.8
40.5–37.0
42.0–21.0
38.5–22.7
40.8–29.5
37.0–36.5
37.0–38.0
36.0–54.3
38.5–27.5
40.8–32.0
38.7–40.0
32.5–35.5
40.8–33.0
40.0–38.0
41.0–33.5
28.5–36.7
37.5–37.5
35.0–36.5
35.5–36.5
33.7–35.9
40.0–39.0
39.2–27.4
34.7–59.7
36.0–36.4
40.5–30.5
33.0–59.8
34.8–69.1
38.0–37.0
38.5–27.9
38.3–43.7
37.8–29.3
37.9–28.5
42.2–24.0
36.7–43.5
40.5–36.0
37.9–46.7
38.7–22.4
41.3–26.5
33.7–35.9
38.2–46.0
39.5–40.2
38.8–39.5
35.5–36.0
36.7–36.5
36.1–52.6
41.2–25.1
33.2–35.5
29.6–59.9
39.5–43.8
40.0–28.5
40.3–29.1
38.2–22.2
33.2–45.9
m
m
L
L
L
m
m
m
L
m
L
m
L
m
m
m
m
L
L
m
L
L
L
m
L
L
L
V
V
L
L
L
m
7.6*
m
L
7.0*
7.4*
m
m
L
m
7.1*
L
L
7.9*
7.7*
6.6*
L
7.4*
7.7*
7.6*
L
6.6*
7.5*
6.7*
7.2*
7.4*
7.0*
7.3*
7.4*
6.6*
6.6*
6.4*
340
–
–
270
080
030
–
–
010
100
–
110
–
060
110
–
290
–
–
–
250
270
080
060
000
070
120
080
–
040
000
000
020
110
050
155
010
–
120
010
090
270
070
120
090
–
–
090
125
–
–
020
120
110
–
–
020
–
–
000
170
140
270
–
280
–
N
–
–
N
R
L
–
–
L
R
–
R
–
R
R
–
N
–
–
–
T
N
R
L
L
R
R
L
–
L
L
L
L
R
N
–
L
–
T
–
L
N
–
N
N
–
–
–
–
–
–
L
RN
R
–
–
L
–
–
–
–
R
–
–
N
–
20
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
43
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
150
–
100
20
–
30
56
–
–
–
–
70
–
–
400
50+
20
–
100
60+
150
–
–
200
–
50
80
70
80
70
–
13
2+
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
350
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
300
–
–
–
–
300
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
600
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
220
50
Cf
AAm
aA
APf
Cf
Cf
C
C
aAf
aAf
Bf
aPf
Cf
aAf
APf
AP
APfm
Bf
aA
aA
aAf
aAf
Bf
Cf
Cmf
aAf
aAmf
aAf
aA
af
af
Cf
Bfm
APf
aAf
BPf
APf
Cf
APf
AP
BAf
aP
aP
Bf
APd
aA
C
APf
AP
aP
aA
Sparta
Maliac G.
Sh. Rey
Gediz R.
Gerede
Antioch
E.Anatol.
Galatia
Oront. R.
Manyas
Mudurnu
Amasya
Iznik
Manyas
Niksar
Macedonia
Chaeron
Izmit
E.Anatol.
Mesopot.
Qumis
Manisa
Gerede
Palu
Jordan
Cerkes
Erzinc.
Cankiri
Hejaz
Maras
Hama
Afamiya
Bekaa
Susehri
Soma
Kwaf
Orontes
Mudurnu?
Birjand
Kabul
Elbistan
Ahmetli
Van
Honaz
Menderes
Maritza
N.Mosul
Amasya
Tabriz
Lamia
Evros
Bekaa
Tabriz
Elmali
Elazig
Latakia
Antakya
Harhaz
Xanthi
Bshara
Nasratab
Kazlgöl
Ulubat
Gemlik
Vostiza
Zorbatia
GR
GR
IR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
SY
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
MC
GR
TR
TR
SY
IR
TR
TR
TR
IS
TR
TR
TR
SA
TR
SY
SY
LE
TR
TR
IR
SY
TR
IR
AF
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
BU
IQ
TR
IR
GR
TR
LE
IR
TR
TR
SY
TR
IR
GR
LE
IR
TR
TR
TR
GR
IQ
AP
Bfm
BP
aA
APd
aPd
aPk
BPkm
APf
BPf
APm
aA
APk
aPk
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
Faulting in the Eastern Mediterranean
393
Table 1. (Continued.)
Date
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
1866
1870
1872
1874
1875
1875
1880
1887
1889
1892
1893
1894
1899
1904
1905
1905
1909
1909
1909
1912
1914
1916
1917
1928
1928
1929
1930
1932
1933
1935
1938
1939
1941
1942
1943
1944
1944
1946
1946
1947
1948
1949
1951
1953
1953
1954
1957
1957
1958
1962
1964
1966
1966
1966
1966
1967
1967
1967
1967
1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1971
1975
May
Aug
Apr
May
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Jan
Dec
Mar
Apr
Sep
Apr
Jun
Dec
Jan
Oct
Feb
Aug
Oct
Jan
Jul
Apr
Apr
May
May
Sep
Nov
May
Apr
Dec
Feb
Dec
Nov
Feb
Jun
May
Jul
Sep
Oct
Aug
Aug
Feb
Mar
Apr
Mar
May
Aug
Sep
Oct
Aug
Aug
Sep
Oct
Jul
Jul
Jul
Nov
Feb
Aug
Mar
Mar
May
May
Sep
12
1
3
3
27
3
29
30
17
19
2
27
20
4
1
4
23
20
9
9
3
24
15
14
18
1
6
26
28
30
19
26
16
20
26
1
25
31
27
23
5
17
13
12
18
30
8
26
16
1
6
19
20
1
29
22
26
30
30
19
31
28
28
12
22
6
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
Epicentre
N E
M
s
Az
deg.
Mec
L
km
H
cm
V
cm
Q
Location
Ref
39.2–41.0
38.5–22.6
36.4–36.4
38.5–39.5
38.5–39.5
38.3–29.9
38.6–27.2
38.7–29.8
37.7–30.5
30.9–66.5
38.0–38.3
38.6–23.2
37.9–28.8
41.8–23.1
42.0–19.5
38.1–38.6
33.4–49.3
28.9–68.3
40.2–37.8
40.7–27.2
37.6–30.1
40.8–37.5
33.5–45.8
42.1–25.2
42.2–24.9
37.7–57.8
38.2–44.6
40.5–23.9
32.0–55.9
29.8–66.8
39.5–34.0
39.7–39.7
33.4–58.9
40.7–36.5
41.0–35.5
40.9–32.6
39.0–29.4
39.3–41.2
35.6–45.8
33.7–58.7
37.9–58.5
39.4–40.8
40.7–33.3
35.4–54.9
39.9–27.4
39.2–22.2
39.3–22.7
40.6–31.0
34.3–48.2
35.7–49.8
40.0–28.0
39.2–41.4
39.3–41.2
37.4–22.1
38.8–21.1
40.7–30.7
39.5–40.3
40.7–30.4
41.4–20.4
39.5–24.9
34.0–58.9
38.3–28.5
39.1–29.4
37.6–30.1
39.0–40.7
38.5–40.7
7.2*
6.7*
7.2*
7.1*
6.7*
6.5*
6.5*
6.3*
6.9*
7.1*
6.9*
6.9
7.2
6.3
6.8
7.4
7.1
6.4
7.4
7.0
7.2
5.6
6.8
7.0
7.3
7.2
6.9
6.2
7.6
6.8
7.8
6.1
7.1
7.4
7.3
6.0
5.7
5.5
6.8
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.5
7.3
6.7
6.6
7.0
6.6
7.2
6.8
6.8
6.2
5.6
5.8
7.1
6.0
5.5
6.6
7.3
7.4
6.5
7.1
6.2
6.8
6.6
230
010
030
250
250
040
120
290
–
020
270
300
090
230
040
240
315
130
280
065
230
110
140
290
300
330
305
090
140
015
120
110
005
300
275
255
140
300
145
180
260
100
260
070
240
300
100
260
300
105
100
120
110
155
150
280
120
300
030
040
275
290
310
230
050
270
L
N
–
L
–
N
N
N
–
L
L
N
N
N
N
L
R
L*
R*
NR
NR
RL
T*
N
N
T
RN
N
T
T
R
R
RT
R
R
R
NR
R
T*
RT
T
R
R
T
R
N
NL
R
T
L
NR
RN
RN
N*
N
R
R
R
NL
RN
L
NL
NL
N
L
T
45
6+
20
45
20
10
10
10
–
30
–
40
40
25
10
–
45
50
15
50
23
–
2
64
50
70
30
15
5
–
14
340
12
47
270
160
18
10
2
20
–
38
32
8
58
30
1
40
28
85
40
34
7
2
4
80
4
3
10
3
80
35
45
4
38
28
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
80
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
400
25
–
–
100
650
–
180
200
370
–
30
–
100
–
150
60
–
430
20
20
160
–
60
–
30
5
–
–
190
20
20
–
–
450
20
30
–
60
–
–
200
–
200
200
110
40
50
–
30
–
100
100
200
100
–
250
–
–
300
150
–
–
50
350
210
500
180
50
–
60
250
50
AMk
100
100
30
30
–
80
–
30
30
140
50
90
20
45
50
80
10
25
20
5
40
130
10
40
50
50
250
80
230
30
10
60
APm
aPm
APk
AM
aP
aP
aPk
aPd
aPk
AMi
Bf
AMdm
AMd
aMim
aPk
aPkf
AMd
B
APdm
AMd
aPk
Cf
APk
AMU
AM
AG
AMU
AMdi
AMk
Bdk
AMd
AM
AGd
Erba-Niks
AMd
AM
APdU
APkd
aPk
AG
Bdk
AMd
APd
APdi
AMd
AMd
APi
AP
AMdk
AGd
AMkU
AGdU
AMdm
aMk
AMd
AGd
APk
AGd
AMd
AMi
AG
AMd
AGUm
AMim
AGd
AGd
Gönek
Fokis
Amik Gol
Gölcuk 1
Gölcuk 2
Civril
Emiralan
Banaz
Isparta
Chaman
Malatya
Martin
Mender
Struma
Scutari
Malat.
Silakhor
Baluch
Ender.
Marmara
Burdur
Samsun
Tursaq
Plovdiv
Plovdiv
Kop. Dagh
Salmas
Ieriss
Buhabad
Quetta
Kirsehir
Erzincan
Muham/ad
*TR
Ladik
Ger-Bolu
Saphane
Ustukr.
Penjwin
Dustab.
Ashkhab.
Elmalid.
Kursunlu
Turud
Gonen
Sofades
Velestin
Abant
Firuz.
B. Zahra
Manyas
Varto
Varto
Megalop.
Acarnan.
Mudurnu
Tunceli
Mudurnu
Debar
Ag. Efstr
D. Bayaz
Alasehir
Gediz
Burdur
Bingol
Lice
TR
GR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
PK
TR
#GR
#TR
#BU
#AL
TR
#IR
#PK
#TR*
#TR
#TR
TR
IQ
#BU
*BU
#TU
#IR
#GR
#IR
PK
*TR
*TR
#IR
*TR
*TR
#TR
*TR
IQ
#IR
TU
*TR
#TR
#IR
*TR
#GR
GR
*TR
*IR
*IR
#TR
*TR
TR
GR
#GR
*TR
#TR
TR
*AL
*GR
*IR
*TR
*TR
#TR
*TR
*TR
394
N. N. Ambraseys and J. A. Jackson
Table 1. (Continued.)
Date
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
1975
1976
1977
1978
1978
1979
1979
1980
1981
+1981
1981
1981
1983
1986
1988
1990
1994
1995
1995
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jun
Sep
Nov
Nov
Jul
Feb
Mar
Jun
Jul
Oct
Sep
Dec
Jun
Feb
May
Oct
3
24
19
20
16
14
27
9
25
4
11
28
30
13
7
20
23
13
1
Epicentre
N E
M
s
Az
deg.
Mec
L
km
H
cm
V
cm
Q
Location
Ref
30.3–66.1
39.1–43.9
30.9–56.6
40.6–23.2
33.4–57.1
33.9–59.8
34.0–59.6
39.3–22.8
38.1–23.1
38.2–23.2
29.8–57.8
30.2–57.6
40.4–42.2
37.0–22.0
40.8–44.2
36.8–49.4
30.9–60.6
40.0–21.7
38.2–30.3
6.5
7.3
5.8
6.4
7.4
6.6
7.1
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.7
7.1
6.7
5.7
6.7
7.3
6.0
6.5
6.2
025
110
320
300
330
345
080
090
250
070
340
340
050
190
290
110
320
240
330
L
R
RT
N
T
RT
LT
N
N
N
RT
RT
L
N
RT
LT
TL
N
NR
5
48
7
32
80
18
68
8
15
12
15
65
12
6
33
80
4
15
10
4
350
15
2
260
90
260
5
–
50
7
20
180
60
250
20
80
50
5
40
60
15
50
90
30
5
30
AMi
AG
AGd
AGdU
AMdU
AMdU
AMd
AGd
AGdm
AGd
AGU
AGdU
AGdU
AG
AGdm
AMdk
AMm
AMdk
AMk
Baluch
Chaldiran
Gisk
Volvi
Tabas
Karizan
Khuli
Almyros
Alkyon
Alkyon
Golbaf
Sirch
Panisler
Kalamata
Spitak
Manjil
Lut
Kozani
Dinar
PK
*TR
*IR
*GR
IR
*IR
*IR
*GR
*GR
*GR
*IR
*IR
*TR
*GR
*AR
*IR
IR
GR
TR
3
43
100
150
60
0
10
References (see Appendix B): [1] 39, 71; [2] 31, 71; [3] 21, 31; [4] 4, 32, 71; [5] 4, 32, 71; [6] 4, 32, 71; [7–9] 4, 32, 71; [10] 4, 32; [11–13] 4, 32,
71; [14–15] 4, 32; [16–17] 4, 5, 32, 71; [18] 4, 32; [19–24] 4, 32, 71; [25–28] 4; [29] 4, 23; [30–32] 4; [33] 4, 22; [34] 4,24; [35] 4; [36] 21; [37]
24; [38] 4; [39] 21; [40] 20, 37; [41] 10; [42] 17; [43] 21; [44] 4; [45] 8, 17; [46–47] 4; [48] 16; [49] 21; [50] 10; [51] 17; [52] 13; [53] 21;
[54–55] 17; [56–57] 9; [58] 21; [59] 12; [60–61] 21; [62–63] 4; [64] 19b, 123; [65–66] 4; [67] 28; [68–70] 9; [71–73] 4; [74] 9; [75] 70; [76]
9; [77] 19; [78] 8, 14; [79] 147; [80] 89; [81] 14; [82] 21; [83] 76; [84] 8; [85] 15; [86] 8; [87] 4; [88] 21; [89] 88, 97; [90] 6, 88, 97, 119, 150;
[91] 21; [92] 136; [93] 114; [94] 21; [95] 146; [96] 8, 62, 113, 116, 122; [97] 8, 46, 48, 62, 80; [98] 21; [99] 8, 48, 59, 60, 62, 84, 108; [100] 8, 48,
60, 62, 80, 84, 90; [101] 8, 62, 84, 132; [102] 8; [103] 8, 62, 133; [104–105] 21; [106] 121; [107] 8, 48, 80; [108] 8, 118; [109] 27; [110] 48, 62, 65,
80, 85; [111] 109; [112] 19; [113] 8, 34, 48, 65, 106; [114] 26; [115] 1, 21, 98, 117; [116] 64, 83; [117] 8, 33, 48, 91, 104, 144; [118] 33; [119–120]
2; [121] 34, 48, 65, 80, 104; [122–123] 4; [124] 4, 45, 104, 130; [125] 114, 134; [126] 22, 29, 74, 77, 94, 100, 101, 135, 137; [127] 8, 30, 42, 66, 77;
[128] 8, 30, 66, 77, 131, [129] 8; [130] 8, 40, 43, 82, 124; [131] 8, 41, 79, 138; [132] 68; [133] 8, 44, 48, 72, 138, 139; [134] 22, 38, 55; [135] 92, 95,
96, 110, 126, 127; [136] 50, 51, 54, 102; [137] 22, 73, 102; [138] 73, 102; [139] 19, 112; [140] 58, 78, 86, 87, 129, [141] 58, 78, 86, 87, 129; [142] 56,
141; [143] 56, 105; [144] 8, 48; [145] 93, 128; [146] 61, 81; [147] 57, 99, 103, 148; [148] 149; [149] 75, 115; [150] 63, 67.
Notes
All events are assumed to have focal depths in the crust.
Magnitude: magnitudes for the instrumental period are recalculated M values derived from the Prague formula. For early events of the pres
instrumental period, magnitudes (starred) have been derived from macroseismic information calibrated against instrumental M values. The size of
s
historical events under investigation has been classified under three broad categories: V, very large event M≥7.8; L, large event 7.0≤M <7.8; M,
s
medium event 6.0≤M <7.0.
s
Fault attitude and mechanism: T=thrust; L=left-lateral strike-slip; R=right-lateral strike-slip; N=normal, with a combination of these symbols
for oblique motion. *=Assumed from regional fault pattern.
Length of faulting: L =total length of surface rupture, including intermediate unfractured segments in km.
Relative displacements: H=maximum observed lateral offset in cm; V =maximum observed vertical offset in cm; s=small displacements of
imperceptible sense of motion; –=no data.
Quality of evidence of faulting, Q (first column of Q): (A) surface faulting explicitly or (a) implicitly, deduced from the sources or field investigations;
(B) no evidence for faulting in the sources; surface faulting inferred from the elongated shape of the epicentral region; and (C) faulting assumed
because of the large size of the earthquake and its proximity to a known active fault zone.
Location evidence (second column of Q) for quality categories A and a is subdivided into: G=good, derived from detailed field studies; M=
moderate, based on cursory field survey of the fracture zone; P=poor, deduced from historical data or, for more recent events, from field evidence
in need of authentication; A=very poor, exact location of fault break unknown.
Nature of fault zone (third column of Q): d=Trace discontinuous or eroded; total length of rupture deduced from few and widely spaced reported
observations; U=arcuate trace, graben, or complex fault zone; k=some of the observed or reported ground deformations probably not of tectonic
origin; i=only part of the break was accessible or mapped; actual rupture length is probably longer than reported; n=reported ground effects, to
the best of our judgement, not of tectonic origin or associated with a known earthquake; m=multiple shock; observed deformations and rupture
length probably enhanced by more than one earthquake.
For quality A, B and C (in any column of Q): f=assumed association of historical event with known Quaternary or recent fault-break.
The name of the location where the event took place is given in the penultimate column, and the last column gives the country. AF: Afghanistan;
AL: Albania; BU: Bulgaria; GR: Greece; IQ: Iraq; IR: Iran; IS: Israel; LE: Lebanon; MC: Macedonia; PK: Pakistan; SA: Saudi Arabia; SY: Syria;
TR: Turkey; TU: Turkmenistan.
* or # before the country designation indicates that the event was used/not used by Wells & Coppersmith (1994) in the derivation of their
calibration formulae.
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
Faulting in the Eastern Mediterranean
395
Table 2. Uncertain and spurious cases of surface faulting.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1862
1870
1879
1890
1911
1927
1929
1943
1957
1957
1963
1966
1968
1968
1969
1972
1972
1975
1976
1977
1977
1977
1983
1992
1995
Nov
Feb
Mar
Jul
Apr
Jul
Jul
Jun
Jul
Dec
Jul
Feb
Sep
Sep
Mar
Apr
Jul
Mar
Nov
Apr
Apr
Jun
Aug
Mar
Jun
3
22
22
11
18
11
15
20
2
13
26
5
3
24
25
10
2
7
7
1
6
5
6
13
15
FaultLoc
M
s
Az
Mec
L
H
V
Q
Location
38.5–30.3
36.6–29.0
37.8–47.9
36.5–54.6
31.2–57.0
32.0–35.5
32.1–49.5
40.7–30.5
36.1–52.4
34.6–47.8
42.1–21.4
39.1–21.6
41.8–32.3
39.2–40.2
39.2–28.5
28.4–53.0
30.0–50.9
27.5–56.4
33.8–59.2
27.6–56.3
31.9–50.8
32.6–48.1
40.1–24.7
39.6–39.5
38.4–22.3
6.5*
–
6.6*
7.2*
6.2
6.0
6.0
6.4
6.8
6.7
6.1
6.2
6.5
5.1
6.1
6.9
5.3
6.1
6.4
6.3
6.1
5.7
6.8
6.8
6.5
–
–
170
060
155
–
150
–
–
T
–
–
–
–
3
2
2+
10
15
–
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
50
30
–
–
50
200
100
aAn
aPn
Bn
aPn
aPn
an
Bkn
120
315
115
230
160
150
100
120
290
–
T
–
N
–
–
N
–
N
3
10
6
2
2
6
5
20
10
–
–
–
–
20
–
10
5
–
10
100
10
30
30
25
10
25
400
akn
akn
akn
kn
akn
akn
akn
akn
AGn
140
–
9
s
s
–
280
R
–
N
30
7
20
–
–
akn
n
n
n
n
akn
adn
Suhut
Fethiye
Buzqush
Tash
Ravar
Jordan
Londeh
Hendek
Elburz
Farsinaj
Skopje
Kremas
Bartim
Kigi
Demirci
Qir
Mishan
Sarkhun
Vandik
Khurgu
Naghan
Dizful
N. Aegean
Erzincan
Egio
3
TR
TR
IR
IR
#IR
IS
IR
TR
IR
#IR
*MC
GR
#TR
#TR
TR
*IR
#IR
IR
IR
#IR
#IR
#IR
#GR
*TR
GR
References (see Appendix B): [1–2] 6; [3–5] 21; [4–5] 21; [6] 4; [7] 21; [8] 140; [9] 21; [10] 36; [11] 3, 6; [12] 19; [13–14] 6; [15] 42; [16]
6, 21, 35; [17] 52; [18] 145; [19] 69; [20] 53; [21] 7; [22] 145; [23] 145; [24] 47, 49, 142; [25] 120.
A S S ES S ME NT OF MA G N ITU D ES
Figure 2. Locations of earthquakes associated with surface faulting
for the whole period of observation.
Occasionally, surface fault ruptures were wrongly attributed
to landslides and slumping of the ground, and pre-existing
Quaternary fault scarps were often associated with recent
earthquakes. An example is a 10 km long Quaternary normal
fault showing a throw of 4 m, which was attributed to the
earthquake of 1972 July 2 (M =5.3) in southwestern Iran
s
(Berberian & Tchalenko 1976). A site visit in 1976 confirmed
that this scarp, averaging about 2 m, was clearly an old feature,
certainly pre-dating the 1972 earthquake and controlling the
course of the seasonal streams and various old tracks across
it which were not dislocated by the 1972 earthquake. Old local
farmers remembered the scarp from their early days, and 1955
aerial photos show it clearly.
There is no doubt that in the last two decades the situation
has improved: sites of historical faulting have been revisited,
trenched and mapped, and faulting due to recent earthquakes
properly recorded.
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
It is important to know the magnitude of the causative
earthquake, not only for the development of predictive
moment–magnitude relations as a function of the length, slip
and attitude of a surface break, but also for hazard analysis.
For the pre-instrumental period, surface-wave magnitudes, M ,
s
can be assessed using a calibration formula which can be
derived from regional, shallow, 20th century earthquakes in
terms of their radii of isoseismals, r, and corresponding intensities, I, in the MSK (Medvedev–Sponheuer–Karnik) scale. In
the present case the calibration formula we used was derived
from intensity data and isoseismals culled from a variety of
published sources, including Shebalin et al. (1974), Papazachos
et al. (1982) and Ambraseys & Jackson (1990), variables which
were correlated with uniformly recalculated M (Ambraseys &
s
Free 1997). From 488 isoseismals coming from about 9000
intensity points which were associated with 123 shallow
(h<26 km) earthquakes of the period 1905–1990 and from
their corresponding M values, which have been recalculated
s
in this study, the predictive relationship is
M =−1.54+0.65 (I )+0.0029 (R )+2.14 log(R )+0.32p ,
s
i
i
i
(1)
where R =(r 2+9.72)0.5 and r, in kilometres, is the mean
i
i
isoseismal radius of intensity I, and p is zero for mean values
and one for 84 percentile values (Ambraseys 1992).
With few exceptions, macroseismic data for the historical
period are scanty and the magnitudes that can be calculated
from eq. (1) are rather uncertain. In such cases we group
earthquakes into three broad categories: V, very large events
396
N. N. Ambraseys and J. A. Jackson
with M values probably exceeding 8.0; L, large shocks of
s
magnitude between 7.0 and 8.0; and M, medium events with
M ranging between 6.0 and 7.0.
s
For the late pre-instrumental period, starting with the 18th
century, macroseismic data improve in quality and quantity
and this allows the use of eq. (1) for the assessment of
magnitudes.
R E S ULTS
Table 1 summarizes all the events, 150 in all, that we know,
or suspect, to have been associated with coseismic surface
faulting, and Fig. 2 shows their location. Table 2 lists another
25 cases of faulting which we believe to be uncertain or
spurious. The values of the various parameters listed for each
event have been culled from a variety of sources, and the
sources of information given for each entry have been chosen
chiefly because they give up-to-date cross-references for the
event. The values for the various parameters in these Tables
supercede and correct previous estimates made by the authors
and by other writers.
Each entry in these tables gives the date and time of the
event in the New Style (Gregorian calendar), the geographical
coordinates of the location of the middle point of the rupture,
and the size of the associated event in terms of its surfacewave magnitude M . For the instrumental period, M values
s
s
have been recalculated uniformly using surface-wave amplitudes and periods and the original Prague formula, which does
not restrict the period to the specific range 18–22 s, and allows
the use of data in the range 3–25 s ( Vanek et al. 1962;
Ambraseys & Free 1997).
Next, the azimuth of the strike of the break (Az), measured
from north to east, is given, when known, from field observations, or marked by (f ) in the quality column Q, if its value
has been assumed from regional tectonics. Slip type is designated by (S) for strike-slip, (N) for normal, (T) for thrust and
by a combination of these notations for oblique slip. The
observed length of surface rupture (L), in kilometres, is given
as deduced from the sources or as obtained from field studies.
A plus sign indicates that the actual length was probably
greater than shown. The horizontal relative displacement (H ),
in centimetres, is the maximum value observed on the fault
break or across principal displacement zones. The vertical
relative displacement (V ), in centimetres, represents the maximum throw across principal displacement zones, excluding
measurements affected by ground deformations, which are
probably superficial, due to slumping or liquefaction. A factor
(Q) adds more coded information regarding the nature of the
fault and quality of measurements (see note at the end of
Table 1). The location of the earthquake is given by the
modern name of the area affected. The last column identifies
the country in which the event took place.
Of the 150 entries in Table 1, 52 per cent are for the period
before, and 48 per cent for after 1900. For the first period 31
per cent of the entries are of category A, 40 per cent of ‘a’, 15
per cent of B and 14 per cent of C. For the present century,
86 per cent of the entries are of category A, only 8 per cent of
‘a’, and the remaining 6 per cent of B and C.
R E LAT IO N S B ET WE EN M A G NI TU DE A ND
R U P TU RE LEN GT H
A considerable number of relationships between magnitude,
rupture length, surface displacements and mechanism, using a
variety of data sets, have been derived for different parts of
the world, and reviews of these relationships are available
(Wells & Coppersmith 1994).
For 62 of the 150 earthquakes in Table 1, we have both
well-determined surface-wave magnitudes (M ) from instrumens
tal data, and reasonably reliable rupture lengths from field
observations. These events are all in the instrumental period,
with 55 per cent of the data coming from strike-slip, 30 per
cent from normal and 15 per cent from thrust faults, excluding
cases of quality (B) and others for which the rupture length is
imperfectly known [marked (i) in column (Q)]. A straightforward orthogonal regression between M and log (L) gives
s
M =5.13+1.14 log(L ) ,
(2)
s
with L in kilometres, with a standard deviation of 0.15 in M .
s
Alternatively, regressions of M on log (L ) and of log (L ) on
s
M give
s
M =5.27+1.04 log(L )
(3)
s
and
log(L )=−4.09+0.82M ,
(4)
s
respectively, with almost the same standard deviation of 0.22
in M for both cases, while a non-linear fit results in
s
M =5.06+1.42 log(L ) −0.14[log(L )]2 ,
(5)
s
with a slightly larger standard deviation. Fig. 3 shows eqs (2),
(3) and (4) together with the data points.
For 58 of the 62 earthquakes used to derive eqs (2) to (5)
we also have horizontal (H ) and vertical (V ) maximum surface
displacements, but the fit improves little, given by
M =5.11+0.86 log(L )+0.21 log(R) ,
(6)
s
with a standard deviation of 0.20 in M , in which R is the
s
resultant displacement from H and V in centimetres.
In terms of resultant displacement R alone, M may be
s
approximated by
M =5.21+0.78 log(R) ,
(7)
s
with a rather large standard deviation of 0.36 in M .
s
We find that the resultant displacement R is about 5.0
(±4.0)×10−5L , regardless of mechanism, and a number close
to compilations by Scholz 1982) and Scholz et al. 1986).
However, the size of the sample is insufficient and the scatter
too large to allow a better estimate of eqs (2)–(5) and R as a
function of mechanism.
The predictive relationship between magnitude and fault
length for the instrumental period, eq. (3), is almost identical
to that derived by Wells & Coppersmith (1994) from a global
data set, their Fig. 8, in which their magnitude is moment
magnitude, M . Their data set consists of 244 earthquakes
w
worldwide, of which 127 are associated with surface ruptures,
and 117 with calculated subsurface ruptures. Of the 127 cases
in their first data set only 35 are included in our Table 1,
which in addition contains another 115 cases not used by
Wells & Coppersmith (1994).
It is interesting to compare magnitudes of the preinstrumental period, estimated from macroseismic data from
eq. (1) (marked with an asterisk in Table 1) with magnitudes
predicted from observed rupture lengths from eq. (3). The
comparison of these two methods for 26 events shows that
magnitudes derived from rupture length are on average smaller
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
Faulting in the Eastern Mediterranean
397
Figure 3. Results of regression between M and log (L ). Curve 1 is eq. (2); curve 2 is eq. (3); curve 3 is eq. (4); curve 4 is eq. (11). L is the length
s
of faulting in kilometres. Note the effect of the sample distribution on the dependent variable for orthogonal and non-orthogonal regression.
by 0.2 (±0.3) in M than macroseismic magnitudes, probably
s
because rupture lengths were actually longer than reported,
which is reasonable.
Indeed, it is important, particularly for palaeoseismological
investigations, to have some indication of whether the rupture
length and offset estimated from historical sources are likely
to be seriously under- or overestimated, given the magnitude of
the event. This is a principal use of magnitude–length relationships. For an assessment of individual events or particular regions,
it may be more informative to make such estimates from a
combination of first principles and more closely constrained
empirical relationships, along the following lines:
(1) for earthquakes that rupture the entire thickness (d) of
the seismogenic upper crust, the downdip width of the fault is
d/sinh, where h is the fault dip, and the moment is then
M =(mcd/sin h)L2 ,
(8)
o
where m is the rigidity modulus and c is the ratio of average
displacement (u) to fault length (L ), which is observed to be
close to 5×10−5 for intracontinental earthquakes (Scholz 1982;
Scholz et al. 1986);
(2) both observationally and theoretically it is known that
for such earthquakes the relationship between moment and
magnitude (M, whether M or M ) is of the form
s
w
log(M )=A+BM ,
(9)
o
where A and B are constants, with B #1.5 (e.g. Kanamori &
Anderson 1975; Ekström & Dziewonski 1988);
(3) combining these expressions gives a relationship between
moment and fault length of the form
M=(1/B) log(mcd/sin h)−A/B+(2/B) (log L ) .
(10)
For illustration, if we take m=3×1010 N m−2, c=5×10−5,
A=9.0 (for M in units of N m, see Ekström & Dziewonski
o
1988), and B=1.5, then for a seismogenic layer of thickness
d=15 km and a vertical strike-slip fault (h=90°), the relationship is
M =4.9+1.33L ,
w
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
(11)
with L in kilometres, which is similar to the empirical relationships given above and in Wells & Coppersmith (1994) and is
a reasonable fit to the earthquakes of M≥6.0 in Fig. 3.
The advantage of this approach over some global empirical
relationship is that it is more explicit where the assumptions
are: A is known to vary regionally (Ekström & Dziewonski
1988) and so is d. Moreover, for earthquakes in which the
fault length is small compared with the seismogenic thickness,
the relationships between moment and magnitude and between
moment and fault length are both known to be different from
those given above, such that B#1.0 (Ekström & Dziewonski
1988) and M 3L3. Thus a single relationship over the whole
o
magnitude range of Fig. 3 (and over the magnitude ranges
discussed by Wells & Coppersmith 1994) is not likely to be
valid anyway. The explicit approach illustrated here is therefore more likely to be useful for detailed palaeoseismological
investigation of specific events.
GE NE R A L O BS ER VATI O N S
We have attempted to associate the earthquakes in Table 1
with a probable style (strike-slip, normal or thrust/reverse) of
faulting. This is often a judgement based on knowledge of the
known style of faulting in the epicentral region, as the historical
sources are rarely explicit enough to be unequivocal, especially
with horizontal displacements on strike-slip faults. As an
illustration, the earthquake of 1780 in Tabriz (No. 53) was
reported with only a vertical displacement, though it almost
certainly occurred on a right-lateral strike-slip fault, a style
which dominates that part of NW Iran (see e.g. Jackson &
Ambraseys 1997).
Of the events listed in Table 1, 35 per cent are associated
with strike-slip faulting, 28 per cent with normal faulting, and
only 14 per cent with thrust or reverse faulting (22 per cent
are of unknown type). The relatively low number of thrust/
reverse faults is at variance with compilations of modern faultplane solutions in the region, which show many thrust and
reverse mechanisms in western Greece, eastern Turkey, the
Caucasus and Iran. The reasons for their under-representation
398
N. N. Ambraseys and J. A. Jackson
here are probably that: (1) even steep reverse faults may fail
to break the surface, where they produce folding instead;
(2) thrust faults with a shallow dip rarely break the surface
anyway, even in large events. Both effects are known in this
region, for example in the Zagros (e.g. Jackson & McKenzie
1984) and the Caucasus (Triep et al. 1995), and are probably
responsible for some of the large historical events for which
there is no reported evidence of surface faulting.
From the preceding paragraphs it will be seen that not only
is historical information regarding surface faulting not always
clear, and is in many cases inconclusive, but also even for a
number of earthquakes in the first half of this century evidence
for surface faulting is poor and occasionally insufficient. In
almost none of the historical cases do documentary sources,
even up to the end of the 19th century, provide more than a
minimum of information about faulting, and neither the length
nor the attitude of the break can be deduced with certainty.
The benefit of being able to have observations over a period
of almost 20 times longer than this century, however, is obvious.
The locations of coseismic ruptures in Table 1 are shown in
Fig. 2. Most are in categories (A) and (a), and are associated
with well-known major fault zones such as the North and
Eastern Anatolian fault zones, the Dead Sea fault system, the
Northern and Eastern deformation belts of Iran and the
Chaman zone in Pakistan, confirming the long-term and
almost continuous activity of these zones.
Figs 4 and 5 show the data for all categories A to C plotted
separately for the historical, pre-1894, and modern, post-1893,
periods, respectively. The most interesting historical faulting is
that which has happened where its occurrence could not be
predicted from 20th century activity or, alternatively, where it
could be expected from 20th century seismicity but has not
been observed this century.
The importance of Figs 2, 4 and 5 lies therefore not so much
in the similarities but rather in the differences between the
distribution of cases depicted in these figures. For instance, in
Fig. 5 the faulting pattern in the modern period shows no
ruptures along much of the East Anatolian fault zone, the
Dead Sea fault zone and Northern Iran.
In contrast, for the historical period, Fig. 4 shows that these
zones had already been ruptured in places before this century,
and that the two sets of figures complement each other, with
historical cases often forming a negative or mirror image of
the distribution of modern cases, and apparent gaps in the
20th century being filled in by historical cases.
Like the North Anatolian fault zone, which was delineated
by a series of surface fault ruptures during this century from
east to west, in the last century the conjugate eastern Anatolian
fault and its Levantine extension into the Dead Sea fault zone
were also delineated by a succession of fault breaks.
Truly great earthquakes of M>8.0+ are not easy to identify
from historical evidence. The chief difficulty is that it is not
always possible to establish reliably the simultaneity of their
destructive effects at distances of hundreds of kilometres without running the risk of amalgamating two or more separate
events into a great earthquake. A glaring example of such an
amalgamation is the earthquake of 365 July 21 in the Eastern
Mediterranean (Guidoboni et al. 1989; Ambraseys 1994), the
misassociation of which with other earthquakes stretched its
size to 8.3 (e.g. Papazachos & Papazachou 1997) and has lead
to speculation and to the development of ‘catastrophe’ theories
(e.g. Jacques & Bousquet 1984). Where good evidence exists,
as for instance for Nos. 30, 31, and possibly 19 in Table 1, as
well as for a few other not yet fully studied events not listed
in Table 1, the historical record does in only very few cases
suggest magnitudes reaching or exceeding M 8.0.
The data in Table 1 are only a fraction of the total number
of events (M ≥6.0) identified so far for the study area and
s
they are listed in this table only because there is some evidence
of their association with surface faulting. However, although
Table 1 presents a regionally limited and most certainly incomplete set of data that cannot, and should not, be used alone to
assess long-term seismicity, these data demonstrate an interesting pattern in the gross time sequence of surface faulting of
principal fault zones in the region.
S PE CIF IC O B SE R VATI ON S
Some specific observations from this compilation that are
worth highlighting include the following.
Figure 4. Locations of earthquakes associated with surface faulting
for the historical pre-instrumental period before 1894.
Figure 5. Locations of earthquakes associated with surface faulting
for the modern instrumental period 1893–1996.
(1) The destructive earthquake of 518 AD in Macedonia,
which allegedly caused a surface rupture about 40 km long.
Exactly where this happened is difficult to ascertain. Although
the location of the sites affected cannot be identified today,
the most likely site is the valley of the upper reaches of the
Vardar river, north-northeast of Gostivar (Ambraseys 1970).
(For the locations of place-names given here and in the
following, see the references cited.)
(2) The earthquake of 551 AD in central Greece, one of a
series that year, ruptured, in all probability, the eastward
extension of the Delphi fault, which has been quiescent for
hundreds of years.
(3) Also in central Greece, the earthquake of 1740 October
5 that ruined Regini, Lamia and Ypati produced small ground
deformations which run south of Lamia towards Regini but
neither their exact location nor their nature are known.
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
Faulting in the Eastern Mediterranean
(4) The case of faulting in Thrace on 29 July 1752 is
interesting because it is located in an area which is considered
to be relatively inactive. Equally interesting, for the same
reason, is the location of the large earthquake of 1829 May 5
in the region of Drama–Xanthi in Thrace.
(5) We find that many segments of the North Anatolian
fault zone, including the coastal area of the Sea of Marmara,
which today show only minor activity, were ruptured before
this century, and that some of the events in central northern
Anatolia were truly large and probably multiple events.
(6) An earthquake of 110 AD in central Anatolia seems to
have been associated with the Tuzgulu fault, south of the
North Anatolian zone, and that of 1544 with the Surgu fault,
west of the East Anatolian zone, but details are lacking.
(7) In spite of the large number of relatively small earthquakes (M <6.0), surface faulting in Asia Minor and on
s
mainland Greece is often poorly expressed and is not often
reported in the literature.
(8) Much of the Eastern Anatolian fault and its southward
extension into the Ghab, Yammouneh and Roum faults of the
Levantine system, which have been inactive during this century,
Figure 6. Locations of very large (M ≥7.9, solid) and large
s
(7.0≤M ≤7.8) earthquakes in Table 1.
s
were ruptured by the earthquakes of 115 December 13,
1408 December 29, 1759 November 25, 1796 April 26,
1822 August 13 and possibly of 1837 January 1. Other largemagnitude events, for which we have no literary evidence for
faulting, confirm the high seismic potential of that region.
(9) A major event in 1068 in the Hejaz in northwestern
Arabia is unusual not only because of its location but also
because of the evidence, admittedly slight, suggesting a surface
rupture, the location of which must be sought in the region
of Tabuk.
(10) There are a few cases of faulting in northern Syria in
601, 750 and later, but their location is very uncertain.
(11) For the Zagros suture zone in western Iran evidence
for surface faulting is lacking. This may be due to a lack of
information, or to a lack of large-magnitude earthquakes,
which is typical of the zone, or to both. However, even
moderately large earthquakes of modern times, such as the
1972 April 10 Ghir earthquake of M 6.9, have failed to
s
produce surface faulting in the Zagros, whereas events of the
same size often produce coseismic surface ruptures in NE Iran.
This may be related to the large thickness of salt above the
basement in the Zagros, preventing ruptures reaching the
surface (see Jackson & McKenzie 1984).
(12) In contrast, in northern and eastern Iran, where 20th
century earthquake faulting is well known, there is literary
evidence for major ruptures, such as that of #280 BC.
Further east, historical information for faulting becomes
scarce and the few cases identified, such as that of the earthquake of 1505 July 6 north of Kabul in Afghanistan, are
probably a small sample of the number of cases that actually
involved surface faulting.
Most of the very large ( V) and large (L) earthquakes in
Table 1 are associated with large strike-slip faults, such as the
Figure 7. Location of Nauzad and Mask on the fault trace associated with the 1493 earthquake, Table 1 no. 39.
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
399
400
N. N. Ambraseys and J. A. Jackson
Figure 8. The 50 km long surface fault break associated with the earthquake of 1912 August 9 between the Gulf of Saros and the Sea of Marmara
(Table 1, no. 85) remained, until recently, imperfectly known. Arrows indicate the fault break; distance between arrows is 50 km. G: the site of
Ganos (modern Gaziköy) on the Marmara coast; white square: the location of Miseli (modern Mürselli) near which a strand of the rupture is
shown in the accompanying photographs.
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
Faulting in the Eastern Mediterranean
401
Figure 9. Fault zone of interconnected en echelon fractures with offset stream-beds associated with the Dasht-i Bayaz earthquake in eastern Iran
(Table 1, no. 126). Two lines of qanats (underground tunnels, indicated by their access shafts) cross the zone, another abandoned line runs parallel
to the east, part of which follows the 1968 fault break. Numerous abandoned shaft lineaments are evidence that previous ground movements
damaged the underground aqueduct system in the vicinity of the fault zone.
North and East Anatolian, the Dead Sea and the Chaman
faults, shown in Figs 1(c) and 6, a feature that was expected
since large earthquakes are generated by long faults.
CON CLU SION S
In conclusion, we may observe that any seismologist at the
turn of this century, or any scholar much earlier, could have
accessed the historical data before his time that we used in
this paper. Had it occurred to him to do so he would have
discovered almost all the main deforming belts in the region
we know today as well as the overall distribution of seismic
hazard.
A CK NO W L ED GM EN TS
This research was supported by the Climatology Programme
of CEC (DGXII) and is currently supported by a Natural
Environment Research Council grant for the study of longterm seismicity and continental tectonics in the Eastern
Mediterranean region and the Middle East. It is Imperial
College ESEE contribution no. 97/30, and Cambridge Earth
Sciences contribution no. 5121.
R E FER E NCE S
Ambraseys, N., 1970. A note on an early earthquake in Macedonia,
Proc. 3rd Europ. Conf. Earthq. Eng., Sofia, 73–78.
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
Ambraseys, N., 1975. Studies in historical seismicity and tectonics,
Geodyn. T oday, 7–16, Pub. R. Soc. London.
Ambraseys, N., 1992. Soil mechanics and engineering seismology,
Invited Lecture, Proc. 2nd Natl. Conf. Geotechn. Eng., pp. xxi–xlii,
Thessaloniki.
Ambraseys, N., 1994. Material for the investigation of the seismicity
of Libya, L ibyan Studies, 25, 7–22.
Ambraseys, N. & Free, M., 1997. Surface wave magnitude calibration
for European region earthquakes, J. Earthq. Eng., 1, 1–22.
Ambraseys, N. & Jackson, J., 1990. Seismicity and associated strain in
central Greece between 1890 and 1988, Geophys J. Int., 101, 663–708.
Berberian, M. & Tchalenko, J., 1976. Earthquakes of southern Zagros
(Iran): Bushehr region, in Contribution to the Seismotectonics of Iran,
Part II, ed. Berberian, M., Geol. Surv. Iran Rept, 39, 346–358.
Ekström, G. & Dziewonski, A., 1988. Evidence of bias in estimation
of earthquake size, Nature, 332, 319–323.
Guidoboni, E., Ferrari, G. & Margottini, C., 1989. Una chiave di
lettura per la sismicita antica: la ricerca dei gemelli frl terremoto del
365 d.C., in I T erremoti Prima del Mille, pp. 552–73, ed.
E. Guidoboni, Ist. Naz. Geof., Rome.
Jackson, J.A. & Ambraseys, N.N., 1997. Convergence between Eurasia
and Arabia in Eastern Turkey and the Caucasus, in Historical and
Prehistorical Earthquakes in the Caucasus, eds Giardini, D. &
Balassanian, S., NAT O ASI series 2, 28, 79–90.
Jackson, J. & McKenzie, D., 1984. Active tectonics of the Alpine –
Himalayan Belt between western Turkey and Pakistan, Geophys.
J. R. astr. Soc., 77, 185–264.
Jacques, F. & Bousquet, B., 1984. La raz de maree du 21 juillet 365
du cataclysme local et la catastrophe consmique, Melanges Ecole
Franc. de Rome, 96, 423–461.
402
N. N. Ambraseys and J. A. Jackson
Kanamori, H. & Anderson, D., 1975. Theoretical basis of some
empirical relations in seismology, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 65,
1073–1095.
Papazachos, B., Comninakis, P., Hatzidimitriou, P., Kiriakidis, E.,
Kyratzi, A., Panagiotopoulos, D., Papadimitriou, E., Papaioannou, C.
& Pavlides, S., 1982. Atlas of isoseismal maps for earthquakes in
Greece 1902–81, Publ. Geoph. L ab. Univ. T hessaloniki, no. 4,
Thessaloniki.
Papazachos, B. & Papazachou, C., 1997. I Seismoi T is Elladas, p. 182,
Ziti, Thessaloniki.
Scholz, C.H., 1982. Scaling laws for large earthquakes: consequences
for physical models, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 72, 1–14.
Scholz, C.H., Aviles, C.A. & Wesnousky, S.G., 1986. Scaling differences
between large interplate and intraplate earthquakes, Bull. seism Soc.
Am., 76, 65–70.
Shebalin, N., Karnik, V. & Hadzijevski, D., 1974. Catalogue of
earthquakes Part I, 1901–70; Part II, prior to 1901; Part III, Atlas
of isoseismal maps, UNDP/UNESCO Survey Seismicity of the Balkan
Region, Skopje.
Triep, R.G., Abers, G.A., Lerner-Lam, A.L., Mishatkin, V.,
Zacharchenko, N. & Starovit O., 1995. Active thrust front of the
Greater Caucasus: the April 29, 1991, Racha earthquake sequence
and its tectonic implications, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 4011–4033.
Vanek, J., Zatopek, A., Karnik, V., Kondorskaya, N., Riznichenko, Y.,
Savarenski, E., Soloviev, S. & Shebalin, N., 1962. Standardization
of magnitude scales, Izvest. Akad. Nauk., Ser. Geofiz., no. 2,
pp. 153–158, Moscow.
Wells, D. & Coppersmith, K., 1994. New empirical relationships among
magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface
displacement, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 84, 974–1002.
$
$
$
$
$
A P P EN DI X A:
In order to give the reader some idea of the substance of
information that can be found in historical documents that
may refer to surface faulting, we present in this appendix the
translation of pertinent parts, taken at random and out of
context, from original sources. Numbers in brackets refer to
entries in Table 1.
$
$
$
The earthquake of #280  in Rhagae (modern Shahr-e
Rey in north central Iran) is described by a nearcontemporary sources as follows: ‘... Rhagae, in Media, has
received its name because the earth about the Caspian
Gates had been rent by earthquakes to such an extent that
many cities and villages were destroyed and the rivers
underwent changes of various kinds...’ [3].
For the earthquake of 518 AD in Macedonia, a contemporary account about the effects of the earthquake includes the
following information: ‘... Many mountains throughout the
province (of Dardania) were rent asunder; rocks and forest
trees were torn from their sockets and a yawning chasm 12
feet in breadth and 30 000 Roman feet (43 km) in extent
intercepted and entombed many of the fugitive citizens...’
[16].
The evidence for the earthquake of 551 AD in Greece comes
from a contemporary source which, in the long narrative
adds that: ‘... In that locality where the so-called Schisma
(Cleft) is located there was a tremendous earthquake ... And
the earth was rent asunder in many places and formed
chasms. Now some of these openings came together again
..., but in other places they remained open, with the consequence that the people in such places are not able to
intermingle with each other except by making use of many
detours ...’ [17];
$
An eyewitness, describing the effects of the earthquake of
1254 in central northern Anatolia, informs us that: ‘... As
we rode along for three days ( between Susehri and Erzincan)
we saw a fault in the earth, exactly as it had been split open
in the earthquake, and piles of earth that slid down from
the mountains and filled the valleys ... We passed through
the valley where ... a great lake had welled up in the course
of the earthquake ...’ [34].
From a contemporary history we learn that in the earthquake of 1408 in the Orontes valley in Syria: ‘... The ground
fissured and was thrown down over the distance of one
barid (20 km), from the town of Qusair to Saltuham...’ [37].
In the earthquake of 1493 near Birjand, in Iran: ‘... For two
farsakhs (12 km) between Nauzad and Mask the ground
was fissured to such a depth that the bottom of the crack
was invisible...’ [39].
A traveller describing the effects of the earthquake of 1825
in western Mazanderan in Iran, not far from the site of the
recent Manjil earthquake of 1990 June 20, says: ‘... Between
Kuhrud and Bul Qalam there is some evidence that in this
locality the shock was associated with permanent ground
deformations. The piers of a masonry bridge built on solid
rock and destroyed by the earthquake seemed as if they
could never have been intended to support the same arch,
so different was their parallel ... and the opposite sides of
the ravine had no doubt suffered displacement.’ [58].
Another eyewitness account about the earthquake of
1866 May 12 in eastern Anatolia in Turkey says that: ‘... As
a result of the earthquake the ground was rent; the earthquake fracture led from the village of Halipan in the south,
to the border of the district of Varto, running uninterrupted
for a distance of eight hours’ journey (#30 km) ...’[66].
A more explicit account about the earthquake of 1874 May
3 in eastern Anatolia, written by a mining engineer, says
that in this earthquake, ‘... The south side of lake Gölcük
was uplifted by a metre or two. The valley at the southeast
end of the lake, near Kizin and Burnus Han, through which
the lake empties itself by a stream running into the Tigris
river, was upheaved. Because of this, the stream ceased to
flow and the lake began to rise. Roads and tracks that ran
along its shore were submerged and villages on its margins
were swamped and had to be abandoned. By the end of the
year the water had almost reached the level of the uplifted
valley.
‘The valley southeast of Şarikamiş was ‘‘rent’’ all the way to
Haraba with the southeast of Lake Gölcük uplifted by one
to two metres along a length of about 45 km ...’ [69,70].
A P PE ND IX B: R E FER E NCE S T O TA B LES
1 Ambraseys, N., 1963. The Buyin-Zara earthquake of
September 1962, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 53, 705–740.
2 Ambraseys, N., 1967. The earthquakes of 1965–66 in the
Peloponnesus, Greece, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 57, 1025–1046.
3 Ambraseys, N., 1968. An engineering seismology study of
the Skopje earthquake of 26 July 1963, in T he Skopje
Earthquake, pp. 35–88, UNESCO, Paris.
4 Ambraseys, N., 1970a. Early earthquakes in the Near and
Middle East 17–1699 AD; Part I: Documentation of historical
earthquakes in the Middle East; Part II: Historical earthquakes
after 17 AD; Part III: ‘North Africa and South-east Europe,
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
Faulting in the Eastern Mediterranean
UNESCO Repts, Nos SC/1473/69 and SC/2129/70, 450, Paris,
and unpublished data.
5 Ambraseys, N., 1970b. A note on an early earthquake in
Macedonia, Proc. 3rd European Conf. Earthq. Eng., 73–78,
Sofia.
6 Ambraseys, N., 1975. Studies in historical seismicity and
tectonics, Geodyn. T oday, 7–16.
7 Ambraseys, N., 1979. A test case of historical seismicity:
Isfahan and Chahar Mahal, Iran, Geogr. J., 145, 56–71.
8 Ambraseys, N., 1988. Engineering seismology, J. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn., 17, 1–106.
9 Ambraseys, N., 1989. Temporary seismic quiescence: SE
Turkey, Geophys. J., 96, 311–331.
10 Ambraseys, N., 1990. Two little-known 16–17th century
earthquakes in central Greece, Communic. Natl. Grec. Etudes
Sud-est Europ., 2, 75–82, Athens.
11 Ambraseys, N., 1992. Soil mechanics and engineering seismology Invited Lecture, Proc. 2nd Natl. Conf. Geotechn. Eng.,
Thessaloniki, pp. xxi–xlii.
12 Ambraseys, N., 1997. The earthquake of 1 January 1837 in
southern Lebanon and northern Israel, Ann. Geofis., 40,
923–936.
13 Ambraseys, N. & Barazangi, M., 1989. The 1759 earthquake
in the Bekaa Valley, J. geophys. Res., 94, 4007–4013.
14 Ambraseys, N. & Finkel C., 1987. Seismicity of Turkey and
neighbouring regions 1899–1915, Ann. Geophys., 5B, 701–726.
15 Ambraseys, N. & Finkel, C., 1987. The Saros-Marmara
earthquake of 9 August 1912, J. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
15, 189–211.
16 Ambraseys, N. & Finkel, C., 1988. The Anatolian earthquake of 17 August 1668, in Historical Seismograms and
Earthquakes of the World, pp. 173–180, ed. Lee, W., Academic
Press, San Diego.
17 Ambraseys, N. & Finkel, C., 1995. T he Seismicity of T urkey
and Adjacent Areas 1500–1800, Eren, Istanbul.
18 Ambraseys, N. & Free M., 1997. Surface wave magnitude
calibration for European region earthquakes, J. Earthq. Eng.,
1, 1–22.
19 Ambraseys, N. & Jackson, J., 1990. Seismicity and associated
strain in central Greece between 1890 and 1988, Geophys.
J. Int, 101, 663–708.
19b Ambraseys, N. & Jackson, J., 1997. Seismicity and strain
in the Gulf of Corinth since 1694, J. Earthq. Eng., 1, 433–474.
20 Ambraseys, N., Lensen, G., Moinfar, A. & Pennington W.,
1981. The Pattan (Pakistan) earthquake of 28 December 1974:
field observations, Q. J. eng. Geol., 14, 1–16.
21 Ambraseys, N. & Melville, C., 1982. A History of Persian
Earthquakes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
22 Ambraseys, N. & Melville C., 1988. An analysis of the
eastern Mediterranean earthquake of 20 May 1202, in
Historical Seismograms and Earthquakes of the World,
pp. 181–200, ed. Lee, W., Academic Press, San Diego.
23 Ambraseys, N. & Melville C., 1989. Evidence for intraplate
earthquakes in north-west Arabia, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 79,
1279–1281.
24 Ambraseys, N. & Melville, C., 1995. Historical evidence of
faulting in eastern Anatolia and northern Syria, Ann. Geofis.,
38, 337–43.
25 Ambraseys, N. & Melville, C., 1996. A parametric earthquake catalogue of Iran 700–1996, ESEE Research Report
96/4, London.
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
403
26 Ambraseys, N. & Moinfar, A., 1974. The Firuzabad earthquake of 16 August 1958, Ann. Geofis., 27, 1–21.
27 Ambraseys, N. & Moinfar, A., 1977. The Torud earthquake
of 12 February 1953, Ann. Geofis., 30, 185–200.
28 Ambraseys, N. & Pantelopoulos, P., 1989. The Fokis-Greece
earthquake of 1 August 1870, J. Euro. Earthq. Eng, 3, 10–18.
29 Ambraseys, N. & Tchalenko, J., 1969. Dasht-e Bayaz
Earthquake of 31 August 1968, UNESCO Publ. no.
1214/BMS, Paris.
30 Ambraseys, N. & Tchalenko, J., 1972. Seismotectonic aspects
of the Gediz earthquake of March 1970, Geophys. J. R. astr.
Soc., 30, 229–252.
31 Ambraseys, N. & White, D., 1996. The seismicity of the
eastern Meditrranean region before the Christian era, ESEE
Rep. no. 96–4, 97, Imperial College of Science, London, and
extended summary in Seismology in Europe, pp. 674–679,
Icelandic Met. Office, Reykjavik, J.Earthq. Eng., 1.
32 Ambraseys, N. & White, D., 1997. The seismicity of the
eastern Mediterranean region during the first millennium of
our era, J. Earthq. Eng., 1, 603–632.
33 Ambraseys, N. & Zatopek, A., 1968. The Varyto Ustukran
earthquake of 19 August 1996, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 58, 47–102.
34 Ambraseys, N. & Zatopek, A., 1969. The Mudurnu Valley
earthquake of July 22 1967, Bull. seism. Soc. Am.,59, 521–589.
35 Ambraseys, N., Moinfar, A. & Tchalenko J., 1972. Ghir
earthquake of 10 April 1972, UNESCO Pub. no. 2789, Paris.
36 Ambraseys, N., Moinfar, A. & Peronaci F., 1973. The
Farsinaj earthquake of 13 December 1957, Ann. Geofis., 26,
679–692.
37 Ambraseys, N., Lensen, G. & Moinfar A., 1978. The Patan
earthquake of 28 December 1974, UNESCO Publ. no.
SC/GEO/75/134, Paris.
38 Ambraseys, N., Arsovski, M. & Moinfar, A., 1979. The Gisk
earthquake of 19 December 1977 and the seismicity of the
Kuhbanan fault-zone, UNESCO Publ. no. SC/80/2.1614, Paris.
39 Armijo, R. & Lyon-Caen, H., 1991. E–W extension and
Holocene normal fault scarps in the Hellenic Arc: possible
rupture of the 464 BC Sparta earthquake, Nature, 351,
137–139.
40 Arpat, E., 1971. 22 Mayis 1971 Bingol depremi; Olu Deniz
fay sisteminin Karliova ilicesi ile Hazar Golu arasindaki bolumu,
Report MTA, Ankara.
41 Arpat, E., 1977. 1975 Lice depremi, Yeryuvari ve Insan, 2,
15–27, Ankara.
42 Arpat, E. & Bingöl, E., 1969. The rift system of western
Turkey, Bull. Min. Res. Explor. Inst., 73, 1–9, Ankara.
43 Arpat, E., Saroglu, F., 1972. The East Anatolian Fault
system: thoughts on its development, Bull. Mineral. Explor.
Inst., no. 78, 33–39, Ankara.
44 Arpat, E., Saroglu, F. & Iz, H., 1977. 1976 Caldiran depremi,
Yeryuvari ve Insan, 2, 29–41, Ankara.
45 Arsovski, M., 1970. Contemporary tectonic properties of
some seismic active zones in Yugoslavia, Proc. 3rd Europ. Conf.
Earthq. Eng, pp. 181–88, Sofia.
46 Barka, A., 1992a. The North Anatolian fault-zone, Ann.
T ect., 6, 164–195.
47 Barka, A., 1992b. Surface cracks of the March 13 1992
Erzincan earthquake, Bogazici, Univ. Spec. Publ., 68–79.
48 Barka, A. & Kadinski-Cade, K., 1988. Strike-slip fault
geometry and its influence on earthquake activity in Turkey,
T ectonics, 3, 663–684.
404
N. N. Ambraseys and J. A. Jackson
49 Barka, A. & Eyidogan, H., 1993. The Erzincan earthquake
of 13 March 1992 in eastern Turkey, T erra Nova, 5, 190–194.
50 Berberian, M., 1979. Earthquake faulting and bedding
thrust associated with the Tabas-e Golshan (Iran) earhquake
of September 16 1978, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 69, 1861–1887.
51 Berberian, M., 1982. Aftershock tectonics of the Tabas-e
Golshan (Iran) earthquake sequence: a documented active
thin-and thick-skinned tectonic case, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc.,
68, 499–530.
52 Berberian, M. & Tchalenko, J., 1976. Earthquakes of
southern Zagros (Iran): Bushehr region, ed. M. Berberian
Contribution to Seismotect. Iran, Part II, Geol. Surv. Iran Rep.,
39, 346–358.
53 Berberian, M. & Papastamatiou, D., 1978. Khurgu (north
Bandar Abbas, Iran) earthquake of March 21 1977, Bull. seism.
Soc. Am., 68, 411–428,.
54 Berberian, M., Asdudeh, I., Bilham, R., Scholtz, C. &
Soufleris, C., 1979. Mechanism of the main shock and the
aftershock study of the Tabas – Golshan (Iran) earthquake of
September 16 1978; a preliminary report, Bull. seism. Soc. Am.,
69, 1851–1859.
55 Berberian, M., Asudeh, I. & Arshadi, S., 1979. Surface
rupture and mechanism of the Bob-Tangol (SE Iran) earthquake of 19 December 1977, Earth planet. Sci. L ett., 42,
456–462.
56 Berberian, M., Jackson, J., Ghorashi, M. & Kadjar, M.,
1984. Field and teleseismic observations of the 1981 GolbafSirch earthquakes in SE Iran, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc, 77,
809–838.
57 Berberian, M., Qorashi, M., Jackson, J., Priestley, K. &
Wallace, T., 1992. The Rudbar-Tarom earthquake of 20 June
1990 in NW Persia: preliminary field and seismological observations, and its tectonic significance, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 82,
1726–1755.
58 Bezzeghoud, M., Deschamps, A. & Madariago, R., 1986.
Broad-band modelling of the Corinth, Greece earthquakes of
February and March 1981, Ann. Geophys., 4, 295–304.
59 Blumenthal, M., 1943. Zur Geologie der Landstrecken der
Erdbeben von Ende 1942 in Nord-Anatolien und dortselbst
ausgefuhrte makroseismische Beobachtungen, Maden T etkik
ve Arama Enst., no. 1/29, 33–58, Ankara.
60 Blumenthal, M., 1945. Ladik deprem hatti Samsun ili Maden
T etkik ve Arama Enst., no. 1/33, 153–179, Ankara.
61 Bommer, J. & Ambraseys, N., 1989. The Spitak (Armenia)
earthquake of 7 December 1988, J. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
18, 921–925.
62 Dewey, J.W., 1976. Seismicity of Northern Anatolia, Bull.
seism. Soc. Am, 66, 843–868.
63 Erdik, M., Aydinoglu, N., Pinar, A. & Kalafat, D., 1995.
October 11995 Dinar (Turkey) earthquake, Rept Bogazici
University, Istanbul.
64 Erentoz, C. & Kurtman, F., 1964. Rapport sur le tremblement de terre de Manyas survenu en 1964 Bull. Mineral. Res.
Explor. Inst. T urkey, no. 63, 1–6, Ankara.
65 Eyidogan H., 1988. Rates of crustal deformation in western
Turkey as deduced from major earthquakes, T ectonophysics,
148, 83–92.
66 Eyidogan, H. & Jackson, J., 1985. A seismological study of
normal faulting in the Demirci, Alashehir and Gediz earthquakes of 1979–7 in western Turkey: implications for the
nature and geometry of deformation in continental crust,
Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 81, 569–607.
67 Eyidogan, H. & Barka, A., 1996. The 1 October 1995 Dinar
earthquake, SW Turkey, T erra Nova, 8, 479–485.
68 Fara, A., 1976. Study of recent seismotectonics in Pakistan,
Rept CENT O Working Group on Recent T ectonics, Istanbul.
69 Goudarzi, K. & Ghaderi-Tafreshi, M., 1976. The Qaen
earthquake of November 71976, Proc. CENT O Earthq. Hazard
Minim. Seminar, 301–309, Tehran.
70 Griesbach, C.L., 1893. Notes on the earthquake in
Baluchistan on the 20th December 1892, Rec. Geol. Surv. India,
Pt.2, 57–61, & Pt.1, p.27 (1898).
71 Guidoboni, E., Comastri, A. & Traina, G., 1994. Catalogue
of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the
10th Century, Istituto Naz. di Geofisica, Rome.
72 Gülkan, P., Gürpinar, A., Celebi, M., Arpat, E. &
Gencoǧlu, S., 1978. Engineering report on the MuradiyeCaldiran, Turkey, earthquake of 24 November 1976, Publ.
Natl. Res. Counc. Natl. Akad. Sci., Washington, DC.
73 Haghipour, A. & Amidi, M., 1979. Geotectonics of the
Ghaenat earthquakes of NE Iran, Nov. 14 to Dec. 9, 1979,
Rept Geol. Surv. Iran, Tehran.
74 Hanks, T. & Wyss, M., 1972. The use of body-wave spectra
in the determination of seismic source parameters, Bull. seism.
Soc. Am., 62, 561–589.
75 Hatzfeld, D., Nord, J. et al., 1995. The Kozani-Grevena
(Greece) earthquake of May 13 1995, Seism. Res. L ett., 66,
61–70.
76 Heron, A.M., 1911. The Baluchistan earthquake of the 21st
October 1909, Rec. Geol. Surv. India, 41, 22–35.
77 Jackson, J. & Fitch, A., 1979. Seismotectonic implications
of relocated aftershock sequence in Iran and Turkey, Geophys.
J. R. astr. Soc., 57, 209–229.
78 Jackson, J., Gagnepain, J., Houseman, G., King, G.,
Papadimitriou, D., Soufleris, C. & Spencer, C., 1982. Seismicity,
normal faulting and geomorphological development of the
Gulf of Corinth – Greece, Earth planet. Sci. L t., 57, 377–397.
79 Jackson, J. & McKenzie, D., 1984. Active tectonics of the
Alpine – Himalayan Belt between western Turkey and
Pakistan, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 77, 185–264.
80 Kadinsky-Cade, K. & Barka, A., 1989. Relationship between
restraining bends and earthquake magnitude: large earthquakes in strike-slip zones, USGS Workshop Fault Segment &
Controls, Open File Rept no. 89/315, 181–192.
81 Kadinsky-Cade, K., Rouhban, B., eds, 1989. Proc. Int
Seminar on Spitak-88 Earthquake, Yerivan.
82 Keightly, W., 1975. Destructive earthquakes in Burdur and
Bingol, Turkey, Publ. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC.
83 Ketin, I., 1966. 6 ekim 1964 Manyas depremi esnasinda
zeminde meydana gelen tansiyon catlaklari, T urk. Jeoloj.
Kurumu Bult., 10, 44–51, Ankara.
84 Ketin, I., 1969. Uber die nordanatolische horizontal verschiebung, Bull. Mineral. Res. Explor. Inst., 72, 1–28, Ankara.
85 Ketin, I. & Roesli, F., 1954. Macroseismische
Untersuchungen ueber das nordwestanatolische Beben vom
18 März 1953, Eclogae Helvet., 46, 187–208.
86 Kim, W., Kulhanek, O. & Meyer, K., 1984. Source processes
of the 1981 Gulf of Corinth earthquake sequence from bodywave analysis, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 74, 459–477.
87 King, G. & Nabelek, J., 1985. Role of the fault bends in the
initiation and termination of earthquake rupture, Science,
228, 984–987.
88 Kiroff, K.T., 1935. Studien der Erdbeben in Sud-Bulgarien
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
Faulting in the Eastern Mediterranean
von 14 und 18 April 1928, Sborn. Biulg. Akad. Nauk., 29,
1–116, Sofia.
89 Kociaj, S. & Sulstarove, E., 1980. The earthquake of June
1, 1905, Skodra, Albania, T ectonophysics, 67, 319–32.
90 Kocyigit, A., 1988. Basic geological characteristics and total
offset of the North Anatolian fault zone in the Sushehri area
NE Turkey, J. Pure Appl. Sci., no. 228, 984–97, Ankara.
91 Kudo, K., 1983. Seismic source characteristics of recent
major earthquakes in Turkey, Comprehensive Study of
Earthquakes in Turkey, Publ. Eng. Faculty, Hokkaido
University, Sapporo.
92 Kulhanek, O. & Meyer, K., 1979. Source parameters of the
Volvi-Langadhas earthquake of June 20 1978 deduced from
body-wave spectra at stations UPP and KIR, Bull. seism. Soc.
Am., 69, 1289–1294.
93 Lyon-Caen, H., Armijo, R. et al., 1988. The 1986 Kalamata
(South Peloponnesus) earthquake: detailed study of a normal
fault evidence for east–west extension in the Hellenic Arc,
J. geophys. Res., 93, 14 967–15 000.
94 McEvilly, T.V. & Niazi, M., 1975. Post-earthquake observations at Dasht-e Bayaz, Iran, T ectonophysics, 26, 267–280.
95 Mercier, J., Mouyaris, N., Simeakis, C, Roundoyannis, T.
& Angelidhis, C., 1979. Intraplate deformations: a quantitative
study of the faults activated by the 1978 Thessaloniki earthquakes, Nature, 278, 45–48.
96 Mercier, J., Garey-Gailhardis, E., Mouyaris, N., Simeakis,
C., Roundoyannis, T. & Anghelidis, C., 1983. Structural analysis of recent and active faults and regional state of stress in
the epicentral area of the 1978 Thessaloniki earthquake,
T ectonics, 2, 577–600.
97 Mirkov, M., 1930. Pretsizni nivelachii izmirvania v yuzhno
biulgarskata zemetriasna oblast, Doklad. Geograf. Inst., no.
750, Sofia.
98 Mohajer, G.A. & Pierce, G.R., 1963. Qazvin, Iran earthquake, Bull. Am. Petrol. Geol., 47, 1878–83.
99 Moinfar, A. & Naderzadeh, A., 1990. T he Manjil, Iran,
earthquake of 20 June 1990, no. 119, Ministry of Housing &
Urban Devel., Tehran.
100 Niazi, M., 1968. Fault rupture in the Iranian Dasht-e
Bayaz earthquake of August 1968, Nature, 220, 569–570.
101 Niazi, M., 1969. Source dynamics of the Dasht-e Bayaz
earthquake of August 31 1968, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 59,
1843–1861.
102 Niazi, M. & Kanamori, H., 1981. Source parameters of
1978 Tabas and 1979 Qainat, Iran, earthquakes from longperiod surface waves, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 71, 1201–1213.
103 Niazi, M. & Bozorgnia, Y., 1992. The 1990 Manjil, Iran
earthquake and seismology overview, PGA attenuation and
observed damage, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 82, 774–799.
104 North, R.G., 1977. Seismic moment, source dimensions
and stress associated with earthquakes in the Mediterranean
and Middle East, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 48, 137–161.
105 Nowroozi, A. & Mohajer, A., 1985. Fault movements and
tectonics of eastern Iran: boundaries of the Lut plate, Geophys.
J. R. astr. Soc., 83, 215–237.
106 Ocal, N., 1959. 26 mayis 1957 Abant zelzelesi, Sism.
Yayinlari, no. 4, Istanbul Kandilli Rasathan., Istanbul.
107 Pamir, H.N., 1943. Corum ve Erbaa depremleri, T urk
Cograf. Dergis., 1, no. 2, 1–7, Ankara.
108 Pamir, H.N. & Akyol, I., 1943. Corum ve Erbaa depremleri,
T urk Cograf. Derg., 1, no. 2, 1–7, Ankara.
109 Papastamatiou, D. & Mouyaris, N., 1986. The earthquake
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406
405
of April 30 1954, in Sophades, central Greece, Geophys. J. R.
astr. Soc, 87, 885–895.
110 Papazachos, B., Moutrakis, A., Psilovikos, A. &
Leventakis, G., 1979. Surface fault traces and fault plane
solution of the May-June 1978 shocks in the Thessaloniki area,
North Greece, T ectonophysics, 53, 171–183.
111 Papazachos, B., Comninakis, P. et al., 1982. Atlas of
Isoseismal Maps for Earthquakes in Greece 1902–81, Publ.
Geoph. Lab. University of Thessaloniki, no. 4, Thessaloniki.
112 Papazachos, B., Panagiotopoulos, D., Tsapanos, T.,
Mountrakis, D. & Dimopoulos, G., 1983. A study of the 1980
summer seismic sequence in Magnesia region of Central
Greece, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 75, 155–168.
113 Parejas E., Pamir H., 1939. Le tremblement de terre du
19 avril 1938 en Anatolie centrale, Istanb. University, Fen
Fakult. Mecmuas., 4, 183–193, Istanbul.
114 Pavlides S. & Tranos M., 1991. Structural characteristics
of two strong earthquakes in the North Aegean: Ierissos 1932
and Agios Efstratios 1968, J. struct. Geol., 13, 205–214.
115 Pavlides, S., Zouros, N., Chatzipetros, A., Kostopoulos, D.
& Mountrakis, D., 1995. The 13 May 1995 western Macedonia,
Greece, earthquake: preliminary results, T erra Nova, 7,
544–549.
116 Perejas, E. & Pamir, H., 1939. 19.4.1938 Orta Anadolu
yerdepremi, Istambul University Fakult. Mec., B4, Istanbul.
117 Petrescu, G. & Purcaru, G., 1964. The mechanism and
stress pattern at the focus of the September 1, 1962, BuyinZara (Iran) earthquake, Ann. Geophys., 20, 1–6.
118 Pinar, N., 1953. 31 agustos 1951 Kursunlu depreminin
jeolojik ve makrosismik etudu, Rev. Facult. Sci. Univ. Istanbul,
Ser.A, 18, 131–141.
119 Richter, C., 1958. Elementary Seismology, Freeman, San
Francisco, CA.
120 Roberts, G. & Koukouvelas, I., 1966. Structural and
seismological segmentation of the Gulf of Corinth fault system:
implications for models of fault growth, Ann. Geofis., 39,
619–646.
121 Rustanovich, D. & Shirokova, E., 1964. Some results of
the study of the Ashkhabad earthquake of 1948, Izvest. Akad.
Nauk, Ser.Geoph., 12, 1077–1080.
122 Salomon-Calvi, W., 1940. Das Erdbeben von Kirsehir von
19 April 1938, Maden T etkik ve Arama Enst., no. 1/31, 34–38,
Ankara.
123 Schmidt, J., 1879. Studien ueber Erdbeben, pp. 68–83,
196–197, Leipzig.
124 Seymen, I. & Aydin, A., 1972. The Bingöl earthquake fault
and its relation to the north Anatolian fault zone, Bull. Mineral.
Res. Explor. Inst., no. 79, 1–8, Ankara.
125 Shebalin, N., Karnik, V. & Hadzijevski, D., 1974. Catalogue
of earthquakes Part I 1901–70; Part II, prior to 1901; Part III,
Atlas of isoseismal maps, UNDP/UNESCO Survey Seismicity
of the Balkan Region, Skopje.
126 Soufleris, C. & Stewart, G., 1981. A source study of the
Thessaloniki (northern Greece) earthquake sequence, Geophys.
J. R. astr. Soc., 67, 343–358.
127 Soufleris, C., Jackson, J., King, G., Spencer, C. & Scholz,
C., 1982. The 1978 earthquake sequence near Thessaloniki
(northern) Greece, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 68, 429–458.
128 Stavrakakis, G., Drakopoulos, J., Latoussakis, J.,
Papanastassiou, D. & Drakatos, G., 1989. Spectral characteristics of the 1986 September 13 Kalamata (southern Greece)
earthquake, Geophys. J. Int., 98, 149–157.
406
N. N. Ambraseys and J. A. Jackson
129 Stavrakakis, G., Blionas, S. & Goutis, C., 1991. Dynamic
source parameters of the 1981 Gulf of Corinth (central Greece)
earthquake sequence on FFT and iterative maximum entropy
techniques, T ectonophysics, 185, 261–275.
130 Sulstarove, E. & Kociaj, S., 1969. Termeti i 30 Nendorit
1967 dhe brezi sizmogjen Vlore-Debar, Bull. Univ. Shtet.
T iranes, Ser.Shken.Nat., 2, 65–94, Tirana.
131 Tasdemiroglu, M., 1971. The Gediz earthquake in Western
Anatolia Turkey, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 61, 1507–1527.
132 Tasman, Y., 1944. Gerede-Bolu depremi, Maden T etkik ve
Arama Enst., no. 1/31, 34–38, Ankara.
133 Tasman, Y., 1946. Varto ve Van depremleri, Maden T etkik
ve Arama Enst., no. 2/36, 287–291, Ankara.
134 Taymaz, T., Eydogan, H. & Jackson, J., 1991. Source
parameters of large earthquakes in the East Anatolian fault
zone (Turkey), Geophys. J. Int., 106, 537–550.
135 Tchalenko, J. & Ambraseys, N., 1970. Structural analysis
of the Dasht-e Bayaz earthquake fractures, Bull. Geol. Soc.
Am., 81, 41–60.
136 Tchalenko, J. & Berberian, M., 1974. The Salmas (Iran)
earthquake of May 6th 1930, Ann. Geofis, 27, 151–212.
137 Tchalenko, J.S. & Berberian, M., 1975. Dasht-e Bayaz
fault, Iran; earthquake and related structures in bed rock, Bull.
Geol. Soc. Am., 86, 703–709.
138 Toksoz, M.N., Arpat, E. & Saroglu, F., 1977. East
Anatolian earthquake of 24 Nov. 1976; field observations,
Nature, 270, 423–25.
139 Toksoz, M.N., Nabelek, N. & Arpat, E., 1978. Source
properties of the 1976 earthquake in east Turkey; a comparison
of field data and teleseismic results, T ectonophysics, 49,
199–205.
140 Toksoz, N., Shakal, A. & Michael, A., 1979. Space-time
migration of earthquakes along the North Anatolian Fault
Zone and seismic gaps, Geophysics, 117, 1258–70.
141 Tomblin, J., 1981. The Kerman, Iran earthquake of 28 July
1981, Mission Reports 12.8.81, United Nations Disast. Relief
Org. (UNDRO), Geneva.
142 Trifonov, V., Bayractutan, M., Karakhanian, A. & Ivanova,
T., 1993. The Erzincan earthquake: tectonic aspects, T erra
Nova, 5, 184–189.
143 Vanek, J., Zatopek, A., Karnik, V., Kondorskaya, N.,
Riznichenko, Y., Savarenski, E., Soloviev, S. & Shebalin, N.,
1962. Standardization of magnitude scales, Izvest. Akad. Nauk.,
Ser. Geofiz., 153–158, Moscow.
144 Wallace, R., 1968. Earthquake of August 19, 1996, Varto
area, Eastern Turkey, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 58, 11–56.
145 Wells, D. & Coppersmith, K., 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture
area and surface displacement, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 84,
974–1002.
146 West, W.D., 1945. Preliminary geological report on the
Baluchistan earthquake of May 31st 1935, Rec. Geol. Surv.
India, 69, 203–240.
147 Yates, R., Shieh, K. & Allen, C., 1996. Geology of
Earthquakes, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
148 Zare, M. & Moinfar, A., 1994. Comment on the RudbarTarom earthquake of 20 June 1990, Bull. seism. Soc. Am.,
84, 484–485.
149 Zare, N., 1995. Earthquake faulting and seismotectonics
of the Lut area; an observation on the Sefidabeh 1994 earthquake fault, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. Seism. Earthq. Eng.,
179–186, Tehran.
150 Zelkov, Ya., 1929. Svedeniya po zemledielneto, Byulet. na
Infrom. Sluzhba, 10, pts 1 and 2, Sofia.
© 1998 RAS, GJI 133, 390–406