Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Beverly Goodman

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 1. A: Regional map; Santorini and Caesarea are shown. Squares represent previ- ously identified Santorini age tsunami deposits at Santorini (McCoy and Heiken, 2000), Crete (Palaikastro, Gouves, and Aminossos; Bruins et al., 2008; Minoura et al., 2000) and Turkey (Didim and Fethye; Yokoyama, 1978). Contour lines represent model-based estimated time- distance tsunami wave arrival times (Yokoyama, 1978). B: Caesarea area with core (1-4) and excavation position (W) where tsunami deposits were identified; msl—mean sea level. Gray area offshore represents Caesarea’s Roman harbor (Herodian period, ca. 12 B.C.E.; Reinhardt et al., 1994). A sedimentary deposit on the continental shelf off Caesarea Maritima, Israel, is identi- fied, dated, and attributed to tsunami waves produced during the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1630-1550 B.C.E.) eruption of Santorini, Greece. The sheet-like deposit was found as a layer as much as 40 cm thick in four cores collected from 10 to 20 m water depths. Particle-size distribution, planar bedding, shell taphoecoensis, dating (radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence, and pottery), and comparison of the horizon to more recent tsunamigenic lay- ers distinguish it from normal storm and typical marine conditions across a wide (>1 km?) lateral area. The presence of this deposit is evidence that tsunami waves from the Santorini eruption radiated throughout the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, affecting the coastal people living there. Dates for the tsunami deposit bracket both the so-called “high” and “low” chro- nology for the Santorini eruption. In addition to resolving the question of the extent of tsu- nami impact from the Santorini eruption, the research presented also provides a new means of discovering, identifying, and studying continuous records of paleotsunami deposits in the upper shelf coastal environment. The latter is key to understanding past events, better inter- preting sedimentological records, and creating stronger models for understanding tsunami propagation, coastal management, and hazard preparation worldwide.

Figure 1 A: Regional map; Santorini and Caesarea are shown. Squares represent previ- ously identified Santorini age tsunami deposits at Santorini (McCoy and Heiken, 2000), Crete (Palaikastro, Gouves, and Aminossos; Bruins et al., 2008; Minoura et al., 2000) and Turkey (Didim and Fethye; Yokoyama, 1978). Contour lines represent model-based estimated time- distance tsunami wave arrival times (Yokoyama, 1978). B: Caesarea area with core (1-4) and excavation position (W) where tsunami deposits were identified; msl—mean sea level. Gray area offshore represents Caesarea’s Roman harbor (Herodian period, ca. 12 B.C.E.; Reinhardt et al., 1994). A sedimentary deposit on the continental shelf off Caesarea Maritima, Israel, is identi- fied, dated, and attributed to tsunami waves produced during the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1630-1550 B.C.E.) eruption of Santorini, Greece. The sheet-like deposit was found as a layer as much as 40 cm thick in four cores collected from 10 to 20 m water depths. Particle-size distribution, planar bedding, shell taphoecoensis, dating (radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence, and pottery), and comparison of the horizon to more recent tsunamigenic lay- ers distinguish it from normal storm and typical marine conditions across a wide (>1 km?) lateral area. The presence of this deposit is evidence that tsunami waves from the Santorini eruption radiated throughout the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, affecting the coastal people living there. Dates for the tsunami deposit bracket both the so-called “high” and “low” chro- nology for the Santorini eruption. In addition to resolving the question of the extent of tsu- nami impact from the Santorini eruption, the research presented also provides a new means of discovering, identifying, and studying continuous records of paleotsunami deposits in the upper shelf coastal environment. The latter is key to understanding past events, better inter- preting sedimentological records, and creating stronger models for understanding tsunami propagation, coastal management, and hazard preparation worldwide.

Related Figures (3)

Figure 2. Core stratigraphy. Terrestrial-nearshore (T-NS) and W areas are summarized stratig- raphies from those areas and do not represent individual cores or true horizon dimensions (msl—mean sea level). Extended descriptions are available in Figure DR2 (see footnote 1). **Ages summarize the range of all ages for that horizon (C—radiocarbon, O and OSL—opti- cally stimulated luminescence, P—pottery), reported with 20 error (Tables DR1 and DR2). N/A—not available. Dates are from this study and previous reports (Raban, 2008; Reinhardt and Raban, 1999, 2008; Reinhardt et al., 1994). Sea-level curve model (blue zone represents minimum and/or maximum values) from Israel demonstrates that sea-level change would not have altered coastal zones of horizons during past 4 ka (Sivan et al., 2001). Four sediment cores were collected (Fig. DRI in the GSA Data Repository') and one area (area W) was re-excavated with dredges in the sandy upper shoreface (-15 to -20 m below msl) offshore of Caesarea (Fig. 1B), in order to (1) determine the lateral extent of a previously identified second century (C.E.) tsu- namite (Reinhardt et al., 2006), (2) test hypoth- eses related to defining and identifying tsunami deposits using multiproxy methods, (3) differ- entiate the deposit from possible archaeological anthropogenic sedimentation, and (4) determine the appearance of a tsunami deposit sequence Tsunamigenic indicators, as defined by previous tsunami studies (Bruins et al., 2008; Dawson and Stewart, 2007; Dominey-Howes et al., 2006; Donato et al., 2008; Morton et al.,
Figure 2. Core stratigraphy. Terrestrial-nearshore (T-NS) and W areas are summarized stratig- raphies from those areas and do not represent individual cores or true horizon dimensions (msl—mean sea level). Extended descriptions are available in Figure DR2 (see footnote 1). **Ages summarize the range of all ages for that horizon (C—radiocarbon, O and OSL—opti- cally stimulated luminescence, P—pottery), reported with 20 error (Tables DR1 and DR2). N/A—not available. Dates are from this study and previous reports (Raban, 2008; Reinhardt and Raban, 1999, 2008; Reinhardt et al., 1994). Sea-level curve model (blue zone represents minimum and/or maximum values) from Israel demonstrates that sea-level change would not have altered coastal zones of horizons during past 4 ka (Sivan et al., 2001). Four sediment cores were collected (Fig. DRI in the GSA Data Repository') and one area (area W) was re-excavated with dredges in the sandy upper shoreface (-15 to -20 m below msl) offshore of Caesarea (Fig. 1B), in order to (1) determine the lateral extent of a previously identified second century (C.E.) tsu- namite (Reinhardt et al., 2006), (2) test hypoth- eses related to defining and identifying tsunami deposits using multiproxy methods, (3) differ- entiate the deposit from possible archaeological anthropogenic sedimentation, and (4) determine the appearance of a tsunami deposit sequence Tsunamigenic indicators, as defined by previous tsunami studies (Bruins et al., 2008; Dawson and Stewart, 2007; Dominey-Howes et al., 2006; Donato et al., 2008; Morton et al.,
2007; Reinhardt et al., 2006) (Figs. 2 and 3), included erosional lower contacts, fining- upward particle-size distribution, imbrication of inclusions, individual or groups of molluscs, mixed wear and poor sorting of molluscs,
2007; Reinhardt et al., 2006) (Figs. 2 and 3), included erosional lower contacts, fining- upward particle-size distribution, imbrication of inclusions, individual or groups of molluscs, mixed wear and poor sorting of molluscs,
Figure 4. Particle-size distribution contour maps of core 1 (14.3 m below msl) and core 2 (20 m below msl). Data were plotted using Ocean Data View Software (version 3.3.2). Tsunami and storm events are differentiated based on sorting and size distribution. E rep- resents tsunami events and S represents large storms. Large storm events that left clear dep- ositional markers at core 1 are not visible at the depth of core 2, indicating that water depth at core 2 exceeds depth of wave base.
Figure 4. Particle-size distribution contour maps of core 1 (14.3 m below msl) and core 2 (20 m below msl). Data were plotted using Ocean Data View Software (version 3.3.2). Tsunami and storm events are differentiated based on sorting and size distribution. E rep- resents tsunami events and S represents large storms. Large storm events that left clear dep- ositional markers at core 1 are not visible at the depth of core 2, indicating that water depth at core 2 exceeds depth of wave base.
Related topics:
GeoarchaeologyMarine Archaeology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved