Y. ALTINOK 1 andS. ERSOY21Department of Geophysical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Istanbul, 34850Avcilar, Istanbul, Turkey;2Department of Geological Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,University of Istanbul, 34850 Avcilar, Istanbul, Turkey
(Received: 21 July 1998; in final form: 6 December 1999)
Abstract. For centuries, inhabitants of coastal areas have suffered from the effects of tsunamis.Turkey, with a coastline of 8333 km, has experienced many tsunamis. Historical records reveal that,during the observation period over 3000 years, the coastal and surrounding areas of Turkey have beenaffected by more than ninety tsunamis. These tended to cluster around the Marmara Sea, the city ofIstanbul and the gulfs of Izmit, Izmir, Fethiye and Iskenderun. Each of the tsunami occurrencessurveyed in this paper deserves further individual study. The most extensive available informationconcerns the tsunamis associated with the Istanbul Earthquakes of 1509 and 1894, the Eastern Mar-mara Earthquake in 1963 and that of Izmit in 1999, which disturbed the Marmara Sea; the Earthquakeof 1939 in Erzincan in eastern Anatolia; and the 1968 Bartın Earthquake, which affected Fatsa andAmasra on the Black Sea. In addition to these, it is known that a tsunami occurred in 1598 on theshores of the Black Sea in connection with an earthquake at Amasya in northern Anatolia.
Key words: tsunamis, Turkish coasts.
1. Introduction
Throughout human history, coastal communities have been aware of tsunami haz-ards. This natural catastrophe has been responsible for great loss of life andimmense damage to property. When we look at the geographical distribution oftsunamis, the majority of them have been generated in the Pacific Ocean. Ac-cording to Gusiakovet al. (1997), more than 800 tsunamigenic events occurredall over the Pacific from A.D. 684 to 1994. The last major Pacific-wide tsunamioccurred on 17 July 1998 in Sissano Lagoon, Papua New Guinea, and around3000 people were killed or missing. Imamura (1998) stated that a survey of thedamaged area confirmed 7 to 10 m wave heights and found a place where wavesup to 15 m or above were centered. He also observed that the severe damage andextreme wave heights were confined to a relatively short (30 km) stretch of coast.Destructive tsunamis have also occurred in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans as wellas in the Mediterranean Sea. In the eastern Mediterranean, historical records can betraced back to the 15th century B.C. The volcanic eruption of Santorini produceda tremendous tsunami and, as a result, the Minoan Civilization was wiped out.Many more destructive tsunamis have occurred in the eastern Mediterranean sincethen (Heck, 1947; Ambraseys, 1962; Karnik, 1971; Moreria, 1971; Shebalinet al.,
186 Y. ALTINOK AND S. ERSOY
1974; Antonopoulos, 1978; Guidoboniet al., 1994). The eastern Mediterraneantsunamis mostly took place in the Aegean Sea and surrounding areas (Calvi, 1941;Ambraseys, 1960, 1962; Antonopoulos, 1978; Poirier and Taher, 1980; Papado-poulos and Chalkis, 1984; Papazachoset al., 1985; Papadopoulos, 1993). It hasbeen observed that most of these occurred along the Turkish coasts. ThereforeTurkey, a country of frequent earthquakes and with a coastline of 8333 km, is alsoexposed to tsunamis. From historical documents, it has been found that earthquake-produced tsunamis had indeed occurred and that these had caused great materiallosses in Turkey and vicinity (Birand, 1944; Soysalet al., 1981; Soysal, 1985;Kuran and Yalçıner, 1993; Altınok and Ersoy, 1996–1997; Altınok and Ersoy,1997).
2. Data
Tsunamis that occurred on or near the Turkish coasts and those believed to haveaffected the Turkish coasts are listed in the Appendix. This list, which includestsunamis that occurred between 1410± 100 B.C. and 1999 A.D., is based onpublished work. The Iida (1984) Scale modified by Soloviev (1990) and, Tinti andMaramai (1996) has been used for the assessment of the reality of the events asfollows: (0), very improbable tsunami; (1), improbable tsunami; (2), questionabletsunami; (3), probable tsunami; (4), definite tsunami. The following criteria havebeen considered in applying the scale to the listed tsunamis:(0) Occurrence improbable. The event has been documented, but is impossible to
confirm and there is no general agreement.(1) Doubtful credibility. Insufficient data or evidence for confirmation are avail-
able.(2) Probable tsunamis noted in various sources and catalogues, but with discrep-
ancies, or confirmed in a single source of doubtful reliability.(3) Sources specific and reliable, but occurrence dates old. Discrepancies present
in some sources and catalogues. Reliable report, but confirmed in only a limitednumber of sources.
(4) The most reliable tsunamis which took place more recently. Multiple reli-able sources: historic documents, church manuscripts, manuscripts by variousauthors, state archives, biographies, essays, private letters, magazines andreports.
3. Tsunamis Observed on the Turkish Coasts and Adjacent Areas
The spatial distribution of the listed tsunamis is shown in Figure 1. Most of thetsunamis occur in the Marmara Sea, particularly near Istanbul and the Gulf ofIzmit, but also in the Gulf of Izmir and environs of the Gulf of Fethiye and in partthe Gulf of Iskenderun. The chronological distribution of the tsunamis is presentedin Figure 2, which shows a notable increase in the frequency of tsunamis in the
TSUNAMIS OBSERVED ON AND NEAR THE TURKISH COAST 187
6th century. These were particularly prominent on the coast of Marmara Sea. Itmay be that this apparent clustering is the result of meticulous record keepingrather than a real effect, since the 6th century was the time of the greatest gloryof the Byzantine era, when scholarship was at its peak. During the second part ofthe 19th century a considerable number of tsunamis took place. The majority ofthese were concentrated on the Aegean coasts. The cluster of events in the 19thcentury appears to be real, rather than the result of more detailed recording. Boththe spatial and temporal distributions demonstrate the importance of the MarmaraSea with regard to tsunamis. Historical documents reveal that tsunamis clusteredparticularly around Istanbul and the Gulf of Izmit. The most detailed informationpresently available on tsunamis concerns those associated with the earthquakes of10 September 1509, 10 July 1894, 18 September 1963 and 17 August 1999.
The historical documents show that the most important tsunamis observed alongthe Black Sea were the Amasya Earthquake Tsunami in 1598 and the ErzincanEarthquake (Fatsa Tsunami) in 1939 and the Bartın Earthquake (Amasra Tsunami)in 1968.
3.1. THE ISTANBUL EARTHQUAKE, 10 SEPTEMBER1509
This was one of the largest and most destructive earthquakes of the last five centur-ies in the eastern Mediterranean. It occurred in the Marmara Sea and was felt overa very large area, causing damage from Bolu to Edirne, and possibily as far as Mt.Athos. Maximum damage occurred in Istanbul. The earthquake killed 4000–5000people in the city and destroyed over 1000 houses. The number of injured in theearthquake was put at 10000. The walls of Galata were damaged and the massiveGalata Tower was shattered. Along the coast, the sea flooded the shores and wavescrashed against the walls in the narrows between Pera and Istanbul (Ambraseys andFinkel, 1995). Waves overtopped the walls in Yenikapı and Aksaray was flooded.The walls of Izmit Castle on the shore were damaged beyond repair, the quay wallsof the shipyard collapsed and waves flooded the dockyard and the lower districts ofthe city. An isoseismal map of this earthquake is shown in Figure 3. The tsunamiwaves of the earthquake overtopped the sea walls in Yenikapı, the wave height wasmost probably more than 6.0 m and the magnitude of the earthquake was close to8.0 (Öztin and Bayülke, 1991).
3.2. THE ISTANBUL EARTHQUAKE, 10 JULY 1894
The earthquake occurring at 12.24 a.m. on 10 July 1894, damaged Istanbul andthe surrounding area, and was felt at Ioanina, Bucharest, Crete, Greece, Konya andmost of Anatolia. The earthquake killed 474 people and injured 482 more and des-troyed 1773 houses (Öztin, 1994). The isoseismal map of this earthquake accordingto Eginitis (1894) is shown in Figure 4. The author mentioned that, along the coast,many disturbances were seen in many parts; the sea receded up to 50 m and then
188Y.A
LTIN
OK
AN
DS
.ER
SO
Y
Figure 1. Locations of tsunamis which have occurred in Turkey and adjacent areas between 1410± 100 B.C. and 1999 A.D. Numbers indicate thechronological order in the Appendix.
TS
UN
AM
ISO
BS
ER
VE
DO
NA
ND
NE
AR
TH
ET
UR
KIS
HC
OA
ST
189
Figure 2. Chronological list of tsunamis in Turkey and adjacent areas between 1410± 100 B.C. and 1999 A.D.
190 Y. ALTINOK AND S. ERSOY
Figure 3. Isoseismal map of Istanbul earthquake, 10 September, 1509 (Öztin and Bayülke,1991). Intensity evaluations are according to the MSK Scale.
returned. In another part, the sea rose and then receded. There was no permanentchange to the coastline. Although the earthquake was felt over a large area, it wasnot supposed that the hypocenter was very deep. The depth was estimated by themethod of Dutton and Hyden to be 34 km. According to Mihailovic (1927), thesea rose up and inundated 200 m, and after a few disturbances became normal.The tsunamis were observed to occur around the Prens Islands and on the northerncoast of the Marmara Sea from Büyükçekmece to Kartal. During the earthquake,at first the sea was at a low level, and then later a strong wave hit the shore to thewest of Istanbul. There was definitely a tsunami, though probably a small one. Thetsunami height was less than 6.0 m and the earthquake magnitude was less than 7.0(Öztin and Bayülke, 1991).
3.3. THE EASTERN MARMARA EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI IN 1963
18 September 1963, an earthquake at 16 58 14.8 (GMT) of surface wave magnitudeMs = 6.3 with its epicenter in eastern Marmara was felt in the coasts of Marmara.The isoseismal map of the earthquake is shown in Figure 5. According to Özçiçek(1966–1967), this earthquake had devastating effects in Çınarcık and neighbouringvillages. It led to boiling in the sea and waves in the coast. A strip of sea shellsand molluscs was observed in an east to west direction along the coast in Mudanyafollowing the earthquake. Waves reaching height of 1 m run up the sea wall. Thefocal mechanism of this earthquake was normal faulting (McKenzie, 1972).
TSUNAMIS OBSERVED ON AND NEAR THE TURKISH COAST 191
Figure 4. Isoseismal map of Istanbul earthquake, 10 July, 1894 (Öztin and Bayülke, 1991).According to Eginitis (1894), the map defines 3 zones of varying damage level. Öztin andBayülke (1991), re-evaluating the findings of Eginitis, present intensity evaluations in theMSK Scale.
3.4. THE 17 AUGUST 1999IZMIT EARTHQUAKE AND IZMIT GULF TSUNAMI
On 17 August, 1999 an earthquake in the vicinity of Izmit at 03.02 local time of amoment magnitudeMw = 7.4, a focal depthh = 18 km and having approximately120 km right lateral strike slip faulting and was felt over a very large area. It lead togreat loss of life and extensive damage. It has also generated a tsunami in the IzmitGulf (S. Tinti and F. Imamura, personal communication, 1999; Yalçıner, 1999;Altınok, 1999). The sea first receded then inundated both sides and ran up morethan 2.5 m some places in the Izmit Gulf during the earthquake. Furthermore, therise of the water was above 10 m in Degirmendere. The bathymetry of the IzmitGulf and fault plane solution of the earthquake are shown in Figure 6.
3.5. THE AMASYA EARTHQUAKE (BLACK SEA TSUNAMI) IN 1598
According to Ambraseys and Finkel (1995): “This was apparently a major earth-quake in central northern Anatolia”, but the data at our disposal is insufficient toassess its size. In a contemporary letter from Venice we read that. . . ‘in 1598 therewas such an earthquake in the Black Sea that Amasya together with other towns
192 Y. ALTINOK AND S. ERSOY
was thrown to the ground in two towns alone 60 000 men perished in the ruinsof their houses; also the sea was driven back drowning a few thousand people intowns and villages”. In another, it is reported that Amasya was “cleaved engulfingmany villages”.
A further account places this event in the region of Amasya and adds that suchan earthquake had not happened for many years and that the sea advanced for amile inland on the coast of the Black Sea, drowning many people.
Contemporary Armenian sources confirm the occurrence of this earthquake.One contemporary mentions it after referring to an eclipse of the sun in May 1047a.Arm. (May 1598). However, the modern standard work on the dating of eclipsesnotes eclipses of the sun on only 7 March and 31 August in 1598.
In some catalogues, this earthquake was called the Amasya and Çorum Earth-quake (Calvi, 1941; Pınar and Lahn, 1952; Erginet al., 1967; Soysalet al., 1981).Calvi (1941) mentioned that the earthquake lasted four months. According to Erginet al. (1967), the intensity of the earthquake on the MS Scale wasI0 = VIII. Thetsunami created by the earthquake in the gulf between Sinop and Samsun showeda wave height of approximately 1 m (Nikonov, 1997).
3.6. THE ERZINCAN EARTHQUAKE (FATSA TSUNAMI) IN 1939
The earthquake occurred on 26–27 December, 1939, at 02.00 a.m. local time. TheErzincan Earthquake whose surface wave magnitude wasMs = 8.0 was probablyone of the most destructive earthquakes in the world. About 40 000 people werekilled and it destroyed over 12000 houses. An area of 400 km by 120 km wasdestroyed. The earthquake created a 350 km fault with a right lateral displacementreaching approximately 4 m. The seismic moment (Mo) was calculated as 5.8×1027 dyne.cm (Jackson and McKenzie, 1988). The earthquake was felt over a verylarge area. An isoseismal map is shown in Figure 7. The sea disturbances seen dur-ing the earthquake were very interesting. Parejaset al. (1942) mention that a personin Fatsa wanted to dive into the sea instinctively at the time of the earthquake, buthe was not able to reach the sea because it had receded about 50 m. After a while,when the sea came back, the edge of the coast advanced 20 m. The sea receded100 m during the earthquake in Ünye and sunken rocks appeared for the first time.The sea also receded for 50–60 s in Giresun. Moreover, in Ordu, the people atthe harbour saw that the sea initially became quiet, then receded about 15 m. Thelevel of the sea returned to normal in 5–10 minutes (Eyidoganet al., 1991). Murty(1977) states that the tsunami amplitudes were smaller on the Russian coasts thanin Turkey. The initial rise of the sea level was recorded at 6 tidal stations on thenorthern coast of the Black Sea.
TSUNAMIS OBSERVED ON AND NEAR THE TURKISH COAST 193
Figure 5. Isoseismal map of Eastern Marmara Earthquake, 18 September 1963 (Özçiçek,1966–1967). Intensity evaluations are according to the MS Scale. Focal mechanism solutionindicates normal faulting (McKenzie, 1972).
3.7. THE BARTIN EARTHQUAKE (AMASRA TSUNAMI ) IN 1968
The earthquake occurred on 3 September, 1968, at 10.20 a.m. local time. Itssurface wave magnitude wasMs = 6.6 and its seismic moment (Mo) was 3.9×1025 dyne.cm (Alptekinet al., 1985). Although it was a medium-sized earthquake,24 persons were killed, hundreds of people were injured, 2166 houses were totallydestroyed and 2498 houses were partly destroyed. It was felt at Istanbul, Ankara,Bursa and Samsun. The isoseismal map of the Bartın Earthquake is shown inFigure 8. McKenzie (1972), Kudo (1983), ¸Sengöret al., (1983) and Jackson andMcKenzie (1984) gave explanations of the focal mechanism of this earthquake.According toSengöret al. (1983) the solution was a pure strike slip faulting, andthe others’ solution was a strike slip faulting with a thrust component. Alptekinetal. (1985) with the help of the modelling of P and SH wave seismograms, con-cluded that the event was caused by thrust faulting and they estimated the averagefocal depth as 4 km. They also suggested that the Bartın Earthquake provided thefirst seismological evidence for active thrust faulting at the southern margin of theBlack Sea. Pınar (1995), examined the teleseismic body wave form inversion of theearthquake in order to understand the rupture process of this event. The result ofinversion showed that two subevents had a strike slip mechanism. The stress-dropsfor the first and second subevents were estimated as 3.8 and 2.5 mPa, respectively.
194 Y. ALTINOK AND S. ERSOY
Figure 6. The bathymetric map of the Izmit Gulf. Focal mechanism solution of the IzmitEarthquake, 17 August 1999, indicates strike slip faulting (according to HARVARD).
Figure 7. Isoseismal map of Erzincan earthquake, 26–27 December, 1939 (Pamir and Ketin,1941). The authors have used the MS Scale. Focal mechanism solution indicates strike slipfaulting (McKenzie, 1972).
During this earthquake, the precipitous coastline between Amasra and Çakrazuplifted. This uplifting estimated by Ketin and Abdüsselamoglu (1970) to be 35–40cm, lowered the sea level on the coastal rock, resulting in the appearance of musselsand moss. Lander (1969) reported that the sea receded 12 to 15 m in Çakraz at theonset of the earthquake and never returned entirely to its original level. Wedding(1968) stated that the sea inundated 100 m in Amasra and after 14 minutes thesecond wave inundated the shore about 50-60 m. This wave dragged many objectsand caused many boats to be stranded. The silent and unstopped progression of thesea frightened the population. The reason for this progression was most probably
TSUNAMIS OBSERVED ON AND NEAR THE TURKISH COAST 195
Figure 8. Isoseismal map of Bartın Earthquake, 3 September 1968. Focal mechanism solutionindicates thrust faulting. Intensity evaluations are according to the MM Scale. Small black dotsrepresent the location of the aftershocks as estimated by ISC. The shaded zone is the upliftingarea (Alptekinet al., 1985).
the uplifting around Çakraz. Ranguelov (1996) states the rise of the sea to be about3 m in the local port.
4. Conclusion
In this study, it has been observed that over 90 tsunamis occurred on and around theTurkish coasts during the period between 1410± 100 B.C and 1999 A.D. Thesedata reveal that the tsunamis primarily occurred in the Marmara Sea, Istanbul andthe Gulf of Izmit, the Gulf of Izmir and its surroundings, the vicinity of FethiyeGulf and also Iskenderun Gulf. When the historical documents are examined, thedata about tsunamis are insufficient. From these data, the tsunamis about which wehave most information are those associated with the Istanbul Earthquakes in theMarmara Sea in 1509 , 1894, 1963, 1999. Izmit Gulf and the Amasya EarthquakeTsunami which appeared in the Black Sea in 1598, the Erzincan Earthquake (FatsaTsunami) in 1939 and the Bartın Earthquake (Amasra Tsunami) in 1968.
The tsunamis discussed in this paper should be investigated in more detail. Fur-thermore, since tsunamis in Turkey and vicinity pose a real threat, more extensive
196 Y. ALTINOK AND S. ERSOY
historical studies should be undertaken to document tsunamis in these regions,organizing the information in a catalogue or an earthquake-tsunami data base.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their comments and for helpfulsuggestions, and Prof Dr. S. R. C. Malin for help with the English.
Appendix
Tsunamis on the Turkish coasts and vicinity are given in the “List of Tsunamis”i: Tsunami intensity (according to the Modified Sieberg Scale, after
Ambraseys, 1962);
H : Maximum wave height (m);
D: The distance that the water penetrated inland (m);
NT I : No tsunami information;
(No): Reference number in the reference section;
/: Separates two alternative dates or periods;
–: Joins the beginning and end of a chronological period;
Rel: Reliability (according to Modified Iida, 1984 Scale, after Soloviev,1990; Tinti and Maramai, 1996).
List of TsunamisNo. Date Place References Remarks Rel
1 1410± 100 B.C. North east of 6, 8, 35, 43, 45 1600–1500 B.C. (46), 3
Crete i = 6? (6), The tsunami
was generated by the
Minoan eruption of the
Santorini Volcano (35)
2 1300 Çanakkale Region 5, 6, 8, 35, 46 i = 6? (6, 35) 2
1. Alptekin, Ö., Nabalek, J. L., and Toksöz, N.: 3 Eylül 1968 Bartın Depreminin kaynak mekan-izması ve Karadeniz’in aktif tektonigi hakkında dü¸sünceler,Deprem Arastırma Bülteni50(1985), 5–28.
2. Altınok, Y. and Ersoy, ¸S.: Tsunamis in the Aegean Sea and near surroundings, In: Ö. Pi¸skin etal. (eds),International Earth Sciences Colloquium on the Aegean Region, 9–14 October 1995,Izmir (1997), pp. 215–226.
TSUNAMIS OBSERVED ON AND NEAR THE TURKISH COAST 203
3. Altınok, Y. and Ersoy, ¸S.: Türkiye kıyıları ve yakın çevresini etkileyen tsunamiler,I. Ü.Mühendislik Fak. Yerbilimleri Dergisi (Engineering Faculty’s Earth Sciences Review)10(1–2)(1996–1997), 111–125.
4. Altınok, Y.: Izmit Depremi, Körfezde tsunami oldu ve can aldı,Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik660(1999), 14–15.
5. Ambraseys, N. N.: 1960, The seismic sea wave on July 9, in the Greek Archipelago,J. Geophys.Res.65(4) (1956), 1257–1265.
6. Ambraseys, N. N.: Data for the investigation of the seismic sea-waves in the EasternMediterranean,Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.52 (1962), 895–913.
7. Ambraseys, N. N. and Finkel, C.: The seismicity of Turkey and adjacent areas. A historicalreview, 1500–1800, Eren Yayıncılık, Istanbul, (1995).
8. Antonopoulos, A.: Contribution to the knowledge of tsunamis in the Eastern Mediterraneanfrom ancient times until the recent,Ann. Geol. Des. Pays. Helleniques TXXIX (2) (1987),740–757.
9. Birand, S. A.: Depremler, Sebepleri, Korunma Yolları, Yüksek Ziraat Enstitüsü Basımevi,Ankara, (1944).
10. Calvi, V. S.:Erdbebenkatalog der Türkei und Einiger Benaehbarter Gebiete(unpublished),Report No. 276, MTA Enstitüsü, Ankara (1941).
11. Eginitis, D.:1310 Zelzelesi Hakkında Rapor, Çev: Bogos, Istanbul, 21 Agustos 1310 Ba¸sbakan-lık Ar sivi Gn. Md. lügü, Yıldız Esas Evrakı, Kısım 14, Evrak C. Zarf 126, Karton 11. S.1-29(manuscript) (1894).
12. Ergin, K., Güçlü, U., and Uz, Z.:Türkiye ve Civarının Deprem Katalo˘gu, ITÜ, Maden Fak. ArzFizigi Entstitüsü, Yayın No. 24, Istanbul (1967).
13. Eyidogan, H., Güçlü, U., Utku, Z., and Degirmenci, E.:Türkiye Büyük Depremleri Makro-Sismik Rehberi (1990–1988), ITÜ Maden Fak. Jeofizik Müh. Böl., Istanbul (1991).
14. Guidoboni, E., Comastri, A., and Traina, G.:Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in theMediterranean Area up to the 10th Century, Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica, Rome (1994).
15. Gusiakov, V. K., Marchuk, An. G., and Osipova, A. V.: Expert tsunami database for the Pacific:motivation, design, and proof-of-concept demonstration, In: G. Hebenstreit (ed.),Perspect-ives on Tsunami Hazard Reduction: Observations. Theory and Planning, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Holland, pp. 21–35 (1997).
16. Heck, N. H.: List of seismic sea waves,Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.37 (1947), 269–286.17. Iida, K.:Catalog of Tsunamis in Japan and its Neighbouring Countries, Department of Civil
Engineering, Aichi Institute of Technology, Japan (1984).18. Imamura, F.: The Sissano Tsunami caused by the earthquake in PNG and the riddle of its
generation,NHS Newsletter3(4) (1998).19. Jackson, J. and McKenzie, D.: Active tectonics of the Alpine-Himalayan Belt between Turkey
and Pakistan,Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc.77 (1984), 185–264.20. Jackson, J. and McKenzie, D.: The relationship between plate motion and seismic moment
tensors and the rates of active deformation in the Mediterranean and Middle East,Geophys. J.93 (1988), 45–73.
21. Karnik, V.:Seismicity of the European Area, Vol. 2, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland (1971).22. Ketin, I. and Abdüsselamoglu, S.: Bartın Depreminin etkileri,TJK BülteniXII (1–2) (1969),
66–77.23. Kudo, K.: Seismic source characteristics of recent major earthquakes in Turkey, In: Y. Ohta
(ed.), A Comprehensive Study on Earthquake Disasters in Turkey in View of Seismic RiskReduction, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan (1983), pp. 150–173.
24. Kuran, U. and Yalçıner, A. C.: Crack propogations earthquakes and tsunamis in the vicinity ofAnatolia, In: S. Tinti (ed.),Fifteenth International Tsunami Symposium, 1991, Tsunamis in theWorld, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Holland (1993), pp. 159–175.
204 Y. ALTINOK AND S. ERSOY
25. Lander, J. F.: Seismological notes – September and October 1968,Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.59(1969), 1023–1030.
26. McKenzie, D.: Active tectonics of the Mediterranean region,Geophys. J.R. Ast. Soc.30 (1972),109–185.
27. Mihailovic, J.: Memoir-Sur les Grands Tremblement de Terre de la Mer de Marmara, Beograd,(1927), pp. 215–222.
28. Moreria, V. S.: Earthquakes and tsunamis in the European area, H. Soysal’s archive, Istanbul(1971).
29. Murty, T. S.:Seismic Sea Waves Tsunamis, Department of Fisheries and the EnvironmentFisheries and Marine Service, Scientific Information and Publication Branch, Ottawa, Canada(1977).
30. Nikonov, A.: Tsunami – a threat from the south?Search and Development, Science in Russia6(1997), 13–19.
31. Özçiçek, B.: 18 Eylül 1963 Dogu Marmara Depremi etüdü,Jeofizik1(2) (1966–1967), 49–69.32. Öztin, F. and Bayülke, N.: Historical earthquakes of Istanbul, Kayseri, Elazıg, In: Proc. Work-
shop on Historical Seismicity and Seismotectonics of the Mediterranean Region, 10–12 October1990 (Istanbul), Turkish Atomic Energy Authority, Ankara (1991), pp. 150–173.
33. Öztin, F.:10 Temmuz 1894 Istanbul Depremi Raporu, T.C. Bayindırlık ve Iskan Bakanlıgı, AfetIsleri Gn. Md. lügü, Deprem Ara¸stırma Dairesi, Ankara (1994).
34. Pamir,. H. N. and Ketin, I.: Das Anatolische Erdbeben Ende 1939,Geolog. Rundschau32(3)(1941), 279–287.
35. Papadopoulos, G. A. and Chalkis, B. J.: Tsunamis observed in Greece and the surrounding areafrom antiquity to the present times,Marine Geol.56 (1984), 309–317.
36. Papadopoulos, G. A.: Seismic faulting and nonseismic tsunami generation in Greece, In:Proc.IUGG/IOC International Tsunami Symposium, 23–27 August, Wakayama, Japan (1993) pp.115–123.
37. Papazachos, B. C., Koutitas, Ch., Hatzidimitriou, P. M., Karacostas, B. G., and Papaioannou,Ch. A.: Tsunami hazard in Greece and the surrounding area,Annales Geophysicae4B(1)(1986), 79–90.
38. Parejas, I., Akyol, M., and Altınlı, E.: Le tremblement de terre d’Erzincan du 27 Decembre1939 (secteur occidental),I.Ü. Jeoloji Enstitüsü Ne¸sriyatı10 (1942), 187–222.
39. Pınar, N. and Lahn, E.:Türkiye Depremleri Izahlı Katalo˘gu, T.C. Bayındırlık Bakanlıgı, Yapıve Imar Isleri Reisligi Y. Seri 6, Sayı 36, Ankara (1952).
40. Pınar, A.:Rupture Process and Spectra of Some Major Turkish Earthquakes and TheirSeismotectonic Implications, PhD Thesis, Bogaziçi Üniversitesi, Istanbul (1995).
41. Poirier, J. P. and Taher, M. A.: Historical seismicity in the near and middle east, north Africa,and Spain from Arabic documents (VII–XVIIIth century),Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.70 (1980),2185–2201.
42. Ranguelov, B.: Earthquakes and tsunami hazards in the Black Sea, In:Abstract Book of the FirstCongress of the Balkan Geophysical Society, 23–27 September, Athens (1996), pp. 44–45.
43. Shebalin, N. V., Karnik, V. and Hadzievski, D.:Catalogue of Earthquakes, UNESCO, Skopje,Yugoslavia (1974).
44. Soloviev, S. L.: Tsunamigenic zones in the Mediterranean Sea’,Natural Hazards3 (1990),183–202.
45. Soysal, H., Sipahioglu, S., Kolçak, D., and Altınok, Y.:Türkiye ve Çevresinin Tarihsel DepremKatalogu (MÖ) 2100-MS 1900), Tubitak, TBAG Proje No. 341, Istanbul, (1981).
46. Soysal, H.: Tsunami (Deniz ta¸sması) ve Türkiye kıyılarını etkileyen tsunamiler,I.Ü. DenizBilimleri ve Cografya Enstitüsü Bülteni2 (1985), 59–67.
47. Sengör, A. M. C., Büyüka¸sıkoglu, S., and Canıtez, N.: Neotectonics of the Pontides: Implica-tions for ‘incompatible’ structures along the North Anatolian Fault,J. Struct. Geol.5 (1983),211–216.
TSUNAMIS OBSERVED ON AND NEAR THE TURKISH COAST 205
48. Tinti, S. and Maramai, A.: Catalogue of tsunamis generated in Italy and in Cote d’azur, France:a step towards a unified catalogue of tsunamis in Europe,Annali di GeofisicaXXXIX (6)(1996), 1253–1301.
49. Wedding, H.: 3 EyIül 1968 de vukua gelen Bartın-Amasra Yersarsıntısı,MTA Dergisi, 71(1968), 135–141.
50. Wyss, M. and Baer, M.: Earthquake hazard in the Hellenic Arc, reprinted fromEarthquakePrediction – An International Review, Maurice Ewing Series 4, American Geophysical Union(1981), pp. 153–172.
51. Yalçıner, A. C.: Izmit Tsunamisi,Bilim ve Teknik383(1999), 34–39.
