doi:10.1144/0016-76492006-200 2008; v. 165; p. 563-578 Journal of the Geological Society

 Zohar Gvirtzman, Ezra Zilberman and Yehoshua Folkman  

the Jaffa Basin offshore central IsraelReactivation of the Levant passive margin during the late Tertiary and formation of 

Journal of the Geological Society

serviceEmail alerting to receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article click here

requestPermission to seek permission to re-use all or part of this article click here

Subscribe to subscribe to Journal of the Geological Society or the Lyell Collection click here

Notes  

Downloaded by on 23 June 2008

© 2008 Geological Society of London

Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 165, 2008, pp. 563–578. Printed in Great Britain.

563

Reactivation of the Levant passive margin during the late Tertiary and formation

of the Jaffa Basin offshore central Israel

ZOHAR GVIRTZMAN, EZRA ZILBERMAN & YEHOSHUA FOLKMAN

Geological Survey of Israel, 30 Malkhei Yisrael Street, Jerusalem, 95501, Israel (e-mail: Zohar@gsi.gov.il)

Abstract: Re-examination of the stratigraphic record in the continental margin of Israel indicates that the

Levant passive margin was reactivated in the late Tertiary. Subsidence and, presumably, sedimentation rates

increased after prolonged gradual decay; the shelf-slope facies transition zone was revived; faulting and

magmatism resumed and the Judea Hills began to rise. Two parallel fault systems with large vertical

displacements were formed (or reactivated) between the Levant Basin and the continent. In the Levant Basin a

new 4 km thick section accumulated and at a middle level between the two faults a local basin was formed

and filled with a 2500 m thick section. That basin, termed here the Jaffa Basin, provides good age control. It

was initiated in the Mid–Late Oligocene, was mainly active in the Miocene and was completely buried by

sediments in the Plio-Pleistocene. We suggest that at the early stage of the Arabia–Africa breakup, in

conjunction with the Suez rifting, the Jaffa Basin was formed between two segments of a left-lateral fault that

allowed Arabia to slip northward relative to the Mediterranean lithosphere. When this fault failed to transform

the motion, both the Suez Rift and the Jaffa Basin were abandoned and the plate motion jumped inland to the

Dead Sea Transform.

The eastern Mediterranean basin and its passive continental

margin (Fig. 1) formed as a result of several faulting and

continental breakup phases in the Permian, Triassic and Early

Jurassic (Freund et al. 1975; Bein & Gvirtzman 1977; Garfun-

kel & Derin 1984; Garfunkel 1988, 1998). The rifting activity

had thinned the continental crust and produced rapid differential

subsidence that was felt up to a distance of 50 km landward

from the present coast (Garfunkel & Derin 1984; Druckman et

al. 1995). The early Mesozoic synrift sediments and their

abrupt thickness variations are well known from seismic data

and from many wells that have penetrated them in central and

southern Israel (Druckman 1974; Goldberg & Friedman 1974;

Druckman et al. 1995). In the continental shelf offshore Israel

the faulted structures are now buried under a very thick

sedimentary column and are recognized only by seismic meth-

ods (Gelberman 1995; Gardosh 2002; Gardosh & Druckman

2006).

Passive margin conditions were established in late Liassic

times over the previously faulted area (Garfunkel & Derin

1984) and persisted for c. 100 Ma. Within that period a phase

of intracontinental tectonism associated with lithospheric heat-

ing, magmatism, and uplift strongly affected the inland area

(Garfunkel 1988; Gvirtzman & Garfunkel 1998; Gvirtzman et

al. 1998), but its influence on the continental margin was

relatively small. Then, at the beginning of the Senonian, when

the African–Arabian plate started to collide with the Euro-

Asian plate, the entire region was affected by a compressional

stress regime that formed the Syrian Arc Fold Belt (Krenkel

1929; Hensen 1951; Freund et al. 1975). This series of folds

and faults extends for 1000 km from the Palmyra Mountains

in Syria, through Lebanon and Israel, to the Sinai Peninsula

(Fig. 1).

In the late Tertiary Israel and nearby areas were strongly

affected by the break of Arabia from Africa that produced the

Red Sea, the Suez Rift, and the Dead Sea Transform (Garfunkel

1988). The influence of these processes on the Levant margin is

the topic of this study.

Stratigraphy

Passive margin sedimentation during the Jurassic and most of the

Cretaceous was characterized by a facies transition zone, which

separated the Arabian plate from the deep Mediterranean basin.

The right-hand side of Figure 2 shows the shallow marine and

continental rock units deposited on the ancient Arabian platform

whereas the left-hand side presents the open marine units

deposited in the ancient Mediterranean basin.

This facies transition, designated as the ‘hinge line’ or ‘hinge

belt’ (Gvirtzman & Klang 1972; Bein & Gvirtzman 1977;

Ginzburg & Gvirtzman 1979), is now buried in the Israeli coastal

plain (the diagonal white lines in Fig. 1) under a thick Tertiary

section. Interestingly, it does not coincide with the present shelf

edge located a few tens of kilometres offshore.

In the mid-Cretaceous the depositional hinge belt disappeared

and open marine conditions extended over the entire Levant

region. Senonian–Eocene sediments of the Mount Scopus and

Avedat groups (Fig. 2) yield no evidence for the earlier shelf

edge and, lithologically, the formations defined in the present-day

shelf are similar to those known on land and the same

nomenclature is used for both regions. Thickness and facies

variations in these units follow the NE–SW-trending, short-

wavelength folds of the Syrian Arc.

Figure 2 describes the chronostratigraphic and lithofacies

framework of seven groups known in the coastal plain, including

formation names and correlations with the inland and offshore

areas. The Jurassic Arad Group is mainly composed of limestone

and dolomite. Marls and sandstones within that group are more

abundant landwards, whereas reduced sections of micritic lime-

stone and shale are more frequent basinwards. The Arad Group

contains four cycles of transgressions and regressions; of these,

only one cycle and a half is included in Figure 2. Older units

that were penetrated in the coastal plain and offshore only by a

few wells are not described.

The Lower Cretaceous Kurnub Group unconformably covers

the eroded Jurassic section. This unconformity reflects Early

Cretaceous uplift of the continental region caused by lithospheric

heating and magmatism (Garfunkel 1988; Gvirtzman & Garfun-

kel 1997, 1998; Gvirtzman et al. 1998). At that time of strong

inland erosion, a deep canyon was incised across the continental

slope and a thick clastic section accumulated in the deep

Mediterranean basin (Cohen 1976). Then, when sedimentation

resumed, the previously uplifted regions were gradually covered

by new sediments composing the Kurnub Group. In central and

southern Israel this group is mainly composed of mature

sandstone and shale (Hatira Formation) derived from the

Arabian–Nubian Shield including some marine intercalations; in

the coastal plain the marine component of the Kurnub Group

prevails; and offshore fine clastic deposits of the Gevaram

Formation deposited in deep waters are dominant. It should be

noted that the Kurnub Group and its western equivalent are

diachronic and that the Jurassic–Cretaceous hiatus narrows

basinward (Fig. 2).

The overlying Judea Group is a rather monotonous sequence

of shallow platformal carbonates. In Albian–Cenomanian times

the edge of this platform was emphasized by well-developed

fringing reefs, and voluminous calci-clastic detritus deriving

from that edge accumulated along the continental slope to form

the Talme Yafe Formation (Bein & Weiler 1976). Chronostrati-

graphically, however, the Talme Yafe Formation is partly equiva-

lent to the Kurnub Group and partly to the Judea Group (Fig. 2).

In the beginning of the Senonian the nature of sedimentation

changed significantly. Instead of limestone and dolostone, chalk

and marl became the dominant sediment, manifesting regional

deepening of the water. The Senonian–Palaeocene Mount Scopus

Group consists mainly of chalk and marl with some chert,

phosphorite, and oil shale (Flexer 1968; Garfunkel 1988). Facies

and thickness variations within the group express synsedimentary

tectonism of Syrian Arc folding. The overlying Avedat Group

was deposited during the widespread Eocene transgression that

reached Egypt and part of Arabia (Garfunkel 1988). In the

coastal plain of Israel deep marine conditions prevailed and

pelagic sediments were deposited almost continuously. In out-

Fig. 1. Location map. Grey, shaded relief.

Red, active or potentially active faults

(Bartov et al. 2002). Curved band of

diagonal white lines along coastline, early

Mesozoic depositional hinge belt (Bein &

Gvirtzman 1977). Inset: tectonic map of the

Middle East.

Z . GVIRTZMAN ET AL.564

crops the Avedat Group is easily distinguished from the Mount

Scopus Group, but in the subsurface (coastal plain and offshore)

the two groups are hard to distinguish without palaeontological

analysis, and, therefore, they were unified as one group named

the HaShefela Group (left-hand side of Fig. 2). It should be

noted that the absence of these two groups in the central coastal

plain is interpreted in Figure 2 as the result of late Tertiary

erosion. This important issue is discussed below.

The Late Eocene–Pliocene Saqiye Group will be described in

more detail, because of its relevance to the present study. It is

mainly composed of greenish to grey shales and marls differing

from the more chalky character of the HaShefela Group. Based

on its appearance in boreholes, the group was divided into the

following formations: Bet Guvrin (chalky marl), Lakhish (bio-

genic limestone contemporaneous with the Bet Guvrin Forma-

tion), Ziqlag (reefal limestone), Bet Nir (conglomerate), Ziqim

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic table of the study area

based on previous publications (Bein &

Gvirtzman 1977; Ginzburg & Gvirtzman

1979; G. Gvirtzman 1990; Buchbinder et al.

1993; Buchbinder & Zilberman 1997;

Fleischer & Varshavsky 2002; Z. Gvirtzman

2003). Absolute ages for the Jurassic and

Cretaceous after Gradstein et al. (1995) and

for the Cenozoic after Berggren et al.

(1995). Highlighted surfaces are base

Kurkar Group, base Yafo Formation, and

base Saqiye Group, which refer to the

structural maps of Figure 5; and also the

base Mount Scopus Group, which refers to

the structural map of Figure 6 and the

highlighted horizon of Figure 8. The

significant modification introduced in this

chronostratigraphic scheme relative to

previous ones is that the absence of Late

Cretaceous and early Tertiary sediments in

the coastal plain is interpreted as the result

of late Tertiary erosion at the eastern rim of

the Jaffa Basin rather than a lack of

deposition.

TERTIARY REACTIVATION OF THE LEVANT MARGIN 565

(pelagic marl with tuff and basalt flows), Pattish (reefal lime-

stone), Mavqiim (anhydrite formed during the Messinian crisis),

and Yafo Formation (pelagic shales). Among these, the Yafo

Formation is the thickest and most homogeneous unit (Gvirtzman

& Reiss 1965; Buchbinder 1969; Gvirtzman 1970; Gvirtzman &

Buchbinder 1978; Buchbinder et al. 1986, 1993; Buchbinder &

Zilberman 1997; Gvirtzman et al. 1997).

The Saqiye Group represents several sequences of regression

and transgression that had formed a complicated pattern of

deposition. During sea-level falls deep canyons were incised

whereas during sea-level rises the canyons were flooded and

filled with sediments, and coral reefs developed on their

shoulders. At some point during the Pliocene sediment supply

from the Nile River was high enough to fill up all the canyons

and form a relatively flat surface on which the Pleistocene sandy

Kurkar Group was deposited.

The lithological boundary between the Saqiye and Kurkar

groups is clear and sharp. In contrast to the pelagic nature of the

Yafo Formation, the Kurkar Group is mainly clastic, containing a

variety of sediments: calcareous sandstones (some strongly ce-

mented and some loose), shaly to silty red sandstone (locally

named ‘Hamra’), marine and continental clays, conglomerates,

and sand dunes (Gvirtzman et al. 1984).

Motivation for the present study

A quantitative analysis of the sedimentary cover of the Levant

margin, offshore Israel, distinguishing between tectonic-driven

subsidence and sediment loading, shows that the post-rift

subsidence produced by lithospheric cooling continued tens of

millions of years after the early Mesozoic rifting (Garfunkel &

Derin 1984; Ten Brink 1987; Tibor et al. 1992; Gvirtzman &

Garfunkel 1998). This thermal subsidence decayed exponentially

as a function of the time that passed since rifting and became

very weak in the Late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. In the late

Tertiary, however, sedimentation in the Levant margins was

greatly enhanced, by rates faster than those of the early Mesozoic

rifting stage (Tibor et al. 1992). This enhanced sedimentation

was accompanied by renewal of the shelf-slope depositional

transition zone (Buchbinder & Zilberman 1997) after more than

50 Ma in which it had ceased to exist. At that time the Ziqlag

Formation (reefs) was deposited in a shallow marine environment

and the Bet Guvrin and Ziqim formations were deposited in the

open sea (Fig. 2). In addition, during the Miocene some

magmatism occurred in the coastal plain (Gvirtzman 1970;

Livnat 1974; Steinitz et al. 1978) after a very long quiescence;

namely, c. 150 Ma after the Jurassic magmatism that accompa-

nied continental breakup and margin formation, and c. 100 Ma

after the Cretaceous (mainly Early Cretaceous) magmatism that

was associated with intra-continental heating (Garfunkel 1988;

Gvirtzman & Garfunkel 1997, 1998).

The enhanced subsidence and sedimentation in the late

Tertiary produced the Saqiye Group, which thickens from zero c.

15 km east of the present coastline, to c. 2200 m along the

present coastline (e.g. Hof Ashdod-1 well, near the city of

Ashdod, Fig. 1). This pattern of rapid sedimentation continued in

the Quaternary, and the Kurkar Group thickens from zero c.

20 km east of the coastline, to c. 180 m under the coastline.

In contrast to the early Mesozoic history that was associated

with subsidence and sedimentation throughout the country,

during the late Tertiary the subsidence of the continental margin

was accompanied by nearly 1000 m of inland uplift that formed

the mountainous backbone of Israel along the Judea and Samaria

Hills (Begin & Zilberman 1997). The short distance (c. 50 km)

between the uplifting and subsiding provinces suggests that the

two processes must be interrelated. Tibor and coworkers (Tibor

1992; Tibor et al. 1992, 1993) argued that both phenomena were

influenced by the great sedimentary load of the Nile delta (more

than 4 km in thickness) in the Pliocene. The bowl-like structure

formed in this way caused the Levant continental margin to

subside and the Judea Hills to rise (Fig. 3). However, re-

examination of the stratigraphic record shows that the uplift of

the Judea Hills and the enhanced subsidence of the continental

margin had both begun long before the formation of the Nile

delta. Ancient Miocene shorelines at the western flanks of the

Judea Hills are associated with river fans and coarse alluvial

conglomerates, indicating that when the Miocene sea invaded a

few tens of kilometres inland and deposited the Ziqlag Formation

(Fig. 2), the Judea Hills were high enough to remain emerged

and to be eroded and incised by rivers (Buchbinder et al. 1986,

1993). Similarly, thick lower Saqiye sections of Oligocene and

Miocene age under the present coastal plain and continental shelf

indicate that the enhanced subsidence of the continental margin

had also begun long before the Pliocene.

What caused the renewal of the shelf-slope depositional

transition zone, the enhanced subsidence offshore, the inland

uplift, and the magmatism? The combination of all these strongly

indicates a significant change. The goal of this paper is to show

that this change expresses renewal of tectonic activity in the

(passive) Levant margin.

Methods

Our study is based on a geological synthesis and re-examination of the

Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary column in the Levant margin, Israel

coastal plain and offshore. We combine known data with new evidence

regarding sediment thickness, faulting, and erosional patterns. In the

offshore area the new evidence is based on interpretation of recent 2D

regional seismic sections. Thickness and structural maps were prepared

based on the lithostratigraphic database of oil and gas wells drilled in

Israel between 1953 and 2002 (Fleischer & Varshavsky 2002). This

compilation, prepared under the auspices of the Earth Sciences Research

Administration of the Ministry of National Infrastructures, is based on

data collected from both published and unpublished reports of the

Geological Survey of Israel (GSI), the Geophysical Institute of Israel

(GII), and oil companies. The isopach and structural maps of Figures 4

and 5 show that the enhanced sedimentation in the late Tertiary was not

uniform along the Levant margin. Rather, it formed a distinct basin

offshore central Israel facing the old city of Jaffa. That basin is termed

here the Jaffa Basin.

Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of the flexure

expected from the Nile load if the eastern

side of the plate along the Dead Sea

Transform is treated as a free boundary.

Z. GVIRTZMAN ET AL.566

To understand the origin of that basin we examine evidence for late

Tertiary faulting in its vicinity. We begin with re-examination of the top

Judea Group structural map (Fig. 6), because all the faults in this map

are necessarily post mid-Cretaceous (Fig. 2). This map, compiled by

Fleischer & Gafsou (2003), comprises all the available data from oilwells

and water wells, and seismic data. However, it does not include the

offshore area or a part of the coastal plain, where the Judea Group

laterally changes to the Talme Yafe Formation (Fig. 6).Therefore in the

offshore area examination of faults is based primarily on seismic

interpretation.

Unfortunately, this exact location of facies transition is a key area for

our study; because it coincides with a c. 2500 m high structural step,

which we think is a fault scarp bounding the Jaffa Basin from the east.

This postulated fault is located just outside the structural map of Figure 6

in the transition zone, where the seismic horizons change their character-

istics; thus, tracing it seismically is difficult. Therefore, we concentrate

on the geological interpretation of such a huge step, and argue that,

geologically, it is best explained by faulting.

To establish this interpretation we explore other observations, such as

the absence of the Mount Scopus and Avedat groups along the elevated

eastern rim of the basin. Absence of these sediments alone cannot

indicate whether they were eroded or never deposited, because these

sediments are characterized by original thickness variations related to

their syntectonic accumulation. However, the Judea Group, whose

original thickness pattern is clear, indicates erosion along the postulated

fault scarp.

In the offshore area we face another difficulty with previously

documented evidence for late Tertiary faulting. There is clear evidence

for faulting, but its interpretation is controversial. Do faults detected in

the Plio-Pleistocene prism express crustal-scale tectonics (Neev 1975,

1977; Neev et al. 1976; Neev & Ben Avraham 1977; Ben Avraham 1978;

Mart et al. 1978; Mart 1982) or only deformation of sediments overlying

the lubricant surface of Messinian evaporites (Garfunkel 1984; Garfunkel

& Almagor 1985)? Seismic reflection data clearly show growth faulting

associated with salt withdrawal at the edge of evaporites; whether or not

there is deeper extensional faulting at this position is controversial.

Regardless of this controversy, we focus on a distinct area along the

base of the continental slope where 2D seismic sections clearly show pre-

Messinian deep faulting. These faults form an elongated shear zone that

separates the Jaffa Basin from the deep Levant basin.

Two regional composite seismic sections across the shelf, continental

margin and the eastern Levant basin were selected for interpretation (Figs

11 and 12). The seismic data were released for the study by the Israeli

Oil Commissioner. Good well control exists on the shelf and upper slope;

however, correlation of two deep pre-Miocene markers across the

continental margin fault zone is less certain owing to fault complexity

and lack of well control in the basin.

Time interpretation was followed by depth conversion. Depth conver-

sion procedure followed Gardosh & Druckman (2006). The resultant

geoseismic sections were finally projected onto the corresponding

regional cross-sections CC9 and DD9 and constructed the marine part of

these cross-sections (Fig. 8).

Observations

Isopach and structural maps

The isopach map of the Saqiye and Kurkar groups (Fig. 4)

demonstrates that the sedimentary fill of the Jaffa Basin thins in

all directions. The western boundary of the basin is not well

constrained by well data, but on its eastern side many details are

yielded by hundreds of oil and water wells drilled in the Israeli

coastal plain.

The three structural maps of Figure 5a–c indicate gradual

development from an initial steep eastern wall to a later gently

dipping eastern slope. This observation is consistent with a

transformation from fault-controlled to flexure-controlled subsi-

dence (but not with the flexure expected from the Nile load,

which is much wider). Furthermore, Figure 5d indicates that the

present land topography preserves the curved structure around

Fig. 4. Isopach map of Late Eocene to

present sediments (Saqiye and Kurkar

groups) in the Jaffa Basin based on the

Israeli oilwell database (Fleischer &

Varshavsky 2002). Red dots are wells that

penetrate the base Saqiye Group. Black dots

are wells that did not reach the base. The

faults west of the Jaffa Basin are based on

seismic mapping as demonstrated in Figures

11 and 12.

TERTIARY REACTIVATION OF THE LEVANT MARGIN 567

the Jaffa Basin depocentre, whereas the sea-floor bathymetry

with its almost straight contours does not. This means that recent

deposition in the sea is much faster than the erosion on land and

much faster than the tectonic subsidence; that is, Nile-derived

sediments in the last 5 Ma have completely buried the Jaffa

Basin and erased any palaeo-bathymetric differences in the

continental shelf. However, land topography still preserves its

influence.

Another interesting observation is the somewhat rhombic

shape of the surface of the base Saqiye Group (Fig. 4a), which is

different from the bowl-shaped structure of the younger two

surfaces (Fig. 4b and c). This observation is consistent with a

transition from fault-controlled to flexure-controlled subsidence.

Evidence for late Tertiary faulting in the coastal plain

The structural map of the top Judea Group (Albian–Turonian)

reveals numerous faults throughout the entire country including

the coastal plain (Fig. 6). These faults necessarily indicate that

the continental margin was deformed tens of millions of years

after its formation, but exactly when is not always clear. Faults

that are recognized as active (or potentially active) are related to

the present tectonic activity associated with the Dead Sea Trans-

form. These faults (marked in red) do not show any relation to

the Jaffa Basin and are not present in the coastal plain south of

Mount Carmel. Reverse faults with a NE–SW strike (blue) are

present in the coastal plain, but they are associated with the

Fig. 5. Structural maps (values are metres below sea level) showing the development and burial of the Jaffa Basin. The dashed white lines in (d)

emphasize that the present topography preserves a curved structure around the Jaffa Basin depocentre, whereas the bathymetry does not (nearly straight

lines).

Z. GVIRTZMAN ET AL.568

Fig. 6. The top Judea Group structural map (Fleischer & Gafsou 2003). Bold lines represent major faults; fine lines represent minor faults. Red, faults

defined as active or potentially active (Bartov et al. 2002). Blue, reverse faults associated with Syrian Arc folds. Black, normal faults. The grey area at the

eastern rim of the Jaffa Basin represents a truncation band where the top of the Judea Group is truncated by the base Saqiye Group. West of that band the

Saqiye Group unconformably covers the Talme Yafe Formation. 1, Pardes Hanna water well; 2, Netanya 1 oilwell; 3, Hadera 1 oilwell; 4, Caesarea 1

oilwell; 5, Ashdod 3 oilwell; 6, Netanya 2 oilwell; 7, Hof Asdod 1 oilwell. BR is the Bet Rosh outcrop referred to in Figure 10.

TERTIARY REACTIVATION OF THE LEVANT MARGIN 569

Syrian Arc folds formed in the Late Cretaceous and early

Tertiary and not with the Jaffa Basin. However, what about the

rest of the faults in Figure 6, which are recognized as normal?

Are they related to the Syrian Arc stress regime? If not, when

and how did they form?

Miocene faulting in the coastal plain was suggested more than

30 years ago (Gvirtzman 1970) based on well data and on the

very little seismic information available at that time (Fig. 7). It

suggested displacement of Oligocene and Early Miocene forma-

tions and not Middle Miocene and younger units. Twenty-three

years later a set of cross-sections based on a large amount of

seismic material (Fleischer et al. 1993) confirmed the existence

of late Tertiary faulting in the Sharon region (just south of Mount

Carmel; see Fig. 1 for location), but it was not possible to

determine the age of faulting in the central and southern coastal

plain. In those regions faults are clearly detected up to the top

Judea Group, but their continuation into the Mount Scopus,

Avedat, and Lower Saqiye groups is unclear. Other studies, on

the other hand, did trace faults continuing upward and displacing

Oligocene, Miocene and even the base Pliocene Yafo Formation

(Gelberman 1995).

In light of the difficulty in using seismic data for tracing faults

in the facies hinge belt, we now concentrate on the nearly

2000 m high structural step that forms the eastern wall of the

Jaffa Basin in the subsurface of the coastal plain (section DD9 in

Fig. 8). That step is best detected by the base Senonian horizon,

which is 200–300 m below sea level on the eastern side (top

Judea Gr.) and 2000–3000 m below sea level on the western side

(top Talme Yafe Fm.). Between these areas, the Mount Scopus,

Avedat, and part of the Judea Group are missing. We argue that

this structural step was produced by faulting and that the absence

of the Avedat, Mount Scopus, and part of the Judea Group

indicates erosion of the fault scarp and not original non-

deposition (see discussion). In addition, the presence of a thick

lower Saqiye Group with coarse clastic deposits (the ‘Ashdod

Clasts’ in section DD9) at the foothills of the eroded cliff

strongly supports this interpretation.

The coastal plain fault does not continue beyond the immedi-

ate vicinity of the Jaffa Basin. To the north it dies away in the

Sharon region, where it meets the EW Or Aqiva fault, and does

not continue into the Carmel block (Fig. 4). To the south the

high structural step gradually disappears, but whether or not the

fault continues into the Sinai Peninsula without a noticeable

vertical displacement is unclear at this stage.

The Sharon graben

In the Sharon region, NE of the Jaffa Basin, a local graben

preserving a unique 200–700 m thick Oligocene–Miocene

section is detected (Fig. 9). This graben is located outside the

Jaffa Basin (Figs 1 and 6) and its vertical throw is not as

large, but it has the potential to provide good age constraints

on faulting. The preservation of the Bet Guvrin Formation in it

and not in its immediate vicinity indicates either post- or syn-

Bet Guvrin faulting, but the Bet Guvrin Formation spans more

than 20 Ma.

To better constrain the age of the faulting, a high-resolution

biostratigraphic study was recently conducted on three water

wells within the Sharon graben (Gvirtzman et al. 2005). Com-

parison of the Sharon graben with the Bet Rosh outcrop, 20 km

to the NE, is shown in Figure 10. The correlation shows that the

c. 300 m thick Oligocene–Miocene section in the Hadera-1 and

Pardes Hanna boreholes is represented by a condensed c. 40 m

thick section in the Bet Rosh outcrop. Whereas the lateral

thickness variations in the Oligocene section may be interpreted

as a gradual change in the subsidence rates, the abrupt thickness

variation of the Miocene section across the eastern fault of the

graben seems to indicate syndepositional faulting during the

Miocene.

Curved band of truncation at the eastern rim of the JaffaBasin

The unconformity at the base of the Saqiye Group is a well-

known phenomenon in the subsurface of the Israeli coastal plain

(Gvirtzman 1970; Gvirtzman & Buchbinder 1978). The amount

of truncation expressed by this unconformity, however, is not

clear. The absence of the Mount Scopus and Avedat groups

(Santonian–Middle Eocene) alone does not necessarily indicate

mid- or late Tertiary erosion, because these groups are char-

acterized by large original thickness variations caused by the

Syrian Arc folding. However, the amount of truncation of the

underlying Judea Group (Albian–Turonian), whose original

thickness can be evaluated more precisely, allows better evalua-

tion of the late Tertiary erosion. The region in which the Judea

Group is truncated and covered by the Saqiye Group is shown

in Figure 6. Not surprisingly, the curved band of truncation

perfectly fits the eastern rim of the Jaffa Basin and not the

Syrian Arc structures.

Based on coincidence between the spatial distribution of the

truncation and the eastern wall of the Jaffa Basin, and on the

observation that the truncated Turonian rocks (Judea Group) are

covered by upper Saqiye Group sediments, we suggest that uplift

and erosion of the basin shoulder occurred at the same time as

deposition of the lower Saqiye sediments in it. The deep canyonsFig. 7. Longitudinal and transverse faults of Miocene age based on a

study of more than 1000 wells (Gvirtzman 1970).

Z. GVIRTZMAN ET AL.570

crossing the elevated eastern shoulder of the basin are well seen

in the top Judea structural map (Fig. 6). Thirty years ago they

were related to the Messinian desiccation crisis of c. 6 Ma

(Gvirtzman & Buchbinder 1978), but later it was suggested that

much of the incision occurred during the Oligocene and Miocene

(Druckman et al. 1995), and a recent revision of the biostrati-

graphic data further constrains the first incision event to Mid–

Late Oligocene and not earlier (Buchbinder et al. 2005).

Fig. 8. DD9 is a regional geological cross-section from the Dead Sea to the Levant basin crossing the Jaffa Basin at its centre. CC9 is a parallel cross-

section from the Jordan Valley to the Levant basin crossing the Jaffa Basin near its northern edge, where the coastal plain fault does not exist (for section

location see Figs 6 and 13). In the offshore area cross-sections CC9 and DD9 are geoseismic. The original interpreted time sections are shown in Figures

11 and 12. The base Senonian horizon (top Judea group laterally changing to top Talme Yafe Formation) is highlighted by a thicker line.

TERTIARY REACTIVATION OF THE LEVANT MARGIN 571

New seismic evidence for late Tertiary faulting along thepresent continental margin

Regardless of the controversy about the nature of the Plio-

Pleistocene faulting offshore Israel (thin-skinned salt-related

faults or deep-seated tectonics), new evidence for pre-Messinian

faulting is interpreted from modern multichannel 2D seismic

sections (Figs 11 and 12). The new data confirm the existence of

faults approximately along the line designated by Neev as the

Pelusiun Line (Fig, 4), but not their current activity. These faults

displace the base Saqiye reflector (as well as older reflectors),

but not Messinian evaporites.

It should be noted that in Figure 12 the base Senonian horizon

is displaced much more than the base Oligocene horizon. More-

over, the Senonian–Eocene interval clearly appears to thin

significantly towards the continental margin fault zone. These

features indicate that much of the faulting occurred in the Late

Cretaceous. The compressive reverse nature of the faults at

several locations is also consistent with Senonian–Eocene activ-

ity. None the less, the data clearly show that significant

Fig. 9. Section AA9 from Gvirtzman et al.

(2005) showing the north Sharon graben,

which preserves a complete section of the

Mount Scopus and Avedat groups and a

600–100 m thick Bet Guvrin (lower Saqiye)

section. The faults bounding that graben are

detected seismically and mapped in the top

Judea Group structural map (Fleischer &

Gafsou 2003). They are buried by the

undisturbed Quaternary Kurkar Group and

possibly also by the Pliocene Yafo

Formation that wedges out west of the

Pardes Hanna well. Stratigraphic correlation

with a nearby outcrop (section BB9)

indicates that faulting probably occurred

during the Miocene (upper part of the Bet

Guvrin Formation).

Fig. 10. Biostratigraphic correlation

between the Hadera-1 borehole, Pardes

Hanna borehole, and Bet Rosh outcrop

using the top Miocene as a zero datum

(Gvirtzman et al. 2005). The correlation

indicates that during the Oligocene and

Miocene the Hadera and Pardes Hanna area

subsided and accumulated nearly 300 m of

sediments whereas the Bet Rosh area

underwent much weaker subsidence and

accumulated a condensed section of about

50 m. The fault detected by seismic survey

between Pardes Hanna and Bet Rosh (see

Fig. 6) strongly suggests syndepositional

tectonics.

Z. GVIRTZMAN ET AL.572

additional displacement took place during the Oligocene–Mio-

cene, when a huge c. 3 km thick lower Saqiye section was

deposited at the base of the continental slope. For comparison,

the thickness of that section east of these faults in the Jaffa Basin

is only around 500 m.

How does the Pelusium shear zone continue beyond the

immediate vicinity of the Jaffa Basin? Although our seismic data

are limited to offshore Israel, other studies documented the

continuation of the Pelusium Line northwards, to offshore north-

ern Israel, and to offshore Lebanon (Neev & Ben Avraham 1977;

Gradmann et al. 2005; Netzband et al. 2006). To the south, the

bathymetric manifestation of the shelf edge fades out within the

area influenced by the Nile Cone. Whether or not the Pre-

Messinian fault zone continues south under the thick Nile-

derived sediments is unclear from the data at this stage.

Interpretation

Renewal of tectonic activity and the formation of the JaffaBasin

The general picture emerging from the data indicates that a

significant change occurred in the Levant continental margin in

the late Tertiary. Subsidence and sedimentation rates increased

after tens of millions of years of gradual decay; the shelf-slope

depositional transition zone was renewed after more than 50 Ma

in which it ceased to exist; normal faulting resumed c. 150 Ma

after the last rifting event; and magmatism resumed after tens of

millions of years of quiescence. Altogether we conclude that the

Levant margin became active again in the late Tertiary. In

particular, two parallel fault systems were formed or reactivated

along the continental margin, producing two huge structural steps

(Figs 8 and 13). The west fault system extends along the present

continental margin and the east system extends along the coastal

plain. Between these, the Jaffa Basin was formed offshore central

Israel, and while this basin as well as the deeper Levant basin

started to subside and accumulate sediments, the Judea Hills

began to rise.

Cross-section DD9 (Fig. 8) shows that the tectonic step related

to the coastal plain fault system is about 2500 m high and that

the step of the continental margin system is about 3500 m high.

A third structural step of about 1500 m is located on the western

flanks of the Judea Hills, but its origin and age cannot be

determined at this stage because of the lack of late Tertiary

sediments across this line. Cross-section CC9 north of the Jaffa

Basin (Fig. 8) shows only the western structural step. In that

section the Judea Group gently dips from the Samaria Hills

westward across the coastal plain until it reaches the shelf edge

fault system where it jumps downward into the Levant basin.

The Netanya-2 well, located in the Sharon region (well location

is shown in Fig. 6), penetrates a thick Saqiye Group section

overlying the truncated Judea Group. This is interpreted as a

canyon that had drained southward into the Jaffa Basin before it

was filled up by Oligocene sediments, including the Ashdod

Clasts and basalt flows. In other words, it provides another

indication for the formation of a huge elevation difference

between the inland and offshore areas at that time.

Seismic evidence for pre-Messinian faulting along the western

system (the Pelusium Line) is now clear, but seismic evidence

for the eastern system and its branches is incomplete. The

Sharon graben at the NE rims of the Jaffa Basin is detected

seismically; a minor fault east of the main postulated fault (the

Fig. 11. Interpreted, time-migrated, regional, composite, seismic section 1 near the marine part of cross-section CC9 (for location see Fig. 13). The

seismic section shows the compressive continental margin fault zone (previously named the Pelusium Line). The low-angle, reverse, possibly wrench

faults displace the base Saqiye Group (Late Eocene) whereas the Messinian evaporites are faulted by a different, thin-skinned normal fault system.

TERTIARY REACTIVATION OF THE LEVANT MARGIN 573

200 m high structural step) has also been detected seismically

(Gelberman 1995). However, the main fault producing the

2500 m high steep eastern wall of the Jaffa Basin has still not

been detected seismically. In our opinion the lack of seismic

evidence for this fault is related to the difficulty in tracing faults

in a facies transition belt, especially when this belt coincides

with the present-day coastline where land surveys are not well

tied with sea surveys.

On the other hand, we have presented a line of circumstantial

evidence regarding erosion, incision, and coarse conglomerates

that strongly suggests that this huge step is a fault scarp. An

alternative non-tectonic explanation is that it represents the

ancient early Mesozoic continental slope (Gardosh 2002; Gar-

dosh & Druckman 2006). According to this interpretation the

steep continental slope did not accumulate sediments during the

Senonian–Eocene period while it was covered by deep waters.

We do not favour this explanation for several reasons. First, it is

hard to believe that a slope of c. 158 was preserved during 50 Ma

of sedimentation without being reduced and without being

covered by sediments that were deposited at both its sides

(seaward and landward). Second, the spatial pattern of the Judea

Group truncation perfectly fits the eastern wall of the Jaffa Basin

and does not extend along the continental margins north or south

of the Jaffa Basin (Figs 6 and 13).

Age of the basin formation and basin fill

In general, erosion of the eastern shoulder of the Jaffa Basin

before the Pliocene and the accumulation of the thick lower

Saqiye Group section within the basin indicate that the basin was

initiated somewhere during the Oligocene–Miocene interval. The

shelf edge fault system, displacing the base Saqiye reflector and

not the Messinian evaporites above it, indicates a similar time

frame of about 30 Ma. Additional knowledge regarding specific

stages in the basin’s evolution can be derived from local features.

The Ashdod Clasts started filling a canyon that drained to the

Jaffa Basin (near the city of Ashdod) in the Mid–Late Oligocene

(Buchbinder et al. 2005); the Sharon graben indicates that most

of the faulting probably occurred in the Miocene; the burial of

the coastal plain fault scarp by the hundreds of metres of the

Yafo Formation indicates that faulting had weakened in the

Pliocene; but the minor fault displacing the base Yafo Formation

(Gelberman 1995) indicates either Late Miocene faulting buried

by Pliocene sediments or that faulting did not completely stop

until somewhere within the Pliocene.

The examination of palaeo-water depths also leads to the

conclusion that tectonic activity weakened in the Pliocene.

Sediment progradation with well-developed clinoforms in the

Yafo Formation (Ben Gai 1996; Gardosh 2002; Gardosh &

Druckman 2006) indicates that during the Pliocene the rate of

sediment supply (mainly from the Nile) exceeded the rate of

creation of new accommodation space. Detailed palaeontologi-

cal study (Buchbinder et al. 2000, 2003; Almogi-Labin et al.

2001) also supports this conclusion by showing that water

depth in the Jaffa Basin depocentre had gradually decreased

from more than 500 m in the Early Pliocene to c. 100–200 m

in the Late Pliocene and early Pleistocene. Thus, we conclude

that Nile-derived sediments filled a pre-existing deep-water

basin that was formed 10–20 Ma earlier. In other words,

whereas the lower Saqiye Group represents basin initiation, the

thick Yafo Formation reflects its termination and complete

burial.

Fig. 12. Interpreted, time-migrated, regional, composite, seismic section 2 along the marine part of cross-section DD9 (for location see Fig. 13). The

seismic section shows the compressive continental margin fault zone (previously named the Pelusium Line). The low-angle, reverse, possibly wrench

faults displace the base Saqiye Group (Late Eocene) but not the Messinian evaporites, which are faulted by a different, thin-skinned normal fault system.

Z. GVIRTZMAN ET AL.574

Tectonic framework

The formation of the Jaffa Basin as well as the uplift of the

Judea Hills predated the main activity on the Dead Sea Trans-

form by c. 15 Ma. The Dead Sea Transform was initiated at

around the Middle Miocene and a third of its strike-slip activity

occurred in the Plio-Pleistocene (Garfunkel & Joffe 1987;

Garfunkel 1988; Bosworth et al. 2005). The Jaffa Basin was

initiated in the Mid- or Late Oligocene; it was mainly active in

the Miocene; and it gradually decayed and was buried by

sediments in the Plio-Pleistocene.

What else happened in the region in the Late Oligocene and

Early Miocene? At that time Africa and Arabia were breaking

apart and the Red Sea was opening. At the northern tip of the

Red Sea rifting was concentrated in the Gulf of Suez, which was

initiated in the latest Oligocene and Early Miocene; it was mostly

active during the Early–Mid-Miocene; and diminished in the

Pliocene (Garfunkel & Bartov 1977; Scott & Govean 1985;

Steckler & ten Brink 1986; Steckler et al. 1988). In other words,

the Jaffa Basin is coeval with the Suez Rift; they were both

formed at the early stage of the Africa–Arabia breakup and

abandoned when most of the plate motion jumped inland to the

Dead Sea Transform (Steckler & ten Brink 1986).

In northern Israel, extensional tectonics predating the Dead

Sea Transform is known from the Yizreel Valley (Schulman

1962; Freund 1970; Shaliv 1991), which is a half-graben that

developed in the Early Miocene along the Carmel Fault (Matmon

et al. 2003). The NW continuation of that half-graben is the

Haifa basin offshore the city of Haifa (Schattner et al. 2006) and,

not surprisingly, its sedimentary fill is similar to that of the Jaffa

Basin; that is, synrift sediments between the Mid-Oligocene and

Early Miocene, and post-rift burial by Pliocene sediments

(Schattner et al. 2006). Furthermore, Schattner et al. suggested

that the Haifa basin is the NW tip of the Qishon–Sirhan rift

system that developed in conjunction with the Red Sea–Suez

graben system. However, in contrast to the Jaffa Basin and the

Suez Rift, which were abandoned when the Dead Sea Transform

took most of the plate motion, the Qishon graben was reactivated

and became an active branch of the Dead Sea Transform

(Schattner et al. 2006).

What is the relationship between the two NW–SE-trending

rifts, the Gulf of Suez and the Yizreel–Qishon–Haifa system

(Carmel Fault), and the reactivation of the Levant margin? Were

they all part of the early Africa–Arabia breakup prior to plate

motion shifting inland? The northward continuation of the Red

Sea extension north of the Gulf of Suez continues to be a

mystery. The Early Miocene opening of the Gulf of Suez

decreases northwards, but is still significant when the rift

disappears beneath the Nile Delta (Steckler et al. 1988). Various

proposals suggest that it continues either to the west (Courtillot

et al. 1987), to the north (Mascle et al. 2000), or to the east

(Steckler & ten Brink 1986). Here we raise the possibility that it

terminates at the point where it meets a left-lateral strike-slip

Fig. 13. Map summarizing all the features

coinciding in time and space in and around

the Jaffa Basin. The purple contour

schematically represents the rhombic

structure of the base Saqiye Group surface,

which fits the shape of the Judea Group

truncation zone (green zone). Together they

indicate a fault-bounded basin. The less

rhombic and larger structure of the base

Yafo and base Kurkar surfaces indicates

gradual development of the basin toward an

elliptic bowl-shaped structure. The

curvature around the basin is preserved in

the current topography but not in the

current bathymetry, which is governed by

high-volume Nile-derived sediments.

TERTIARY REACTIVATION OF THE LEVANT MARGIN 575

fault that runs along the Israeli continental margin. This trans-

form fault allowed Arabia to slip northward relative to the

Mediterranean lithosphere before the plate motion jumped inland

to the Dead Sea Transform (Fig. 14). This kinematic model can

also explain the subsidence of the Jaffa Basin without regional

east–west extension, which is not observed. According to this

model, at least a part of the basin subsidence may be attributed

to north–south extension produced between the two segments of

the left-lateral strike-slip fault. However, in contrast to many

other examples, here the strike-slip motion did not form a

rhomb-shaped graben. Here the vertical motion between the

rising continent and the subsiding Mediterranean basin formed

an intermediate step on which the Jaffa Basin developed (section

DD9). The relation between the tectonic subsidence and sediment

loading, particularly during a period of voluminous sediment

supply by the Nile River, is beyond the scope of this paper.

Summary

(1) The Levant margin was tectonically reactivated in the late

Tertiary by faulting, accelerated subsidence and magmatism.

(2) Two parallel fault systems were formed (or reactivated),

one along the present shelf edge and a second along the Israeli

coastal plain.

(3) The Jaffa Basin formed between these two fault systems.

(4) The Jaffa Basin was initiated in the Mid- or Late

Oligocene; it was mainly active in the Miocene; it gradually

became inactive and was completely buried by sediments in the

Plio-Pleistocene, leaving no sign of its existence in the present

bathymetry.

(5) Initially the eastern wall of the Jaffa Basin was a fault

scarp hundreds of metres high that was strongly eroded and

incised by rivers. In the Pliocene, when faulting weakened, this

fault scarp was buried by Plio-Pleistocene sediments now build-

ing the Israeli coastal plain.

(6) The Jaffa Basin was formed in conjunction with the Suez

and the Yizreel–Qishon rifts. It was abandoned when most of the

plate motion jumped inland from the Gulf of Suez to the Dead

Sea Transform.

(7) Attributing a strike-slip motion to the Levant margin fault

system during the early stage of the Africa–Arabia breakup and

prior to the inland jump of the plate motion to the Dead Sea

Transform is a new paradigm suggested here.

(8) This paradigm explains the relationship between the two

NW–SE-trending rifts (the Gulf of Suez and the Yizreel–

Qishon–Haifa system (Carmel Fault)) and the reactivation of the

Levant margin. It also provides a mechanism for the subsidence

of the Jaffa Basin without east–west extension.

We greatly acknowledge Michael Steckler and Shimon Feinstein for

many fruitful discussions and important comments on the first draft of

this paper. The constructive reviews by Paul Wilson and Joe Cartwright

accompanied by the editorial comments by Ian Alsop greatly improved

this manuscript. Finally, thanks to the Israel Science Foundation for their

financial support

References

Almogi-Labin, A., Buchbinder, B., Siman Tov, R., Grossowicz, L., Eshet, Y.

& Rosenfeld, A. 2001. Stratigraphy and environmental analysis of the

Romi-1 borehole, offshore Israel. Confidential Report, Geological Survey of

Israel, 24.

Bartov, Y., Sneh, A., Fleischer, L., Arad, V. & Rosensaft, M. 2002.

Potentially active faults in Israel. Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem,

138.

Begin, B.Z. & Zilberman, E. 1997. Main stages and rate of the relief development

in Israel. Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, 63 [in Hebrew, English

abstract].

Bein, A. & Gvirtzman, G. 1977. A Mesozoic fossil edge of the Arabian Plate

along the Levant coastline and its bearing on the evolution of the Eastern

Mediterranean. In: Biju-Duval, B. & Montadert, L. (eds) International

Symposium on the Structural History of the Mediterranean Basin, Split

(Yugoslavia). Technip, Paris, 95–110.

Bein, A. & Weiler, Y. 1976. The Cretaceous Talme Yafe Formation: a contour

current shaped sedimentary prism of calcareous detritus at the continental

margin of the Arabian craton. Sedimentology, 23, 511–532.

Ben Avraham, Z. 1978. The structure and tectonic setting of the Levant

continental margin, Eastern Mediterranean. Tectonophysics, 46, 313–331.

Ben Gai, Y. 1996. Sequence stratigraphy of the Plio-Pleistocene in the continental

margin of the southern Levant. PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Berggren, W.A., Kent, D.V., Swisher, C.C. & Aubry, M.P. 1995. A Revised

Cenozoic Geochronology and Chronostratigraphy. In: Berggren, W.A.,

Kent, D.V., Swisher, C.C., Aubry, M. & Hardenbol, J. (eds) Geo-

chronology, Time Scales and Global Stratigraphic Correlation. SEPM,

Special Publications, 54, 129–212.

Bosworth, W., Huchon, P. & McClay, K. 2005. The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

Basins. Journal of African Sciences, 43, 334–378.

Buchbinder, B. 1969. Geological map of HaShefela region, Israel, with

explanatory notes. Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem.

Fig. 14. Tectonic interpretation of the

kinematic relationship between the NW–

SE-trending Suez and Qishon–Sirhan rifts

and the margin-parallel fault system that

formed the Jaffa Basin during the early

stage of Africa–Arabia breakup. It should

be noted that when the plate motion jumped

inland to the Dead Sea Transform, the Suez

Rift and the Jaffa Basin were abandoned,

whereas the Carmel Fault along the Qishon

Graben was reactivated. The pattern of the

Qishon–Sirhan rift is taken from Schattner

et al. (2006).

Z. GVIRTZMAN ET AL.576

Buchbinder, B. & Zilberman, E. 1997. Sequence stratigraphy of Miocene–

Pliocene carbonate–siliciclastic shelf deposits in the eastern Mediterranean

margin (Israel): effects of eustasy and tectonics. Sedimentary Geology, 112,

7–32.

Buchbinder, B., Sneh, A. & Diamant, E. 1986. The Neogene Beit Nir

Conglomerate: a study of alluvial aggradation along the toe of the Judean

monocline. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, 35, 183–196.

Buchbinder, B., Martinotti, G., Siman Tov, R. & Zilberman, E. 1993.

Temporal and spatial relationships in Miocene reef carbonate in Israel.

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 101, 97–116.

Buchbinder, B., Siman Tov, R., Eshet, Y., Grossowicz, L. & Almogi-Labin,

A. 2000. Stratigraphic and environmental analysis of the Nir-1 well, offshore

Israel. Confidential Report, Geological Survey of Israel, 21.

Buchbinder, B., Calvo, R., Siman Tov, R., Grossowicz, L. & Almogi-Labin,

A. 2003. Stratigraphy and environmental analysis of the Nir-2 borehole,

offshore Israel. Confidential Report, Geological Survey of Israel, 20.

Buchbinder, B., Calvo, R. & Siman Tov, R. 2005. The Oligocene in Israel: A

marine realm with intermittent denudation accompanied by mass-flow

deposition. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, 54, 63–85.

Cohen, Z. 1976. Early Cretaceous buried canyon: Influence on accumulation of

hydrocarbons in Helez Oil Fiel Israel. AAPG Bulletin, 60, 106–114.

Courtillot, V., Armijo, R. & Tapponnier, P. 1987. The Sinai triple junction

revisited. Tectonophysics, 141, 181–190.

Druckman, Y. 1974. The stratigraphy of the Triassic sequence in southern Israel.

Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin, 64, 92.

Druckman, Y., Giller, D., Fleischer, L., Gelberman, E. & Wolf, O. 1995.

Subsurface geology and structural evolution of the northwestern Negev,

southern Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, 44, 115–135.

Fleischer, L. & Gafsou, R. 2003. Top Judea Group digital structural map of

Israel, Scale 1:200 000 (2 sheets). Geophysical Institute of Israel, Jerusalem.

Fleischer, L. & Varshavsky, A. 2002. A lithostratigraphic data base of oil and

gas wells drilled in Israel. Ministry of National Infrastructures, Earth

Sciences Research Administration, Oil and Gas Unit, Jerusalem, 280.

Fleischer, L., Gelberman, E. & Wolf, O. 1993. A geological–geophysical

reassessment of the Judea Group. Institute of Petroleum Research and

Geophysics, Holon.

Flexer, A. 1968. Stratigraphy and facies development of the Mount Scopus Group

(Senonian–Paleocene) in Israel and adjacent countries. Israel Journal of

Earth Sciences, 17, 85–114.

Freund, R. 1970. The geometry of faulting in the Galilee. Israel Journal of Earth

Sciences, 19, 117–140.

Freund, R., Goldberg, M., Weissbrod, T., Druckman, Y. & Derin, B. 1975.

The Triassic–Jurassic structure of Israel and its relation to the origin of the

Eastern Mediterranean. Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin, 65, 1–26.

Gardosh, M. 2002. Sequence stratigraphy and petroleum systems of the Mesozoic,

southeastern Mediterranean continental margin. PhD thesis, Tel Aviv

University.

Gardosh, M. & Druckman, Y. 2006. Stratigraphy and tectonic evolution of the

Levantine Basin, offshore Israel. In: Robertson, A.H.F. & Mountrakis, D.

(eds) Tectonic Development of the Eastern Mediterranean. Geological

Society, London, Special Publications, 260, 201–227.

Garfunkel, Z. 1984. Large-scale submarine rotational slumps and growth faults in

the eastern Mediterranean. Marine Geology, 55, 304–324.

Garfunkel, Z. 1988. The pre-Quaternary geology of Israel. In: Yom Tov, Y. &

Tchernov, E. (eds) The Zoogeography of Israel. W. Junk, Dordrecht, 7–34.

Garfunkel, Z. 1998. Constraints on the origin and history of the eastern

Mediterranean basin. Tectonophysics, 298, 5–35.

Garfunkel, Z. & Almagor, G. 1985. Geology and structure of the continental

margin of northern Israel and the adjacent part of the Levantine Basin.

Marine Geology, 62, 105–131.

Garfunkel, Z. & Bartov, Y. 1977. The tectonics of the Suez Rift. Geological

Survey of Israel Bulletin, 71, 44.

Garfunkel, Z. & Derin, B. 1984. Permian–Early Mesozoic tectonism and

continental margin formation in Israel and its implications for the history of

the eastern Mediterranean. In: Dixon, J.E. & Robertson, A.H.F. (eds) The

Geological Evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean. Geological Society,

London, Special Publications, 17, 187–201.

Garfunkel, Z. & Joffe, S. 1987. Plate kinematics of the circum Red Sea—a re-

evaluation. Tectonophysics, 141, 5–22.

Gelberman, E. 1995. Revised seismic structural and isopach maps—central and

southern Israel. Institute of Petroleum Research and Geophysics, Holon.

Ginzburg, A. & Gvirtzman, G. 1979. Changes in the crust and in the

sedimentary cover across the transition from the Arabian platform to the

Mediterranean Basin: evidence from seismic refraction and sedimentary

studies in Israel and Sinai. Sedimentary Geology, 23, 19–36.

Goldberg, M. & Friedman, G.M. 1974. Paleoenvironments and paleogeographic

evolution of the Jurassic system in Israel. Geological Survey of Israel

Bulletin, 61, 44.

Gradmann, S., Hubscher, C., Ben Avraham, Z., Gajewski, D. & Netzband, G.

2005. Salt tectonics off northern Israel. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 22,

597–611.

Gradstein, F.M., Agterberg, F.P., Ogg, J.G., Hardenbol, J., van Veen, P.,

Thierry, J. & Huang, Z. (eds) 1995. Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous

Tmetable. SEPM, Special Publications, 54.

Gvirtzman, G. 1970. The Saqiye Group (Late Eocene to Early Pleistocene) in the

Coastal Plain and the Hashefela regions. Geological Survey of Israel Report,

D/5/67.

Gvirtzman, G. 1990. The geology and geomorphology of the Sharon and its

Mediterranean Shelf. In: Degani, A., Grosman, D. & Shemueli, A. (eds)

The Sharon: Between Yarkon and Carmel. Ministry of Defense, 19–59 [in

Hebrew].

Gvirtzman, G. & Buchbinder, B. 1978. The Late Tertiary of the Coastal Plain

and continental shelf of Israel and its bearing of the history of the Eastern

Mediterranean. In: Ross, D.H. & Neprochnov, Y.P. (eds) Initial Reports of

the Deep Sea Drilling Project. US Government Printing Office, Washington,

DC, 42, 1195–1222.

Gvirtzman, G. & Klang, A. 1972. A structural and depositional hinge-line along

the coastal plain of Israel, evidenced by magneto-tellurics. Geological Survey

of Israel Bulletin, 55, 18.

Gvirtzman, G. & Reiss, Z. 1965. Stratigraphic nomenclature in the coastal plain

and HaShefela region. Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, 14.

Gvirtzman, G., Shachnai, E., Bakler, N. & Ilani, S. 1984. Stratigraphy of the

Kurkar Group (Quaternary) of the coastal plain of Israel. Current Research—

Geological Survey of Israel, 1983-1984, 70–82.

Gvirtzman, G., Martinotti, G.M. & Moshkovitz, S. 1997. Stratigraphy of the

Plio-Pleistocene sequence of the Mediterranean coastal belt of Israel and its

implications for the evolution of the Nile Cone. In: Couvering, V. (ed.) The

Pleistocene Boundary and the Beginning of the Quaternary. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 156–168.

Gvirtzman, Z. 2003. Chronostratigraphic table and subsidence curves of southern

Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, 53, 47–61.

Gvirtzman, Z. & Garfunkel, Z. 1997. Vertical movements following intraconti-

nental magmatism: an example from southern Israel. Journal of Geophysical

Research, 102, 2645–2658.

Gvirtzman, Z. & Garfunkel, Z. 1998. The transformation of southern Israel

from a swell to a basin: stratigraphic and geodynamic implications for

intracontinental tectonics. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 163, 275–

290.

Gvirtzman, Z., Garfunkel, Z. & Gvirtzman, G. 1998. Birth and decay of an

intracontinental magmatic swell: Early Cretaceous tectonics of southern

Israel. Tectonics, 17, 441–457.

Gvirtzman, Z., Siman Tov, R., Calvo, R., Grossowicz, L. & Almogi-Labin, A.

2005. Tertiary stratigraphy of the Sharon region in light of new biostrati-

graphic data. Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem.

Hensen, F.R.S. 1951. Observations on the geology of the petroleum occurrences of

the Middle East. In: 3rd World Petroleum Congress, 118–140.

Krenkel, E. 1929. Der Syrische Bogen. Centtralblatt fur Mineralogie, 9, 274–281.

Livnat, A. 1974. Geology of the northwestern slopes of the Judean Hills (the Abu-

Qibya–Rantis area). Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, 34, 11–29.

Mart, Y. 1982. Quaternary tectonic pattern along the continental margin of the

northeastern Mediterranean. Marine Geology, 49, 327–344.

Mart, Y., Eisin, B. & Folkman, Y. 1978. The Palmahim Structure—a model of

contineous tectonic activity since the upper Miocene in the southeastern

Mediterranean off Israel. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 39, 328–334.

Mascle, J.J., Benkhelil, G., Bellaiche, T., Zitter, J. & Woodside, L. 2000.

Marine geologic evidence for a Levantine–Sinai plate, a new piece of the

Mediterranean puzzle. Geology, 28, 779–782.

Matmon, A., Wdowinski, S. & Hall, J.K. 2003. Morphological and structural

relations in the Galilee extensional domain, northern Israel. Tectonophysics,

371, 223–241.

Neev, D. 1975. Tectonic evolution of the Middle East and the Levantine Basin

(easternmost Mediterranean). Geology, 3, 683–686.

Neev, D. 1977. The Pelusium Line—a major transcontinental shear. Tectonophy-

sics, 38, 1–8.

Neev, D. & Ben Avraham, Z. 1977. The Levantine countries: the Israeli coastal

plain. In: Nairn, A.E.M., Kanes, W.H. & Stehli, F.G. (eds) The Ocean

Basins and Margins. Plenum, New York, 355–377.

Neev, D., Almagor, G., Arad, V., Ginzburg, A. & Hall, J.K. 1976. The

geology of the southeastern Mediterranean Sea. Geological Survey of Israel

Bulletin, 68, 1051.

Netzband, G., Hubscher, C. & Gajewski, D. 2006. The structural evolution of

the Messinian evaporites in the Levantine Basin. Marine Geology, 230, 249–

273.

Schattner, U., Ben Avraham, Z., Reshef, M., Bar-Am, G. & Lazar, M. 2006.

Oligocene–Miocene formation of the Haifa basin: Qishon–Sirhan rifting

coeval with the Red Sea–Suez rift system. Tectonophysics, 419, 1–12.

TERTIARY REACTIVATION OF THE LEVANT MARGIN 577

Schulman, N. 1962. The geology of the central Jordan valley. PhD thesis, Hebrew

University, Jerusalem [in Hebrew].

Scott, R.M. & Govean, F.M. 1985. Early depositional history of a rift basin:

Miocene in western Sinai. Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology,

52, 143–158.

Shaliv, G. 1991. Stages in the tectonic and volcanic history of the Neogene basin in

the Lower Galilee and the valleys. Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, 101.

Steckler, M. & ten Brink, U.S. 1986. Lithospheric strength variations as a

control on new plate boundaries: examples from the northern Red Sea region.

Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 79, 120–132.

Steckler, M., Berthelot, N., Lyberis, N. & Le Pichon, X. 1988. Subsidence of

the Gulf of Suez: implications for rifting and plate kinematics. Tectonophy-

sics, 153, 249–270.

Steinitz, G., Bartov, Y. & Hunziker, J.C. 1978. K–Ar determinations of some

Miocene–Pliocene basalts in Israel: their significance to the tectonics of the

Rift Valley. Geology Magazine, 115, 329–340.

Ten Brink, U.S. 1987. Quantitative basin analysis with implications to the Israeli

continental margin. Oil Exploration Investments Ltd, Tel Aviv.

Tibor, G. 1992. Quantitative basin analysis of the late Tertiary Levant passive

margin, Eastern Mediterranean and its implications to the understanding of

the Messinian event. PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Tibor, G., Ben Avraham, Z., Steckler, M. & Fligelman, H. 1992. Late Tertiary

subsidence history of the southern Levant margin, Eastern Mediterranean

Sea, and its implications to the understandin of the Messinian event. Journal

of Geophysical Research, 97, 17593–17614.

Tibor, G., Lykhovsky, V., Ben Avraham, Z., Fligelman, H. & Achmon, H.

1993. The regional effects of the Nile Delta on the subsidence of the

southern Levant continental margin and the uplift of the Judea

mountains. Earth Sciences Administration, Ministry of Energy and Infrastruc-

ture, Jerusalem.

Received 2 January 2007; revised typescript accepted 11 July 2007.

Scientific editing by Ian Alsop

Z. GVIRTZMAN ET AL.578