Neotectonics of Turkey (Türkiye) and surrounding regions: a new perspective with block modelling

main This paper aims to present a new neotectonic perspective concordant with the seismic activities in Turkey and surrounding regions. The neotectonic structures have been re-evaluated mainly by using focal mechanism solutions and high-resolution satellite (Google Earth) images. The Southeast Anatolian Wedge explains thrust/blind thrust and asymmetrical folding relationship in SE Turkey, Syria, and Northern Iraq. The neotectonic structures of the Turkish-Iranian Plateau are enlightened by the rhomboidal cell model which creates a base to determine multiple intersection points between the region-wide left- and right-lateral shear zones. The releasing stepover between the North Anatolian Fault Zone and Southeast Anatolian-Zagros Fault Zone, plus their connections with the Northeast Anatolian Fault Zone and the East Anatolian Fault Zone are described in a more meaningful way with the Anatolian Diagonal concept. It also clarifies the role of left-lateral shear zone in the west-southwest movement of Anatolian plate and its relationship with the Aegean and Cyprus arcs. A neotectonic region under the influence of NW-SE contraction is determined between the North Anatolian, Eskişehir, and Kırıkkale-Erbaa fault zones in which the Elmadağ-Eldivan and Abdüsselam pinched crustal wedges and the Beypazarı Blind Thrust Zone are developed. A new route for the southern branch of the North Anatolian Fault Zone is determined between Bolu and Değirmenlik (Milos) Island in the Aegean Sea via Mudurnu, Bursa, Balıkesir, and İzmir. All main neotectonic structures mentioned in this paper are evaluated by the elastic dislocation modelling and new neotectonic provinces are suggested.


INTRODUCTION
The initiation of neotectonic studies in Turkey can be attributed to the discovery of the North Anatolian Fault and the estimation of the East Anatolian Fault by Ketin (1948). Fundamentals of eastern Mediterranean neotectonics were established synchronously with the theory of plate tectonics. The plate boundaries around Turkey were recognized by using seismic activity and related focal mechanism solutions (McKenzie, 1972). The realization of plate movements and the nature of plate margins in eastern Mediterranean flourished the concept of tectonic escape model (Dewey and Şengör, 1979;Şengör, 1979;Şengör et al., 1985).
This model establishes cause-effect relationships that explain the main neotectonic elements of Turkey. The triggering event of this model is the collision of Arabian and Eurasian plates along the Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone (BZSZ) between Late Maastrichtian and Late Miocene (Hall, 1976;Şengör and Kidd, 1979) that is believed to create a thickened crust in eastern Turkey (Dewey et al., 1986). This thickened crust led to the formation of North and East Anatolian fault zones and the Anatolian plate moves westwards between these two strike-slip structures. The westward movement of Anatolian plate was prevented by the Grecian shear zone and consequently, N-S extension of western Turkey initiated in the Tortonian (Şengör, 1979; Şengör et al., 1985).
The tectonic escape model briefly explained above allows defining the neotectonic provinces of Turkey such as East Anatolian Contractional, North Turkish, Central Anatolian "Ova" and West Anatolian Extensional provinces (Fig. 1A). Special structures are determined to explain the relationship between palaeo and neotectonic structures (i.e. resurrected, replacement, and revolutionary structures) (Şengör et al., 1985) and a cross graben model has been proposed to explain age controversies from the sedimentary basins, especially in the West Anatolian Extensional Province (Şengör, 1987). For the time being, the active fault map of Şaroğlu et al. (1992a) was published and it carries some influences of the tectonic escape model such as the thrust component of Tuzgölü and Sultandağ faults (Fig. 1A).
The cause-effect relationship of the tectonic escape model has been questioned by using the latest Oligocene-Early Miocene initiation time of the "revolutionary structures" in western Turkey (Seyitoğlu and Scott, 1991, 1992, 1996a. Today, we have models that explain the causes and development process of extensional tectonics in the Aegean region with the formation of metamorphic core complexes (Bozkurt and Park, 1994;Emre and Sözbilir, 1997;Işık and Tekeli, 2001;Kamacı and Altunkaynak, 2019;Kurt et al., 2010;Lister et al., 1984;Ring et al., 2003;Seyitoğlu et al., 2004a;Seyitoğlu and Işık, 2015;Seyitoğlu and Esat, 2022).
Newly recognized fault zones and the increased number of focal mechanism solutions progressively provide additional information relative to the transition characteristics and internal deformation of the neotectonic provinces. Barka and Reilinger (1997), for example, attempted to revise the neotectonic framework of Turkey by suggesting that the Eskişehir Fault Zone and the Fethiye-Burdur Fault Zone separate western Turkey from central Anatolia and emphasized the existence of thrust faults along the Black Sea coast. The eastward movement of the Ahar block in the eastern Turkish-Iranian Plateau along with the Aras and Tebriz faults was also recognized (Barka and Reilinger, 1997) (Fig. 1B). An updated neotectonic map of Turkey was summarized by Bozkurt (2001).
The extensional nature of 2000.12.15 (Mw=6.0) Sultandağı and 2002.02.03 (Mw=6.5) Çay earthquakes changed the perception of neotectonic provinces. Koçyiğit and Özacar (2003) suggest that the extensional province in western Turkey can be extended to the Eskişehir and Tuzgölü fault zones (Fig. 1C).
The latest attempt to revise the neotectonic provinces was made by Emre et al. (2018) (Fig. 1D). Considering the West Anatolian Extensional Province, the neotectonic provinces defined by Emre et al. (2018) are somewhat similar to those of Koçyiğit and Özacar (2003). On the other hand, their newly introduced Southeast Anatolian Province differs from the approach of Şengör et al. (1985) and Koçyiğit and Özacar (2003) (Fig. 1D).
One fundamental step to define and discriminate neotectonic regions is the determination of the slip rates across faults and block boundaries. While direct field measurement of the fault offsets at fault trace provides invaluable information about the activity of the faults (Aksoy et al., 2007;Arpat and Şaroğlu, 1972;Hempton, 1985), the local nature of this type of observations, their relatively low precision and the difficulty of its application at broader deformation zones makes them infeasible for full quantification of the slip rates. For a study at this scale covering the whole of Turkey and surrounding regions, no consistent set of geologic slip rates is available. Another popular method to determine the slip rates along block boundaries is the inversion of the observed Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) velocities using various numerical models (e.g. Aktuğ et al., 2015;Aktuğ et al., 2016;Reilinger et al., 2006). In this approach, the observed annual motion at a GNSS site is modelled as the sum of block rigid rotation and the elastic strain along block boundaries. The slip rates across the faults are determined through the inversion of the observed GNSS velocities. There are several advantages of the geodetic determination of the slip rates such as its applicability over large areas, uncertainty modeling, inherently consistent kinematic model, determination of the slip rates from observations away from the fault traces, and the ability to model the slip rates even when no surface offsets are observable. Furthermore, it is also possible in this approach to test the consistency of the block slip rates with the observations. In this study, a new block model of Turkey and surrounding regions is presented at an unprecedented scale and detail (1688 GNSS sites, 25 blocks). It should be noted that the block boundary discretization may not exactly follow the fault lineation, the block modeling still provides a first-order approximation of the slip rates due to the relative motion between neighboring blocks. The results show that the proposed block model can model at least 90% of the slip rates considering that the Weighted Root Mean Squared (WRMS) is 2.1mm/yr with respect to the velocity magnitudes of the GNSS sites which range from 20 to 40mm/yr. This paper aims to evaluate newly introduced structures as a whole, which are published as separate articles (Esat et al., 2021;Seyitoğlu et al., 2017aSeyitoğlu et al., , 2018Seyitoğlu et al., , 2022a, providing more reliable explanations for the seismic activities in the neotectonic provinces, such as Southeast Anatolian Wedge in SE Anatolia, rhomboidal cells in East Anatolia, the Anatolian Diagonal between east and central Anatolia, the Elmadağ-Eldivan, Abdüsselam pinched crustal wedges and Beypazarı Blind Thrust Zone in the NW Central Anatolia and the southern branch of NAFZ between Bolu and Değirmenlik (Milos) island. The motivation of this article is to improve the resolution of the current neotectonic zonation of the study region, that may help identifying earthquakeprone areas.

METHODS
The GNSS velocity field in the region provides an excellent quantification of the ongoing deformation and the variation of the slip rates along major fault zones. A subset of GNSS velocity observations covering the area of interest was extracted from the published velocity field given in (Kreemer et al., 2014). The source GNSS velocity field in Kreemer et al. (2014) is actually a compilation of the published data sets which were rigorously transformed into a common reference frame (ITRF08).
In order to obtain the slip rate variations and how much of the observed motion comes from the rotation of the rigid blocks, a detailed block model covering the region is proposed. A block modeling approach (McCaffrey, 2002) was used to derive the slip rates across block boundaries. The employed methodology closely follows those given in (Aktuğ et al., 2015. In order to account for the elastic strain accumulation near the block boundaries, the back-slip approach similar to that of McCaffrey (2002) is applied. In this scheme, the rotations of all the blocks in Euler parameterization are simultaneously estimated by minimizing the model misfit of the GNSS velocities. In the estimation of the block rotations, elastic backslip is applied to each fault segment to mimic elastic strain accumulation during the interseismic phase of the earthquake cycle (Matsu'ura et al., 1986). The effective elastic back-slip was computed through the elastostatic Green functions as given by Okada (1985).    Barrier et al. (2004); Emre et al. (2013) and Seyitoğlu et al. (2017aSeyitoğlu et al. ( , 2018Seyitoğlu et al. ( , 2022a. Focal mechanism solutions from Tan et al. (2008) and Global CMT Catalogue from Ekström et al. (2012)

Southeast Anatolia
Southeast Anatolia is evaluated together with eastern Anatolia as East Anatolian Contractional Province by Şengör et al. (1985). In their neotectonic map, E-W trending fold axes and thrust faults with N-S trending Akçakale graben and Karacadağ extensional fissure were the main neotectonic elements in southeast Anatolia (Fig.  1A). On the other hand, dominant strike-slip faults and blind thrusts are presented in the regional map of Perinçek et al. (1987). The work of Biddle et al. (1987) was a good example of how the structures in southeast Anatolia should be examined in terms of folding and faulting relationship.
The Southeast Anatolian Wedge (SEAW) in cross sectional view is bounded by the Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone in the north and the Sincar (Sinjar) Mountain in the south (Seyitoğlu et al., 2017a) (Fig. 2A, B). Its internal structure is composed of south vergent thrusts and blind thrusts that are recognized mainly by using the positions of the asymmetrical anticlines at the hanging wall of the thrust faults. In map view, different southward moving thrust sheets are separated by tear faults. The NW-SE trending tear faults are generally right-lateral strike-slip in nature and the Karacadağ extensional fissure and Akçakale-Harran graben are developed in their releasing offset areas (Seyitoğlu et al., 2017a). The NE-SW trending tear faults have left-lateral strike-slip kinematics and the Halfeti Fault is a well-examined example that is developed parallel to the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) (Şahbaz and Seyitoğlu, 2018) ( Fig. 2A, B).
The majority of seismic activity is related to these tear faults, but thrust-related earthquakes, although they are rare, give a clue about the internal structure of SEAW. One of the well-known examples of thrust-related seismic events is the 1975.09.06 (M=6.7) Lice earthquake (Arpat, 1977;Jackson and McKenzie, 1984). This earthquake was generally misinterpreted as evidence for activity of the Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone  probably due to reported surface deformations near the suture zone (Arpat, 1977). The epicentral location and depth of the hypocenter indicate that the 1975.09.06 (M=6.7) Lice earthquake is related to the Ergani-Silvan Blind Thrust Zone (Seyitoğlu et al., 2017a). The other example of thrustrelated earthquakes in the Southeast Anatolian Province is the 2012.06.14 (Mw=5.1) Cizre-Silopi earthquake. The epicenter location and depth of hypocenter show that this earthquake is related to the Bikhayr Blind Thrust Zone (Seyitoğlu et al., 2017a) (Fig. 2). As seen in the two above examples of thrust-related earthquakes, the blind thrusts are capable of generating major earthquakes in the SEAW. When we consider the other mapped thrust and blind thrusts together with the tear faults, it can be said that southeast Anatolia is characterized by a considerable seismic hazard.

East Anatolia
Eastern Anatolia is considered a key location to study continental deformation caused by collision along the Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone. Contractional tectonic activity initiated in the Late Maastrichtian-Early Eocene and is continuing today (Aktaş and Robertson, 1984;Allen, 2010;Hall, 1976;Reilinger et al., 2006;Şengör and Kidd, 1979;Şengör and Yılmaz, 1981;Yılmaz, 1993). The collision between Arabian and Eurasian plates was suggested to be accommodated by thick continental crust (Dewey et al., 1986). Later studies, however, proposed that East Anatolia is composed of an accretionary complex supported by asthenosphere (Şengör et al., 2003, 2008). There are other studies proposing the existence of the continental basement under the Neogene cover (Topuz et al., 2017). The fundamental neotectonic structures composed of left-and right-lateral strike-slip faults, E-W trending thrusts, and N-S normal faults developed under the N-S contraction in East Anatolia have been determined by Şengör et al. (1985).
The Turkish-Iranian Plateau including eastern Anatolia is located towards the hinterland of Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone. The results of the ongoing continental collision, the associated active faults, and the related seismicity have been explained by the rhomboidal cell model   (Fig. 2A, B). Rhomboidal cells are limited by the NW-SE trending right-and NE-SW trending leftlateral strike-slip faults. Commonly, E-W thrusts and/or N-S normal faults are developed in the center of the cell. In other cases, the right-and left-lateral strike-slip boundary faults are connected by thrust faults at the northern and/or southern corners of the cell .
In the Turkish-Iranian Plateau several rhomboidal cells have been determined. It can be seen in the map that some of the margins of the cells align in one direction, and they can help to determine the region-wide shear zones ( Fig. 2A, B). For example, Northeast Anatolian Fault Zone (NEAFZ) is composed of the NE-SW trending left-lateral strike-slip faults bounding the NW margins of the Kars, Horasan, and Hınıs rhomboidal cells. Moreover, NE margins of Kiğı, Karlıova, and Muş rhomboidal cells represent the easternmost continuation of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ)   (Fig. 2B). Especially, the NE margin of Muş cell, the Varto Fault demonstrates that NAFZ does not terminate in the Karlıova as generally accepted in the tectonic escape model (Şengör et al., 1985). The position of cells also provides a solution to the longlasting problem of the relationship between NAFZ and the Main Recent Fault of Iran (Jackson, 1992 (Fig. 2B).
The focal mechanism solutions demonstrate that margins of the cells mainly produce strike-slip events and thrust related earthquakes occur in the north and south corners of the cells (i.e. 2001.07.10, Mw=5.6 at Hınıs cell; 2020.06.21, Mw=4.1 at Ağrı cell) or in the center of the cell (i.e. 2011.10.23, Mw=7.1 at Van cell) ( Fig. 2A, B).
It is interesting to note that Lice and Van earthquakes are related to blind thrust faults in the Southeast and East Anatolian provinces, but they occurred in different tectonic settings. While the 1975.09.06 (M=6.7) Lice earthquake is related to a thrust within the SEAW in the foreland of BZSZ, the 2011.10.23 (Mw=7.1) Van earthquake is associated with a thrust in the center of rhomboidal cell in the hinterland of BZSZ ( Fig. 2A).
The overall neotectonic framework in the East Anatolian Province shows that the NAFZ creates a releasing stepover with the SAZFZ where the Kiğı, Karlıova, and Muş rhomboidal cells are developed . SAZFZ cut and displaces the EAFZ around Bingöl ( Fig.  2A; B). The relationship between NAFZ and NE-SW trending left-lateral structures parallel to the EAFZ will be discussed in the following section.

Transition between East and Central Anatolia
The neotectonic meaning of Anatolian Diagonal is defined in a paper (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a) which separates mainly the East Anatolian Province from the Central Anatolia (Fig. 3). The Anatolian diagonal is a left-lateral shear zone between the EAFZ (Şaroğlu et al., 1992b;Herece, 2008;Duman and Emre, 2013) and the Central Anatolian Fault Zone (CAFZ) (Koçyiğit and Beyhan, 1998), referred to as Karaca, Ecemiş-Deliler, and Biruni faults, with a 170km width (Fig. 3). Its length reaches 850km between Erzincan and Cyprus. The internal deformation of the Anatolian Diagonal may be reflected in palaeomagnetic data (Tatar et al., 2000) and internal structures such as the Sarız, Malatya, Ovacık, Elbistan-Misis and Maraş-Yumurtalık faults may play an important role (Fig. 3).
There are two important findings related to the Anatolian Diagonal concept. The first one is to bring new explanations for the relationship between right-and left-lateral major strike-slip faults. The classical tectonic escape model of Şengör et al. (1985) accepts a single intersection point in Karlıova between right-lateral NAFZ and left-lateral EAFZ. However, the Anatolian Diagonal concept together with the rhomboidal cell model for  Neotectonics of Turkey/Türkiye 8 eastern Turkey  demonstrate that multiple intersection points exist, and this creates a more complex relationship between right-and left-lateral strikeslip faults (Figs. 2B; 3). The left-lateral strike-slip Karaca Fault (KRF) belonging to the Anatolian Diagonal meets with the NAFZ west of Erzincan. This fault is connected to the Ecemiş-Deliler Fault (EDF) with a restraining bend where the Divriği Thrust (DvT) is developed. Southeast of Erzincan, the Ovacık Fault (OVF) is connected to the NAFZ and continues to the southwest limiting the SAZFZ around Başbağlar. Following an angular segment boundary, it is connected to the SSW with the Malatya Fault (MAF) (Fig. 3). In the Bingöl area, however, the SAZFZ cuts the EAFZ of the Anatolian Diagonal where the highest strain accumulation occurred . As summarized above at least four intersection points between right-lateral and left-lateral strike-slip faults show that the single intersection suggestion of the tectonic escape model (Şengör et al., 1985) is too simplified (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a).
As a second important contribution of the Anatolian Diagonal concept, it helps to explain the relationship between Cyprus and Aegean arcs. The offshore continuation of the left-lateral strike-slip EDF, the Biruni Fault (BRF) is determined by the re-evaluation of seismic reflection lines of Mansfield (2005). We interpreted that this fault line continues further southwest connecting to the Piri Reis (eastern Mediterranean) Ridge Front by passing the Cyprus Arc (Figs. 3; 4) (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a).
The en echelon, right stepping left-lateral strike-slip Antalya-Kekova Fault Zone, one of the accompanying structures to the Anatolian Diagonal, creates a restraining stepover in which Florence Rise and thrusts in the Antalya basin are developed (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a). There is another restraining stepover where the thrust-related northern margin of the Rhodes basin developed between Antalya-Kekova Fault Zone and Pliny/Strabo faults (Fig.  4). In this fault configuration, the Antalya-Kekova Fault Zone is an alternative for the highly debated Burdur-Fethiye Fault Zone (see below). The southwest motion of the Anatolian plate indicated by the GNSS data can be realized mainly by the NAFZ and the Anatolian Diagonal Shear Zone and associated structures such as the Antalya-Kekova Fault Zone and Pliny-Strabo Fault (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a) (Fig. 4).
The recent studies (Krystopowicz et al., 2020;Kürçer and Gökten, 2014;Özsayın et al., 2013) re-define the Tuzgölü Fault as a normal fault and/or normal fault with a right-lateral strike-slip component, but recent seismic activity at three different locations at Bala, Şereflikoçhisar, and Obruk indicate that the Tuzgölü Fault behaves as a right-lateral strike-slip fault as documented by the focal mechanism solutions   (Fig. 5).
Although the current Sultandağ Fault is accepted as a normal fault, its earlier reverse fault behaviour was claimed in the southwest margin of Afyon-Akşehir graben . However, Kaya et al. (2014) performed seismic reflection studies in this location and demonstrate no reverse fault history supporting the two-stages graben model (Fig. 5).
The EPCW and APCW are both, NNE-SSW trending structures having thrusts and normal faults at their eastern and western margins respectively (Esat et al., 2017;Seyitoğlu et al., 2009). A local seismic network AnkNET was operational between 2007-2010 and its data were used to obtain focal mechanism solutions of the earthquakes around Ankara. The results support our field observations that the western normal faulted and eastern thrust faulted margins of the EPCW are active, and they are capable to produce earthquakes including the 2000.06.06 (Mw=6.0) Orta (Taymaz et al., 2007) and the 2015.05.12 (M=4.0) Elmadağ earthquakes. Although different evaluations exist about the geology of the Ankara-Ayaş-Orta-Çankırı area (i.e. Adıyaman et al., 2001;Kaymakçı et al., 2001;Koçyiğit et al., 2001;Rojay and Karaca, 2008;Seyitoğlu et al., 2004b), it can be said by combining the InSAR evaluations of Çakır and Akoğlu (2008) and the focal mechanism solutions that the 2000.06.06 (Mw=6.0) Orta earthquake and subsequent seismic events are related to the NW-SE trending, SW dipping normal fault surface corresponding to the western margin of the EPCW (Esat et al., 2021;Seyitoğlu et al., 2009).
The large-scale examples of thrust parallel -normal faulting, similar to the EPCW and APCW, can be seen in the Himalayas (Burchfiel and Royden, 1985;Fossen, 2000) and Makran accretionary wedge (Seyitoğlu et al., 2019) and their development experimentally demonstrated (Chemenda et al., 1995). The name "shortening-induced normal faults" is proposed by Ring and Glodny (2010) for structures similar to the western margin of EPCW (Seyitoğlu et al., 2009).
Apart from the contractional neotectonic province between the NAFZ, EFZ, and KEFZ, southwestern Anatolia plus Kırşehir massif move towards SW with counter-clockwise rotation (Çinku et al., 2016) along with the left-lateral Anatolian Diagonal Shear Zone and recently defined right-lateral southern branch of NAFZ (Seyitoğlu et al., , 2022b between Bolu and Değirmenlik (Milos) island.

Western Anatolia
A north-south line of transition between central and western Anatolia was proposed around Afyon (Şengör et al., 1985) (Fig. 1A). Later, Barka and Reilinger (1997) proposed a recumbent V-shaped border between western and central Anatolia which is drawn by the Eskişehir Fault Zone (EFZ) and Fethiye-Burdur Fault Zone (FBFZ) (Fig. 1B). As mentioned in the Central Anatolia section, normal fault-related earthquakes (Sultandağ 2000.12.15, Mw=6.0 and Çay 2002.02.03, Mw=6.5) suggested shifting the boundary between the western extensional province and central Anatolia in correspondence with the Tuzgölü Fault (Emre et al., 2018;Koçyiğit and Özacar, 2003) (Fig. 1C, D).  l o g i c a A c t a , 2 0 . 4 , 1 -2 1 ( 2 0 2 2   . The tectonic style and formation history of the east -west trending structures have been reviewed in Seyitoğlu and Işık (2015) and readers may refer to this paper having evolutionary 3D block diagrams.
The main problem in the NNE-SSW highly extending western Anatolia is to explain strike-slip-related earthquakes. While some scientists attribute to these structures a left- (Ring et al., 1999) or right-lateral transfer zone (Uzel et al., 2013;Uzel and Sözbilir, 2008), others suggest a "bend model" (Emre et al., 2018) in northwestern Anatolia which however does not explain the strike-slip related seismic events further south around İzmir (Fig. 4). Crampin and Evans (1986) proposed that the southern branch of NAFZ may extend to İzmir. Other studies also show this branch in their general fault maps (Ocakoğlu et al., 2005;Yaltırak et al., 2012). Seyitoğlu et al. (2022b) provide segment distribution of the southern branch of NAFZ extended between Bolu to Değirmenlik (Milos) island via Gölpazarı, Bursa, Balıkesir, Manisa and İzmir (Fig. 4).
We know that extensional tectonics was established in the region since the Oligocene times (Seyitoğlu et al., 2004a), and this is earlier than the triggering event of the tectonic escape model (Seyitoğlu and Scott, 1996b). The strike-slip faults may operate as transfer faults between the major normal faults under the extensional tectonic regime (i.e. Şengör, 1987) and they should be retained between normal faults as the nature of transfer faults. However, the distribution of strike-slip-related earthquakes can be seen from Susurluk valley to the south of İzmir beyond the major normal faults (Fig. 4). This observation supported the existence of a shear zone attributed to the southern branch of NAFZ in western Turkey in which its X-fractures are capable to produce moderate earthquakes such as recent the 2020.01.22 (Mw=5.5) Musalar-Akhisar earthquake. Moreover, the focal mechanism solutions of the 2020.10.30 (Mww=7.0) Sisam (Samos) earthquake's aftershocks clearly demonstrate that Ahikerya (Ikaria) depression can be evaluated as a pull-apart structure that is developed along the southern branch of NAFZ (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022b).
The existence of left-lateral FBFZ is another highly debated scientific problem in the region. Some researchers suggest that northeast continuation of Pliny/Strabo Faults . The discretization of the study domain and original GNSS velocities in ITRF08 given in (Kreemer et al., 2014). Orange lines are block boundaries.
can be followed in southwest Anatolia (Elitez et al., 2016;Hall et al., 2014;ten Veen et al., 2009), but others mainly put forward an argument of the absence of any high magnitude left-lateral strike-slip seismic events and palaeomagnetic data (Howell et al., 2017;Kaymakçı et al., 2018). The solution to this problem may lie further southeast at the left-lateral strike-slip Antalya-Kekova Fault Zone which plays an important role between the Anatolian Diagonal and the Pliny/Strabo Faults by creating restraining stepovers on both sides (i.e. Antalya basin and northeastern of Rhodes basin) (Figs. 3; 4). The Antalya-Kekova Fault Zone and the Pliny/Strabo Faults, which are accompanying structures of the Anatolian Diagonal, may accommodate SW motion of the Anatolian Plate together with the NAFZ (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a).

Block modelling
The domain was discretized into 25 blocks (Fig. 6). Original GNSS velocities in ITRF08 given by Kreemer et al. (2014) are used for computing the block rotations (Fig.  6). The locking depth is taken constantly as 15km over the region and vertical faults are assumed. In this respect, estimated fault normal slips correspond to horizontal contraction rates. The velocities of 1498 GNSS sites which are located within the defined blocks were employed, which correspond to 2996 observations. The Euler rotations of 25 blocks are estimated, which correspond to 75 parameters. The overall fit of the observations has been computed by the WRMS which was found to be 2.1mm/ yr. The velocity field given by Kreemer et al. (2014) is actually a compilation of the published velocities and they are homogeneous in terms of given precision. The formal uncertainties of the individual input velocities range from 0.1 to 4mm/yr. Considering the precision of the input velocities and the scale of the modeling 2.1mm/ yr of WRMS seems consistent. The residual velocities are shown in Figure 7. The results also show that the proposed block model can model at least 90% of the slip rates considering the obtained WRMS of 2.1mm/yr and the average uncertainty of the input velocities which range from 0.1 to 4mm/yr. The overall reduced ꭓ 2 is 27.96 which is well below the theoretical table value of 3047.84 at a 95% confidence level. The individual statistics and goodness of fit values for each block are given in Table  1. The estimated relative Euler rotation vectors and the associated full covariance matrices for each pair of block rotations are given in Table 2.

DISCUSSION
In southeast Anatolia, the southern border of SEAW, which is located south of Sincar Mountain (Seyitoğlu et al., 2017a), is not taken into account as a block boundary because the reliability of the GNSS stations in northern Iraq and Syria is low due to ongoing war in the region. Therefore, the EAFZ and the SAZFZ are selected as block boundaries. The SAZFZ is composed of the southwestern borders of the Kiğı, Muş, Van and Urmiye rhomboidal cells at the hinterland of BZSZ and the Main Recent Fault of Zagros Mountains   (Fig. 2B). More detailed block determination is not allowed due to the lack of GNSS stations in the region (at least three GNSS stations are required to establish a block). We should note that the EAFZ and SAZFZ bear the strain on both SEAW in the foreland and the rhomboidal cells in the hinterland of BZSZ (Fig. 8A).
The overall results indicate consistent right-lateral slip rates ranging between -10.7±1.8 and -8.5±4.1mm/yr for the SAZFZ with only two exceptions. The first one is the southwest margin of the Muş rhomboidal cell, which has statistically insignificant results. The second exception is the segment at the southeast of Piranşehr (Iran) having higher extensional results (-9.2±0.9mm/yr) than the rightlateral slip rates (-7.4±1.2mm/yr) (Fig. 8A). This result is quite normal because the Piranşehr is the extensional stepover between the northwestern sector of the SAZFZ and that of the southeastern sector known previously as the "Main Recent Fault" (Figs. 2B; 8A).
The NAFZ extended from east of Varto to Greece is selected as a block boundary dominantly having rightlateral slip rate ranging between -9.8±3.1mm/yr and -25.6±1.1mm/yr with some exceptions in Almacık block   o l o g i c a A c t a , 2 0 . 4 , 1 -2 1 ( 2 0 2 2 Figure 2B). For this reason, the eastern edge of NAFZ terminated with a boundary that has no geological meaning and was marked with the yellow line. Please also note that probably due to this unrealistic but compulsory boundary, we have the segment providing statistically insignificant result at the southwest of the Muş cell that is connected to this yellow line (Figs. 2A, B; 8A).
One of the important block boundaries in eastern Turkey is the NEAFZ (Barka and Reilinger, 1997) which is represented by the northwest margins of Hınıs, Horasan, and Kars rhomboidal cells . The block boundary along this structure has left-lateral slip rates ranging between 3.4±0.8mm/yr and 3.2±0.8mm/yr (Figs. 2A, B; 8A).
The EAFZ, the southeast margin of the Anatolian Diagonal Shear Zone (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a), is cut by the SAZFZ and has significant left-lateral slip rates between Bingöl and Çelikhan ranging 19.2±2.8 and 14.8±2.6mm/ yr. These slip rates dramatically decrease to 8.3±2.4 and 7.7±3.6mm/yr between Kırıkhan and Çelikhan where the Sürgü Fault separated from the EAFZ (Fig. 8A). The EAFZ is connected to the Cyprus Arc with Lazkiye (Latakhia) Fault which has a dominant extensional component (-7.6±1.3mm/yr) as well as left-lateral slip rates (4.9±1.2mm/yr) (Fig. 8B). To the south of Kırıkhan, the Dead Sea Fault reaches the Gulf of Aqaba with the left lateral slip rates ranging between 6.2±0.5mm/yr and 3.0±0.3mm/yr (Figs. 3; 8A, B).

The northwest margin of the Anatolian Diagonal Shear
Zone is composed of Karaca Fault (KRF), Kemah-İliç Fault (KİF), DvT and EDF and its offshore continuation, the BRF (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a) (Figs. 3; 8B). This margin provides a connection between the NAFZ and the Cyprus Arc, for this reason, it is selected as a block boundary. The results are quite compatible with the tectonic style of the faults.  o l o g i c a A c t a , 2 0 . 4 , 1 -2 1 ( 2 0 2 2    The internal deformation of the Anatolian Diagonal Shear Zone, however, does not provide meaningful results probably because our generalized block boundaries are outlying to represent the details of the faults such as releasing or restraining stepovers (Fig. 8B).
We have the same problem for the block boundaries representing the internal deformation of central Anatolia. The block boundaries representing KEFZ, EFZ, Tuzgölü (TFZ) fault zones, Simav (SVF) (except one segment) and Konya (KNF) faults and EPCW have slip rates that are incompatible with their tectonic character determined by field observations (Fig. 8B). On the other hand, when the block modeling is performed at a smaller scale with more detailed block boundaries, the slip rate results are found compatible with their tectonic character in northwest central Anatolia. A recent block modelling study provides right-lateral slip rates for the EFZ (-5.4±2.9mm/yr) and KEFZ (-8.2±3.3mm/yr), TFZ (-5.0±2.3mm/yr) and more importantly 12.5±3.2mm/yr
The NAFZ bifurcates in the Bolu plain. The northern branch cuts through the Bolu plain and provides a connection between the main course of NAFZ and the northern border of Almacık block (Seyitoğlu et al., 2015b). In our block modelling the main branch of NAFZ between Yeniçağa and north of Ilgaz provides right-lateral slip rate [-23.7±0.9 (4.3±0.9)] (Figs. 4; 8B). The overall slip rates in the middle branch at the south of Almacık block also indicate right-lateral slip rate [-30.0±7.5 (-7.7±6.8) and -30.7±5.3 (-12.9±7.2)], but the northern branch at the north of Almacık block have dominant contractional slip rate (Fig.  8B). The middle branch of NAFZ has incompatible results with its tectonic character (Fig. 8C) Seyitoğlu et al. (2016), however, provides more reasonable slip rates for the northern, middle, and southern branches of the NAFZ in the Marmara region where the southern branch is determined as a second important branch of the NAFZ after the northern branch.
The continuation of southern branch of the NAFZ in western Turkey (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022b) is unsuccessfully represented in our block modelling, probably due to the en echelon nature of fault segments in this area. Only three block boundaries, around Susurluk and İzmir, provide right-lateral slip rates ranging between -19.1±3.1mm/yr and -9.4±3.2mm/yr (Figs. 4; 8C). The block boundaries representing Alaşehir, Büyük Menderes, Gökova grabens and Denizli-Acıgöl basins, however, provide extensional slip rates which are compatible with the extensional nature of these structures.

CONCLUSIONS
The increasing number of earthquake focal mechanism solutions and determinations of segment distributions by using high-resolution satellite images together with the increasing number of field studies and the examination of active fault traces in the offshore areas have created an opportunity to review the classic view of the Neotectonics of Turkey, established at the beginning of 1980's.
Following issues are new contributions to the neotectonic framework of Turkey.
i) The Southeast Anatolian Wedge is defined between the BZSZ and Sincar Mountain having thrusts and blind thrusts and related asymmetrical folds (Seyitoğlu et al., 2017a) (Fig. 2A, B). Similar structures exist in the foreland of BZSZ in Iraq and Iran, therefore the whole area can be named the Southeast Anatolian-Zagros Province (Fig. 9).
ii) Rhomboidal cells in the Turkish-Iranian Plateau define the position of major shear zones in the region such as the NAFZ, NEAFZ, EAFZ, and SAZFZ. The rightlateral strike-slip NAFZ creates a releasing stepover with the right-lateral SAZFZ where the Kiğı, Karlıova, and Muş rhomboidal cells are developed   (Fig. 2A, B). Although new region-wide structures are recognized, they did not change the fact that the entire region is under the north-south contraction. For this reason, the earlier name, the East Anatolian Contractional Province has been preserved (Fig. 9).
iii) The Anatolian Diagonal is a left-lateral strike-slip shear zone demonstrating multiple complex intersections with the right-lateral NAFZ and SAZFZ. i) The Karaca and Kemah-İliç faults of the Anatolian Diagonal connected to the NAFZ west of Erzincan. ii) The intersection of OVF with the NAFZ takes place at the SE of Erzincan. iii) The Ovacık Fault limits the SAZFZ at the WNW of Tunceli. iv) The EAFZ of the Anatolian Diagonal intersects with the SAZFZ in Bingöl (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a) (Figs. 2A, B; 3).
iv) The offshore continuation of the EDF of the Anatolian Diagonal, the BRF reaches Cyprus Arc at the west of Cyprus. The AKFZ behaves as an en echelon structure between Anatolian Diagonal and PLF/STF faults creating restraining stepovers in the Antalya basin and at the northern margin of the Rhodes basin (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022a) (Figs. 3; 4). The left-lateral shear zone connecting the NAFZ and Cyprus Arc is defined as a new neotectonic area called the Anatolian Diagonal Province (Fig. 9). The Antalya Bay Contractional Province includes Florence Rise and Antalya Thrust. The Antalya-Kekova Fault Zone and Pliny, Strabo faults together with the Fethiye thrust constitute the Pliny-Strabo Province (Fig. 9).
vi) The southern branch of the NAFZ are defined from Bolu to Değirmenlik (Milos) island in the Aegean Sea via Mudurnu, Bursa, Balıkesir, Manisa and İzmir (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022b) (Fig. 4). This structure penetrates the West