Caesarea Archaeoseismic
Aerial View of CaesareaClick on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Used with permission from Biblewalks.com
| Transliterated Name | Language | Name |
|---|---|---|
| Caesarea | ||
| Caesarea Maritima | ||
| Keysariya | Hebrew | קֵיסָרְיָה |
| Qesarya | Hebrew | קֵיסָרְיָה |
| Qisri | Rabbinic Sources | |
| Qisrin | Rabbinic Sources | |
| Qisarya | Arabic | قيسارية |
| Qaysariyah | Early Islamic Arabic | قايساريياه |
| Caesarea near Sebastos | Greek and Latin sources | |
| Caesarea of Straton | Greek and Latin sources | |
| Caesarea of Palestine | Greek and Latin sources | |
| Caesarea | Ancient Greek | Καισάρεια |
| Straton's Tower | ||
| Strato's Tower | ||
| Stratonos pyrgos | Ancient Greek | |
| Straton's Caesarea |
- Fig. 5 The Caesarea region
from Galili et al (2021)
Figure 5
The Caesarea region
- Western harbor basin
- Central harbor basin
- Eastern harbor basin
Table 1 [41,43]
Galili et al (2021)
- Fig. 5 The Caesarea region
from Galili et al (2021)
Figure 5
The Caesarea region
- Western harbor basin
- Central harbor basin
- Eastern harbor basin
Table 1 [41,43]
Galili et al (2021)
- Aerial Photo of Caesarea
from 1918 from castellorient.fr
Aerial Photo of the city of Caesarea taken in 1918 by the German army (the North East on the left)
castellorient.fr - Fig. 5.3 Aerial photograph
of Caesarea showing projected ancient coastline from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 3.9
Aerial photograph of Caesarea the south. Ancient coastline marked by dotted line, and solid lines mark the two basins of Straton's Tower
(Photograph: A. Blantinschter. Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 5.71 Aerial view
of Sebastos from the south with the demarcation of the studied areas in the intermediate basin from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 5.71
Aerial view of Sebastos from the south with the demarcation of the studied areas in the intermediate basin
(Photograph: A. Raban)
Raban et al. (2009) - Caesarea in Google Earth
Caesarea
click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth - Caesarea on govmap.gov.il
Caesarea
click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il
- Aerial Photo of Caesarea
from 1918 from castellorient.fr
Aerial Photo of the city of Caesarea taken in 1918 by the German army (the North East on the left)
castellorient.fr - Fig. 5.3 Aerial photograph
of Caesarea showing projected ancient coastline from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 3.9
Aerial photograph of Caesarea the south. Ancient coastline marked by dotted line, and solid lines mark the two basins of Straton's Tower
(Photograph: A. Blantinschter. Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 5.71 Aerial view
of Sebastos from the south with the demarcation of the studied areas in the intermediate basin from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 5.71
Aerial view of Sebastos from the south with the demarcation of the studied areas in the intermediate basin
(Photograph: A. Raban)
Raban et al. (2009) - Caesarea in Google Earth
Caesarea
click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth - Caesarea on govmap.gov.il
Caesarea
click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il
- Fig. 1 Sketch plan of Caesarea
Maritima from Toombs (1978)
Figure 1
Sketch plan of Caesarea Maritima, showing the location of Fields A, B, C and H in relation to the principal visible monuments on the site.
JW: Area H, not marked on the plan, is the Hippodrome area (Toombs, 1978:229)
Toombs (1978) - Aqueducts in the vicinity of
Caesarea from Stern et. al. (2008)
Aqueducts of Caesarea
Stern et. al. (2008) - Map of Caesarea showing
excavation areas from Stern et. al. (2008)
Caesarea: map of the site, showing excavation areas.
BAS - Herodian Caesarea from
Stern et. al. (2008)
Herodian Caesarea, up to 70 CE.
Stern et. al. (2008) - Byzantine Caesarea from
Stern et. al. (2008)
Byzantine Caesarea, sixth century CE
Stern et. al. (2008) - Fig. 1 Roman and Crusader
Caesarea from Ad et al (2017)
Figure 1
Roman and Crusader Caesarea, map of the excavations and the current excavation (sourced from ESI 17:38)..
JW: Excavations were in Areas D and E marked in red on the map
Ad et al (2017) - Fig. 1 Caesarea with principal
sites mentioned by Dey et al(2014)
Fig. 1
Late antique/early Islamic Caesarea, with principal sites and excavation areas mentioned in the text.
Dey et al(2014) - Fig. 1.9 Plan of early
Islamic Caesarea from Whitcomb (2016)
Figure 1.9
Plan of early Islamic Qayṣariyya
(after Whitcomb, “Qaysariya as an Early Islamic Settlement”)
Whitcomb (2016) - Fig. 3.5 Site map
of the various excavated areas from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 3.5
Site map of the various excavated areas
(Holum, Raban, and Patrich (ed.s) P. S.)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 2.24 Artist's
rendering of view of the central and southern parts of Straton's Tower at the time of Zoilus from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.24
Artist's rendering of view of the central and southern parts of Straton's Tower at the time of Zoilus
(after Giannetti in Holutn, Hohlfelder. Bull, and Rohan (eds.) 1988. Fig II)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 3.9 General
plan of Herodian structures at Caesarea from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 3.9
General plan of Herodian structures at Caesarea
(Raban Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009)
- Fig. 1 Sketch plan of Caesarea
Maritima from Toombs (1978)
Figure 1
Sketch plan of Caesarea Maritima, showing the location of Fields A, B, C and H in relation to the principal visible monuments on the site.
JW: Area H, not marked on the plan, is the Hippodrome area (Toombs, 1978:229)
Toombs (1978) - Aqueducts in the vicinity of
Caesarea from Stern et. al. (2008)
Aqueducts of Caesarea
Stern et. al. (2008) - Map of Caesarea showing
excavation areas from Stern et. al. (2008)
Caesarea: map of the site, showing excavation areas.
BAS - Herodian Caesarea from
Stern et. al. (2008)
Herodian Caesarea, up to 70 CE.
Stern et. al. (2008) - Byzantine Caesarea from
Stern et. al. (2008)
Byzantine Caesarea, sixth century CE
Stern et. al. (2008) - Fig. 1 Roman and Crusader
Caesarea from Ad et al (2017)
Figure 1
Roman and Crusader Caesarea, map of the excavations and the current excavation (sourced from ESI 17:38)..
JW: Excavations were in Areas D and E marked in red on the map
Ad et al (2017) - Fig. 1 Caesarea with principal
sites mentioned by Dey et al(2014)
Fig. 1
Late antique/early Islamic Caesarea, with principal sites and excavation areas mentioned in the text.
Dey et al(2014) - Fig. 1.9 Plan of early
Islamic Caesarea from Whitcomb (2016)
Figure 1.9
Plan of early Islamic Qayṣariyya
(after Whitcomb, “Qaysariya as an Early Islamic Settlement”)
Whitcomb (2016) - Fig. 3.5 Site map
of the various excavated areas from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 3.5
Site map of the various excavated areas
(Holum, Raban, and Patrich (ed.s) P. S.)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 2.24 Artist's
rendering of view of the central and southern parts of Straton's Tower at the time of Zoilus from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.24
Artist's rendering of view of the central and southern parts of Straton's Tower at the time of Zoilus
(after Giannetti in Holutn, Hohlfelder. Bull, and Rohan (eds.) 1988. Fig II)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 3.9 General
plan of Herodian structures at Caesarea from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 3.9
General plan of Herodian structures at Caesarea
(Raban Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009)
- Fig. 1 Roman and Crusader
Caesarea from Ad et al (2017)
Figure 1
Roman and Crusader Caesarea, map of the excavations and the current excavation (sourced from ESI 17:38)..
JW: Excavations were in Areas D and E marked in red on the map
Ad et al (2017) - Fig. 1 View of ancient
harbor of Caesarea from Reinhardt and Raban (1999)
Figure 1
View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor,
fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas.
Reinhardt and Raban (1998) - Fig. 4 The Roman, Herodian
harbor of Caesarea from Galili et al (2021)
Figure 4
The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea
left panel—aerial photo
right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
- Roman dock
- Roman dock
- submerged surface built of ashlars
- Crusader mole
- Beachrock deposits
Galili et al (2021) - Fig. 2.3 Excavation Areas
in NW part of Caesarea (the harbor) from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.3
The excavated areas at the NW part of the site
(A. Raban, Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 2.22 Reconstruction
plan of the the location of the harbour basins of Straton's Tower and the line of the city walls from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.22
Plan reconstructing the location of the harbour basins of Straton's Tower and the line of the city walls
(Drawing A. Raban)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 2.23 Schematic
map of the inner basin c. 110 BCE from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.23
Schematic map of the inner basin c. 110 BCE
(Raban 1996b, Fig. 3)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 2.25 General
plan of the excavations at the north side of the intermediate harbour basin from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.25
General plan of the excavations at the north side of the intermediate harbour basin
(Raban 1996b, Fig.5)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 5.48 Schematic
block diagram of the main mole during phases 2, 3 from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 5.48
Schematic block diagram of the main mole during phases 2, 3
(A. Raban. Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 5.69 Suggested
sketch plan of Sebastos at its final phase of construction from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 5.69
A suggested sketch plan of Sebastos at its final phase of construction
(A. Raban. Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009)
- Fig. 1 Roman and Crusader
Caesarea from Ad et al (2017)
Figure 1
Roman and Crusader Caesarea, map of the excavations and the current excavation (sourced from ESI 17:38)..
JW: Excavations were in Areas D and E marked in red on the map
Ad et al (2017) - Fig. 1 View of ancient
harbor of Caesarea from Reinhardt and Raban (1999)
Figure 1
View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor,
fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas.
Reinhardt and Raban (1998) - Fig. 4 The Roman, Herodian
harbor of Caesarea from Galili et al (2021)
Figure 4
The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea
left panel—aerial photo
right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
- Roman dock
- Roman dock
- submerged surface built of ashlars
- Crusader mole
- Beachrock deposits
Galili et al (2021) - Fig. 2.3 Excavation Areas
in NW part of Caesarea (the harbor) from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.3
The excavated areas at the NW part of the site
(A. Raban, Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 2.22 Reconstruction
plan of the the location of the harbour basins of Straton's Tower and the line of the city walls from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.22
Plan reconstructing the location of the harbour basins of Straton's Tower and the line of the city walls
(Drawing A. Raban)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 2.23 Schematic
map of the inner basin c. 110 BCE from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.23
Schematic map of the inner basin c. 110 BCE
(Raban 1996b, Fig. 3)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 2.25 General
plan of the excavations at the north side of the intermediate harbour basin from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 2.25
General plan of the excavations at the north side of the intermediate harbour basin
(Raban 1996b, Fig.5)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 5.48 Schematic
block diagram of the main mole during phases 2, 3 from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 5.48
Schematic block diagram of the main mole during phases 2, 3
(A. Raban. Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009) - Fig. 5.69 Suggested
sketch plan of Sebastos at its final phase of construction from Raban et al. (2009)
Figure 5.69
A suggested sketch plan of Sebastos at its final phase of construction
(A. Raban. Caesarea Project)
Raban et al. (2009)
- Fig. 1.10 Drawing of
the Temple Platform at Caesarea from Whitcomb (2016)
Figure 1.10
Comparative views of the Dome of the Rock (above) and the Temple Platform at Caesarea (below)
(after Whitcomb, “Jerusalem and the Beginnings of the Islamic City,” fig. 4 and Holum, “The Temple Platform,” fig. 13)
Whitcomb (2016) - Plan of Area TP containing
the Octagonal Church from Stern et. al. (2008)
Area TP: plan showing foundations of the octagonal church.
Stern et. al. (2008)
- Fig. 1.10 Drawing of
the Temple Platform at Caesarea from Whitcomb (2016)
Figure 1.10
Comparative views of the Dome of the Rock (above) and the Temple Platform at Caesarea (below)
(after Whitcomb, “Jerusalem and the Beginnings of the Islamic City,” fig. 4 and Holum, “The Temple Platform,” fig. 13)
Whitcomb (2016) - Plan of Area TP containing
the Octagonal Church from Stern et. al. (2008)
Area TP: plan showing foundations of the octagonal church.
Stern et. al. (2008)
- Fig. 2 Plan of the mid-7th
century irrigated garden from Taxel (2013)
Figure 2
Caesarea-Qaysariyya: general plan of the mid-7th century irrigated garden above the Byzantine structures in the southwestern zone (after J. Patrich, "Caesarea in transition" [supra, n. 69], fig. 12; drawing by Anna Iamim, courtesy Joseph Patrich).
Taxel (2013)
- Fig. 2 Plan of the mid-7th
century irrigated garden from Taxel (2013)
Figure 2
Caesarea-Qaysariyya: general plan of the mid-7th century irrigated garden above the Byzantine structures in the southwestern zone (after J. Patrich, "Caesarea in transition" [supra, n. 69], fig. 12; drawing by Anna Iamim, courtesy Joseph Patrich).
Taxel (2013)
- Fig. 130 Area CV block
plan from Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 130
Area CV block plan
William Isenberger drawing
Raban et al. (1993 v. II) - Fig. 129 Aerial View of
Area CV from Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 129
Area CV (foreground), looking east across JECM Field C. Vaults 1 and 2 lie beneath remains of U-shaped building and soil deposits in center. At upper left, JECM Areas C.7, C.8, and C.ll with exposed sub-flooring of U-shaped building. Foreground, CV/1 and CV/2 with pavement CV/1047. CV/10 lies to the right (south).
Zaraza Friedman photo.
Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
- Fig. 130 Area CV block
plan from Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 130
Area CV block plan
William Isenberger drawing
Raban et al. (1993 v. II) - Fig. 129 Aerial View of
Area CV from Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 129
Area CV (foreground), looking east across JECM Field C. Vaults 1 and 2 lie beneath remains of U-shaped building and soil deposits in center. At upper left, JECM Areas C.7, C.8, and C.ll with exposed sub-flooring of U-shaped building. Foreground, CV/1 and CV/2 with pavement CV/1047. CV/10 lies to the right (south).
Zaraza Friedman photo.
Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
- Fig. 1D Aerial view of
site LL and southern part of the Upper aqueduct from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1D
Aerial view of the archaeological site and southern part of the Upper aqueduct, where reference samples were collected. All colored dots are linked to locations where samples were taken [as references for non tsunamogenic deposits].
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 1E Aerial view of
site LL showing locations of cores, baulk, and collapsed corridor from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1E
Aerial view of Area LL, bordering the northern side of the inner harbor basin.
- Blue dots indicate cores collected within the excavation layers
- Green dots mark the southern baulk adjacent to a later crusader wall (after Ad, et. al., 2018)
- Bolded white rectangle in E highlights the Corridor area of Area LL, the primary focus of the study
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 3 Early phases Plan
of Area LL from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 3
Plan
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 8 Wall Collapse in
Stratum VI (Umayyad) from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 8
Wall Collapse looking west
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 3 Sections of Cores
C1 and C2 and the Southern Baulk from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 3
Cores C1 and C2 (left) and Southern Baulk section (right)
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 2B Destruction
layer(s) showing building stones suspended in anomalous sands from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 2B
Anomalous layer (the top of which touched the Abbasid floor above)
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 2C Archaeological
fill directly underlying anomalous deposit along with inset of fire-burnt stones from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 2C
Umayyad archaeological fill directly underlying the anomalous deposit. Inset shows fire-burnt stones in the eastern wall of the corridor, at the same level as the top of the Umayyad archaeological fill.
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 4 Lab Analysis of
Core C1 from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 4
Core LL16 C1 results.
- Grain size distribution with depth in the core (1 cm sampling resolution) presented as a contour map as well as in conventional profiles (mean, mode, standard deviation)
- TOC [Total Organic Carbon] and IC [Inorganic Carbon] values (%) of a representative set of samples are shown as a profile for Core C1, reference samples are shown in squares (TOC) and triangles (IC) to show their comparative values to the core (yellow = aqueduct beach sand ramp; aquamarine = shallow marine (−5 m depth), see Figure 1 for specific locations).
- Total and pristine foraminiferal abundances are shown plotted by core depth, sampling resolution of 5 cm.
- B-OSL signals (photon-counts) are plotted by depth with a resolution of about 3–5 cm in units A and B, and 10 cm in Unit C.
- The far right core illustration provides the thickness of each unit to scale, and the colors of the data points correspond with visually recognizable units.
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 5 Lab Analysis of
Southern Baulk from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 5
'LL Southern Baulk’ Results.
- ODV [Ocean Data View] graph (far left) showing grain size distribution and grain sorting with depth in the LL Southern Baulk Section (19 samples)
- grain size statistics
- total and pristine foraminiferal abundances with depth for several samples taken from each unit
- section illustration with the thicknesses of each unit. Light green data points correspond to the upper ‘LL Southern Baulk’ section samples, while the dark green points correspond to the lower ‘LL Southern Baulk’ section samples
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 8 Projected direction
of tsunami surge from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 8
Tsunami corridor. Based on the damage to the southern and southwestern walls and orientation of the collapsed building stones, the dominant destruction came from the southern harbor facing side of the corridor.
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
- Fig. 1D Aerial view of
site LL and southern part of the Upper aqueduct from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1D
Aerial view of the archaeological site and southern part of the Upper aqueduct, where reference samples were collected. All colored dots are linked to locations where samples were taken [as references for non tsunamogenic deposits].
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 1E Aerial view of
site LL showing locations of cores, baulk, and collapsed corridor from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1E
Aerial view of Area LL, bordering the northern side of the inner harbor basin.
- Blue dots indicate cores collected within the excavation layers
- Green dots mark the southern baulk adjacent to a later crusader wall (after Ad, et. al., 2018)
- Bolded white rectangle in E highlights the Corridor area of Area LL, the primary focus of the study
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 3 Early phases Plan
of Area LL from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 3
Plan
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 8 Wall Collapse in
Stratum VI (Umayyad) from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 8
Wall Collapse looking west
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 3 Sections of Cores
C1 and C2 and the Southern Baulk from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 3
Cores C1 and C2 (left) and Southern Baulk section (right)
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
- Fig. 132 South Balk of
Area CV/1 showing five phases from Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 132
Area CV/1, south balk. Five phases are visible:
- pavers 1047 from ca. 575 C.E.
- structural debris above pavers from mid-7th century collapse
- light brown dune sand above collapse due to long period of abandonment (mid-7th to 10th century C.E.?)
- patch of dark soil above and left representing western end of Islamic industrial installation (10th-12th centuries C.E.) that penetrated the dune sand
- upper layers across photograph were dump from 1973/74 excavations
Lisa Helfert photo.
Raban et al. (1993 v. II) - Fig. 133 Structural collapse
and crushed pottery in Area CV/2 from Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 133
Area CV/2, structural collapse from Vault 2, looking west. Ceramics crushed by falling masonry (L2017)
Lisa Helfert photo
Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
- Fig. 132 South Balk of
Area CV/1 showing five phases from Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 132
Area CV/1, south balk. Five phases are visible:
- pavers 1047 from ca. 575 C.E.
- structural debris above pavers from mid-7th century collapse
- light brown dune sand above collapse due to long period of abandonment (mid-7th to 10th century C.E.?)
- patch of dark soil above and left representing western end of Islamic industrial installation (10th-12th centuries C.E.) that penetrated the dune sand
- upper layers across photograph were dump from 1973/74 excavations
Lisa Helfert photo.
Raban et al. (1993 v. II) - Fig. 133 Structural collapse
and crushed pottery in Area CV/2 from Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 133
Area CV/2, structural collapse from Vault 2, looking west. Ceramics crushed by falling masonry (L2017)
Lisa Helfert photo
Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Stratigraphy/Chronology - Inner Harbor Areas I/1 - Z/2Raban et al. (1989 Vol. 1)
Stratigraphy of Areas CC, KK, and NNStern et. al. (2008)
Phases of the Starting Gates of the HippodromeStern et. al. (2008)
- Toombs (1978) developed a stratigraphic framework for Caesarea after 4 seasons of excavations using the destruction layers overlying the latest Byzantine occupation as the stratigraphic key. The framework was developed primarily on balk sections from four fields - A, B, C, and H. It is considered most accurate for the Byzantine and Arab phases and least accurate for Late Arab and Roman levels.
- Dates with an asterisk (*) were derived from Note 4 in Toombs (1978:232)
- Sketch plan of Caesarea Maritima from Toombs (1978)
.
Figure 1
Sketch plan of Caesarea Maritima, showing the location of Fields A, B, C and H in relation to the principal visible monuments on the site.
JW: Area H, not marked on the plan, is the Hippodrome area (Toombs, 1978:229)
Toombs (1978)
| Phase | Period | Date | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Modern | ||
| II | Crusader | 1200-1300 CE | |
| III.1 | Late Arab | 900*-1200 CE | |
| III.2 | Middle Arab Abbasid |
750-900* CE | |
| III.3 | Early Arab Umayyad |
640-750 CE | |
| IV | Byzantine/Arab | 640 CE | In A.D. 640 Caesarea fell to Arab invaders. This time the destruction was complete and irretrievable. Battered columns and the empty shells of buildings stood nakedly above heaps of tangled debris. |
| V | Final Byzantine | 614-640 CE | In A.D. 614 Persian armies captured Caesarea, but withdrew by A.D. 629. This invasion caused widespread destruction and brought the Main Byzantine Period to a close, but recovery was rapid and the city was restored |
| VI.1 | Main Byzantine | 450/550*-614 CE | |
| VI.2 | Main Byzantine | 330 - 450/550* CE | |
| VII.1 | Roman | 200*-330 CE | It seems probable that during the Late Roman Period a major catastrophe befell the city, causing a partial collapse of the vaulted warehouses along the waterfront, and the destruction of major buildings within the city. Such a city-wide disaster alone would account for the rebuilding of the warehouse vaulting and the buildings above it, as well as the virtual absence of intact Roman structures in the city proper. |
| VII.2 | Roman | 100*-200* CE | |
| VII.3 | Roman | 10 BCE - 100* CE |
- Toombs (1978) developed a stratigraphic framework for Caesarea after 4 seasons of excavations using the destruction layers overlying the latest Byzantine occupation as the stratigraphic key. The framework was developed primarily on balk sections from four fields - A, B, C, and H. It is considered most accurate for the Byzantine and Arab phases and least accurate for Late Arab and Roman levels.
- Sketch plan of Caesarea Maritima from Toombs (1978)
.
Figure 1
Sketch plan of Caesarea Maritima, showing the location of Fields A, B, C and H in relation to the principal visible monuments on the site.
JW: Area H, not marked on the plan, is the Hippodrome area (Toombs, 1978:229)
Toombs (1978)
Figure 4Stratigraphic analysis of the results of the first four seasons at Caesarea, tabulated by Field.
Toombs (1978)
- Fig. 1- View of ancient
harbor of Caesarea from Reinhardt and Raban (1999)
Figure 1
View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor,
fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas.
JW: Area K is top left
Reinhardt and Raban (1998) - Fig. 2 - Stratigraphic
Sections from Reinhardt and Raban (1999)
Figure 2
Stratigraphic sections from excavation areas from intermediate and inner harbor (see Fig. 1 for locations). For biofacies characters and 87Sr/86Sr data, see Table 1. Stratigraphic, foraminiferal, and 87Sr/86Sr data from TN1a, I14, and I9 were reported by Reinhardt et al. (1998a), Yule and Barham (1999a, 1999b), and Raban et al. (1999b). 14C samples were measured at Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel (sample numbers RT2585, RT2631, and RT2650-RT2654) and calibrated to calendar ages using method of Stuiver and Reimer (1993).
Reinhardt and Raban (1998) - Fig. 3 - Possible harbor
configurations through time from Reinhardt and Raban (1999)
Figure 3
Figure 3. A–D: Possible harbor configurations through time based on stratigraphy from intermediate and inner harbor. C is also based upon earlier archaeological excavations from within inner harbor described by Raban (1996).
Reinhardt and Raban (1998) - Fig. 2 - Herodian-phase mole
demonstrating ~2000 years of a stable sea level from Dey et al(2014)
Fig. 2
The harbor mole today at low tide. Dotted line highlights the Herodian-phase mole, indicating little difference in sea level relative to today.
Dey et al(2014)
Using ceramics, Reinhardt and Raban (1999) dated a high energy subsea deposit inside the harbor at Caesarea to the late 1st / early 2nd century CE. This, along with other supporting evidence, indicated that the outer harbor breakwater must have subsided around this time. They attributed the subsidence to seismic activity.
L4 — Destruction PhaseLater they suggested that the subsidence had a neotectonic origin.
The first to second century A.D. basal rubble unit (L4) was found on the carbonate cemented sandstone bedrock (locally known as kurkar) and was characteristic of a high-energy water deposit (Fig. 2). The rubble was framework supported with little surrounding matrix and composed mainly of cobble-sized material, which was well rounded, heavily encrusted (e.g., bryozoans, calcareous algae), and bored (Lithophaga lithophaga, Cliona) on its upper surface. The rubble had variable lithologies including basalts, gabbros, and dolomites, all of which are absent on the Israeli coastal plain and were likely transported to the site as ship ballast (probably from Cyprus). The surrounding matrix was composed of shell material (mainly Glycymeris insubricus), pebbles, and coarse sand. The pottery sherds found in this unit were well rounded, encrusted, and dated to the first to second century A.D. The date for this unit and its sedimentological characters clearly records the existence of high-energy conditions within the inner harbor about 100-200 yr after the harbor was built. This evidence of high-energy water conditions indicates that the outer harbor breakwaters must have been severely degraded by this time to allow waves to penetrate the inner confines of the harbor (Fig. 3, A and B).
Indication of the rapid destruction of the outer harbor breakwaters toward the end of the first century A.D. is derived from additional data recovered from the outer harbor. In the 1993 season, a late first century A.D. shipwreck was found on the southern submerged breakwater. The merchant ship was carrying lead ingots that were narrowly dated to A.D. 83-96 based on the inscription "IMP.DOMIT.CAESARIS.AUG.GER." which refers to the Roman Emperor Domitianus (Raban, 1999). The wreck was positioned on the harbor breakwater, indicating that this portion of the structure must have been submerged to allow a ship to run-up and founder on top (Raban, 1999; Fig. 3B). Because Josephus praised the harbor in grand terms and referred to it as a functioning entity around A.D. 75-79, and yet portions of the breakwater were submerged by A.D. 83-96, we conclude that there was a rapid deterioration and submergence of the harbor, probably through seismic activity.
Evidence for neotectonic subsidence of the harbor has been reinforced by separate geologic studies (stratigraphic analysis of boreholes, Neev et al., 1987; seismic surveys, Mart and Perecman, 1996) that recognize faults in the shallow continental shelf and in the proximity of Caesarea; one fault extends across the central portion of the harbor. However, obtaining precise dates for movement along the faults is difficult. Archaeological evidence of submergence can be useful for dating and determining the magnitude of these events: however, at Caesarea the evidence is not always clear.Neotectonic subsidence is unlikely. As pointed out by Dey et al(2014), the coastline appears to have been stable for the past ~2000 years (Fig. 2) with sea level fluctuating no more than ± 50 cm, no pronounced vertical displacement of the city's Roman aqueduct (Raban, 1989:18-21), and harbor constructions completed directly on bedrock showing no signs of subsidence. However, Reinhardt and Raban (1999) considered more realistic possibilities for submergence of harbor installations such as seismically induced liquefaction, storm scour, and tsunamis.
The submergence of the outer harbor break-waters at the end of the first century A.D. could have also been due to seismic liquefaction of the sediment. Excavations have shown that the harbor breakwaters were constructed on well-sorted sand that could have undergone liquefaction with seismic activity. In many instances the caissons are tilted (15°-20° from horizontal; Raban et al., 1999a) and at different elevations, which could be due to differential settling (area K; Fig. 1). However, the tilting could also be due to undercutting by current scour from large-scale storms (or tsunamis) and not exclusively seismic activity. Our data from the inner harbor cannot definitively ascribe the destruction of the harbor at the end of the first century A.D. to a seismic event, although some of the data support this conclusion. However, regardless of the exact mechanism, our sedimentological evidence from the inner harbor and the remains of the late first century A.D. shipwreck indicate that the submergence of the outer breakwater occurred early in the life of the harbor and was more rapid and extensive than previously thought.Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) examined and dated cores taken seaward of the harbor and identified 2 tsunamite deposits (see Tsunamogenic Evidence) including one which dates to to the 1st-2nd century CE. Although, it is tempting to correlate the 1st-2nd century CE tsunamite deposits of Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) to the L4 destruction phase identified in the harbor ( Reinhardt and Raban, 1999), the chronologies presented by Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) suffer from some imprecision due to the usual paucity of dating material that one encounters with cores. Further, the harbor subsidence and breakwater degradation dated by Reinhardt and Raban (1999) may not have been caused by seismic activity. If it was related to seismic activity, the early 2nd century CE Incense Road Quake is a better candidate than the 115 CE Trajan Quake because it would have produced higher intensities in Caesarea.
Fritsch and Ben-Dor (1961) reported the following from an early underwater exploration of Caesarea's harbor.
At the very deepest spot where the airlift penetrated, beneath huge stone blocks which teetered precariously above the divers' heads, was uncovered a large wooden beam. Beneath its protective cover the divers found the only whole amphora of our dig. This proved to be a second century Roman vessel. The fact that it was found under the tumbled beam and masonry would indicate that these things were catapulted into the sea at the same time. Since there is a strong earthquake recorded in the area of Caesarea in the year A.D. 130 [JW: this refers to the Eusebius Mystery Quake - could also be Incense Road Quake], it may possibly be that the harbor installations of Herod were destroyed at that time.
Other finds recovered from the original bottom, now under fifteen feet of sand, included numerous sherds of second century amphorae, corroded bronze coins, ivory hairpins, colorful bits of glass and other objects of the Roman period. Two objects were of special significance. One was a small lead baling seal with a standing winged figure. It has a pinpoint hole near its center, and a rather deep, depressed line on the back of it, as though made by a wire.3
The other object was probably the most important thing discovered at Caesarea this past summer. It was a small commemorative coin or medal made of an unidentified alloy, about the size of a ten-cent piece, with two holes drilled through it as if it might have been worn as a pendant. Upon the face of it there is the representation of the entrance to a port flanked by round stone towers surmounted by statues. Arches border the jetty on either side of the towers, and two sailing vessels are about to enter the harbor. Two letters, KA, may well be the abbreviation for the word Caesarea. The other side of the coin shows the figure of a male with a long beard and a tail like a dolphin, with a mace-like object in his hand. Coin experts who have seen this piece agree that it is unique, and that it undoubtedly depicts the ancient port of Caesarea. It may have been issued to commemorate some important occasion at Caesarea in the first or second century A.D.
- Caesarea with principal
sites mentioned by Dey et al(2014)
Fig. 1
Late antique/early Islamic Caesarea, with principal sites and excavation areas mentioned in the text.
Dey et al(2014)
- Caesarea with principal
sites mentioned by Dey et al(2014)
Fig. 1
Late antique/early Islamic Caesarea, with principal sites and excavation areas mentioned in the text.
Dey et al(2014)
Dey et al (2014) report that evidence for seismic destruction due to one of the mid 8th century earthquakes is present adjacent to the Temple Platform and possibly at the octagonal church.
At Caesarea, the best evidence of destruction attributable to the 749 earthquake comes from Area TPS, on the S side of the Temple Platform, where a thick layer of debris marks the end of the Umayyad occupation of the Late Byzantine bath complex, which was subsequently mulled and built over in the later 8th century - see Raban and Yankelevitz (2008:81) and Arnon (2008:85). Another probable effect of the earthquake was the collapse of the octagonal church on the platform - see Holum et al (2008:30-31).
- Caesarea with principal
sites mentioned by Dey et al(2014)
Fig. 1
Late antique/early Islamic Caesarea, with principal sites and excavation areas mentioned in the text.
Dey et al(2014)
- Caesarea with principal
sites mentioned by Dey et al(2014)
Fig. 1
Late antique/early Islamic Caesarea, with principal sites and excavation areas mentioned in the text.
Dey et al(2014)
In addition, there appears to be evidence of landward tsunami deposits. After the Muslim conquest in the 7th century, Caesarea depopulated. In the late 7th or early 8th century CE, the coastal strip south of where the Crusaders would later build their fortifications was transformed into
lush terraced gardensirrigated by wells and cisterns ( Dey et al, 2014). Marine layers found on top of these gardens included Glycymeris, a non-edible deeper water bivalve. Atop the marine layer was, in some areas, a burial ground with a funerary inscription providing a terminus ante quem of 870 CE. A terminus post quem of c. 500 came from a
reflecting poolfronting the Temple platform and overlain by the marine layer. Dey et al (2014) suggest that the most likely explanation for the transformation from gardens to burial ground was an intervening episode of tsunamogenic destruction. They discussed the potential landward tsunamogenic deposit as follows:
The most substantial strata attributable to a marine inundation of mid-8th-c. date appeared in the SW sector, along the coastal strip south of the Crusader fortifications. Extensive tracts of these deposits between the temple platform and the theater, a shore-parallel distance of nearly 800 m, were uncovered (and removed, usually mechanically) in the 1970s and early 1980s under the auspices of the Joint Expedition (JECM). The bulk of the deposits lay in a shallow depression situated c.10 m above mean sea-level (MSL) and separated from the sea by a low ridge 15 m above MSL. From the landward side of the ridge, beginning c.50 m from the shore, these marine layers stretched inland as far as 300 m from the sea. 14 They comprised two distinct, superimposed sequences, each consisting of a thick, lower layer of densely-bedded (and in some cases imbricated) shells, rubble and sherds up to 1.5 m thick, topped by a dark, silty layer 20-40 cm thick. Datable materials in the second, upper sequence placed its formation around the 14th c. 15 In the lower sequence, dated by the excavators approximately to the 8th c. on the basis of finds, numerous disarticulated human remains turned up, as well as at least one complete skeleton in Area C, interbedded with the surrounding strata of shells and silt. 16 Like the rest of the materials, this corpse was probably deposited by a (cataclysmic) natural event. As D. Neev and K. Emery indicated in their report, there were no signs of a man-made grave, and the surrounding horizontal strata were uninterrupted above and below the skeleton; such 'culturally non-appropriate burials' are now recognized as a typical feature of tsunami deposits.17 The most likely scenario would have corpses deposited by the retreating waters of the tsunami and immediately covered with more detritus, keeping the articulated skeleton undisturbed by scavenging animals or human intervention.
- Fig. 1D Aerial view of
site LL and southern part of the Upper aqueduct from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1D
Aerial view of the archaeological site and southern part of the Upper aqueduct, where reference samples were collected. All colored dots are linked to locations where samples were taken [as references for non tsunamogenic deposits].
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 1E Aerial view of
site LL showing locations of cores, baulk, and collapsed corridor from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1E
Aerial view of Area LL, bordering the northern side of the inner harbor basin.
- Blue dots indicate cores collected within the excavation layers
- Green dots mark the southern baulk adjacent to a later crusader wall (after Ad, et. al., 2018)
- Bolded white rectangle in E highlights the Corridor area of Area LL, the primary focus of the study
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 3 Early phases Plan
of Area LL from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 3
Plan
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 8 Wall Collapse in
Stratum VI (Umayyad) from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 8
Wall Collapse looking west
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 3 Sections of Cores
C1 and C2 and the Southern Baulk from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 3
Cores C1 and C2 (left) and Southern Baulk section (right)
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 2B Destruction
layer(s) showing building stones suspended in anomalous sands from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 2B
Anomalous layer (the top of which touched the Abbasid floor above)
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 2C Archaeological
fill directly underlying anomalous deposit along with inset of fire-burnt stones from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 2C
Umayyad archaeological fill directly underlying the anomalous deposit. Inset shows fire-burnt stones in the eastern wall of the corridor, at the same level as the top of the Umayyad archaeological fill.
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 4 Lab Analysis of
Core C1 from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 4
Core LL16 C1 results.
- Grain size distribution with depth in the core (1 cm sampling resolution) presented as a contour map as well as in conventional profiles (mean, mode, standard deviation)
- TOC [Total Organic Carbon] and IC [Inorganic Carbon] values (%) of a representative set of samples are shown as a profile for Core C1, reference samples are shown in squares (TOC) and triangles (IC) to show their comparative values to the core (yellow = aqueduct beach sand ramp; aquamarine = shallow marine (−5 m depth), see Figure 1 for specific locations).
- Total and pristine foraminiferal abundances are shown plotted by core depth, sampling resolution of 5 cm.
- B-OSL signals (photon-counts) are plotted by depth with a resolution of about 3–5 cm in units A and B, and 10 cm in Unit C.
- The far right core illustration provides the thickness of each unit to scale, and the colors of the data points correspond with visually recognizable units.
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 5 Lab Analysis of
Southern Baulk from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 5
'LL Southern Baulk’ Results.
- ODV [Ocean Data View] graph (far left) showing grain size distribution and grain sorting with depth in the LL Southern Baulk Section (19 samples)
- grain size statistics
- total and pristine foraminiferal abundances with depth for several samples taken from each unit
- section illustration with the thicknesses of each unit. Light green data points correspond to the upper ‘LL Southern Baulk’ section samples, while the dark green points correspond to the lower ‘LL Southern Baulk’ section samples
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 8 Projected direction
of tsunami surge from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 8
Tsunami corridor. Based on the damage to the southern and southwestern walls and orientation of the collapsed building stones, the dominant destruction came from the southern harbor facing side of the corridor.
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
- Fig. 1D Aerial view of
site LL and southern part of the Upper aqueduct from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1D
Aerial view of the archaeological site and southern part of the Upper aqueduct, where reference samples were collected. All colored dots are linked to locations where samples were taken [as references for non tsunamogenic deposits].
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 1E Aerial view of
site LL showing locations of cores, baulk, and collapsed corridor from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1E
Aerial view of Area LL, bordering the northern side of the inner harbor basin.
- Blue dots indicate cores collected within the excavation layers
- Green dots mark the southern baulk adjacent to a later crusader wall (after Ad, et. al., 2018)
- Bolded white rectangle in E highlights the Corridor area of Area LL, the primary focus of the study
Everhardt et. al. (2023) - Fig. 3 Early phases Plan
of Area LL from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 3
Plan
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 8 Wall Collapse in
Stratum VI (Umayyad) from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 8
Wall Collapse looking west
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 3 Sections of Cores
C1 and C2 and the Southern Baulk from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 3
Cores C1 and C2 (left) and Southern Baulk section (right)
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Site LL is located just north of Caesarea's inner harbour. Ad et al (2018) excavated the site
which was in use from the Herodian period to the Umayyad period. A storage structure (aka "the warehouse") was identified in the western part of the site which appears to have been constructed in Herodian times and remained in use, as it underwent changes, until the middle of the Umayyad period (~700 CE). After the Islamic conquest of Caesarea (640 CE),
rooms were partitioned, floors were raised, construction was added and some of the openings were sealed.Ceramics indicate that the site was abandoned at the end of the 7th century CE after which it suffered two major destruction events before re-occupation occurred in the mid 8th century CE in what was interpreted as Abbasid Strata V (the Abbasid Caliphate began ruling in 750 CE). During the renewed Abbasid occupation, destruction debris were preserved
as the builders preferred to level the area and build above the destruction layer(s).The destruction events within Stratum VI (Umayyad) appear to be an earthquake and a tsunami; both likely a result of the the Holy Desert Quake of the Sabbatical Year Quake sequence.
Ad et al (2018) report that during the earthquake event
several ceilings collapsed inward, and there was evidence of a fire in the eastern warehouse.1 In the collapse in the corridor, the
original order of the courses of the wall or vault could be clearly identified (Fig. 8)adding confidence to a seismic interpretation. During the subsequent tsunami event,
a layer of sand and collapsed building stones had accumulated to a height of more than 2 m in Rooms 8–11 in the western warehouse and to a height of 1.5 m in Rooms 12–14 and the corridor of the eastern warehouse.Everhardt et. al. (2023) further examined the destruction deposits by taking cores and radiocarbon samples as well as examining burn evidence and a baulk inside the collapsed corridor.
The cores (C1 and C2) were taken in the collapsed corridor after the Abbasid floor was removed, thus sampling the destruction deposits. See Fig. 1E for location of the cores (and southern baulk) and Fig. 3 for photos and descriptions of the cores and the southern baulk. A ~20 mg. charcoal sample
from the top 3 cm of sediment in the Umayyad archaeological fill and one untreated sample of various organic material (~20 mg) from the top 5 cm of the same layer in core C1, as close as possible to the contact with the lower anomalous deposit, were collected for radiocarbon dating.Everhardt et. al. (2023:14-15) report that
radiocarbon dates of charcoal and organic material from the upper contact of the Umayyad archaeological deposit (Unit C) range from 605 to 779 CE2 which is in agreement with the phasing of Ad et al (2018) and compatible with destruction layers that were deposited in 749 CE.
Cores C1 and C2 were sampled and analyzed for grain size distribution, foraminiferal assemblage, total organic carbon (TOC), and Inorganic Carbon (IC). An additional 13 surface surface samples, including from storm surge deposits, were also collected, analyzed, and compared with the analysis of the Cores and Southern Baulk in order to help distinguish if a tsunami deposit was indicated in the cores and baulk. Portable-Optically Stimulated Luminescence (P-OSL) dating was also performed on the cores. Four sedimentary units (A-D) were identified in the two cores are were described as follows :
| Unit | Alias | Description | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | ‘anomalous’ deposit | clean, loose quartz sand with no sedimentary structures or cultural artifacts. |
tsunami deposit |
| B | same sediment as Unit A but with additions of several marine-encrusted potsherds and reddened, partially heat-fused sand clusters. |
earthquake and fire debris mixed with a tsunami deposit | |
| C | 'Umayyad archaeological fill' | a dark gray/brown (10YR 6/2), organic-rich layer with many cultural artifacts, including potsherds, glass shards, shells, beach pebbles, charcoal, and bone fragments. |
Post abandonment deposition from the latter half of the Umayyad period - typical of an ancient garbage dump |
| D | compact earthen floor |
Umayyad or earlier floor |
reddened, partially heat-fused sand clusterswere
in agreement with the presence of reddened in-situ building blocks along the intact eastern wall of the room (and elsewhere along the walls)which indicated that a fire took place before the tsunami struck. They also noted an
abundance of charcoal found in the upper Umayyad archaeological fill.They viewed the presence of marine-encrusted potsherds as an indicator that
these inclusions were previously submerged in the marine system long enough for the encrustation to take place, suggesting that they were transported from the sea to land at the time of the eventwhich in turn could
indicate that the tsunami water and deposits extinguishedthe fire.
Everhardt et. al. (2023) proposed that the lower southern baulk was also a tsunamogenic deposit related to 'anomalous" deposit Unit A in the cores.
| Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liquefaction and Subsidence | outer harbor breakwater
Figure 4 The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021) 
Fig. 1Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010)
Figure 1View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor, fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas. JW: Area K is top left Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
Figure 2 Stratigraphic sections from excavation areas from intermediate and inner harbor (see Fig. 1 for locations). For biofacies characters and 87Sr/86Sr data, see Table 1. Stratigraphic, foraminiferal, and 87Sr/86Sr data from TN1a, I14, and I9 were reported by Reinhardt et al. (1998a), Yule and Barham (1999a, 1999b), and Raban et al. (1999b). 14C samples were measured at Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel (sample numbers RT2585, RT2631, and RT2650-RT2654) and calibrated to calendar ages using method of Stuiver and Reimer (1993). Reinhardt and Raban (1998)
Figure 3Figure 3. A–D: Possible harbor configurations through time based on stratigraphy from intermediate and inner harbor. C is also based upon earlier archaeological excavations from within inner harbor described by Raban (1996). Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
|
| Tsunami | Offshore Caesarea
Fig. 1 Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010) 
Fig. 3Location of sediment cores extracted in 2005 and 2007 Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010) |
Fig. 4Dip and strike CHIRP profiles (see Fig. 3), from which sample segments “a” and “b” have been enlarged for comparison with previously identified sediment core and underwater excavation stratigraphic compilations within the surveyed area (Reinhardt et al., 2006; Reinhardt and Raban, 2008; Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Three horizons, representing four tsunami events, are recognizable from the available core evidence within the surveyed area (for core locations, see Fig. 1C). Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) 
Fig. 4Summary of tsunamigenic characteristics identified in cores and excavations from the shore ('NS') and terrestrial area (`T') to greater depths JW: Later publications redated Byzantine 551 A.D. to 749 .A.D. with possible reworked 551 A.D. deposits. If Roman 115 A.D. deposit is tsunamogenic, it was more likely caused by the early 2nd century Incense Road Earthquake rather than the distant 115 A.D. Trajan Quake Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010) |
|
| Tsunami | Harbor
Figure 4 The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021)
Fig. 1Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010)
Figure 1View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor, fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas. JW: Area K is top left Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
Figure 2 Stratigraphic sections from excavation areas from intermediate and inner harbor (see Fig. 1 for locations). For biofacies characters and 87Sr/86Sr data, see Table 1. Stratigraphic, foraminiferal, and 87Sr/86Sr data from TN1a, I14, and I9 were reported by Reinhardt et al. (1998a), Yule and Barham (1999a, 1999b), and Raban et al. (1999b). 14C samples were measured at Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel (sample numbers RT2585, RT2631, and RT2650-RT2654) and calibrated to calendar ages using method of Stuiver and Reimer (1993). Reinhardt and Raban (1998)
Fig. 4Dip and strike CHIRP profiles (see Fig. 3), from which sample segments “a” and “b” have been enlarged for comparison with previously identified sediment core and underwater excavation stratigraphic compilations within the surveyed area (Reinhardt et al., 2006; Reinhardt and Raban, 2008; Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Three horizons, representing four tsunami events, are recognizable from the available core evidence within the surveyed area (for core locations, see Fig. 1C). Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) |
|
| Fallen port architecture | harbor
Figure 4 The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021)
Fig. 1Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010)
Figure 1View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor, fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas. JW: Area K is top left Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
|
| Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Vault 2 in Area CV
Figure 130 Area CV block plan William Isenberger drawing Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 129Area CV (foreground), looking east across JECM Field C. Vaults 1 and 2 lie beneath remains of U-shaped building and soil deposits in center. At upper left, JECM Areas C.7, C.8, and C.ll with exposed sub-flooring of U-shaped building. Foreground, CV/1 and CV/2 with pavement CV/1047. CV/10 lies to the right (south). Zaraza Friedman photo. Raban et al. (1993 v. II) |
Figure 133 Area CV/2, structural collapse from Vault 2, looking west. Ceramics crushed by falling masonry (L2017) Lisa Helfert photo Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 132Area CV/1, south balk. Five phases are visible:
Lisa Helfert photo. Raban et al. (1993 v. II) |
|
| Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tsunami | Offshore Caesarea and Jisr al-Zikra
Fig. 1Topographic map of the study area, depicting the Crocodile River position, aqueducts, dams, and Carmel Ridge in central Israel (adapted from Reinhardt et al., 2003) Location map of sediment cores offshore Caesarea and Jisr al-Zarka: 1–3, 5, 6 (marked as black hexagons) and Area W underwater excavation (marked as a black square), isobaths are in meters. A surface sample from −50 m below sea level was also collected and is indicated by the * within the upper left inset. Tyuleneva et al (2017)
Fig. 3Location of sediment cores extracted in 2005 and 2007 Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010) |
Fig. 8Stratigraphic correlation of the core 6 offshore Jisr al-Zarka with representative core 2 (see Fig. 1) from Caesarea (adapted from Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Sea level data are according to Sivan et al. (2001, 2004). Tyuleneva et al (2017)
Fig. 4Dip and strike CHIRP profiles (see Fig. 3), from which sample segments “a” and “b” have been enlarged for comparison with previously identified sediment core and underwater excavation stratigraphic compilations within the surveyed area (Reinhardt et al., 2006; Reinhardt and Raban, 2008; Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Three horizons, representing four tsunami events, are recognizable from the available core evidence within the surveyed area (for core locations, see Fig. 1C). Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015)
Fig. 4Summary of tsunamigenic characteristics identified in cores and excavations from the shore ('NS') and terrestrial area (`T') to greater depths JW: Later publications redated Byzantine 551 A.D. to 749 .A.D. with possible reworked 551 A.D. deposits. If Roman 115 A.D. deposit is tsunamogenic, it was more likely caused by the early 2nd century Incense Road Earthquake rather than the distant 115 A.D. Trajan Quake Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010) |
|
| Tsunami | Harbor
Figure 4 The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021)
Fig. 1Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010)
Figure 1View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor, fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas. JW: Area K is top left Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
Figure 2 Stratigraphic sections from excavation areas from intermediate and inner harbor (see Fig. 1 for locations). For biofacies characters and 87Sr/86Sr data, see Table 1. Stratigraphic, foraminiferal, and 87Sr/86Sr data from TN1a, I14, and I9 were reported by Reinhardt et al. (1998a), Yule and Barham (1999a, 1999b), and Raban et al. (1999b). 14C samples were measured at Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel (sample numbers RT2585, RT2631, and RT2650-RT2654) and calibrated to calendar ages using method of Stuiver and Reimer (1993). Reinhardt and Raban (1998)
Fig. 4Dip and strike CHIRP profiles (see Fig. 3), from which sample segments “a” and “b” have been enlarged for comparison with previously identified sediment core and underwater excavation stratigraphic compilations within the surveyed area (Reinhardt et al., 2006; Reinhardt and Raban, 2008; Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Three horizons, representing four tsunami events, are recognizable from the available core evidence within the surveyed area (for core locations, see Fig. 1C). Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) |
|
| Collapsed Vault or Walls, Tsunami, and a Fire | Area LL
Figure 1D Aerial view of the archaeological site and southern part of the Upper aqueduct, where reference samples were collected. All colored dots are linked to locations where samples were taken [as references for non tsunamogenic deposits]. Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1EAerial view of Area LL, bordering the northern side of the inner harbor basin.
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 3Plan Ad et al (2018) |
Figure 8 Wall Collapse looking west Ad et al (2018)
Figure 3Cores C1 and C2 (left) and Southern Baulk section (right) Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 2BAnomalous layer (the top of which touched the Abbasid floor above) Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 2CUmayyad archaeological fill directly underlying the anomalous deposit. Inset shows fire-burnt stones in the eastern wall of the corridor, at the same level as the top of the Umayyad archaeological fill. Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Core LL16 C1 results.
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 5'LL Southern Baulk’ Results.
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 8Tsunami corridor. Based on the damage to the southern and southwestern walls and orientation of the collapsed building stones, the dominant destruction came from the southern harbor facing side of the corridor. Everhardt et. al. (2023) |
|
| Tsunami deposit ? | Terraced Gardens
Figure 6Aerial photo of the Caesarea coast
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021)
Fig. 1Late antique/early Islamic Caesarea, with principal sites and excavation areas mentioned in the text. Dey et al(2014) |
Fig. 14A deposit of broken pottery in the Roman circus (up to 3 m thick):
Galili et al (2021) 
The "archaeological deposit" on the north side of the Roman Circus. View from the SouthClick on Image to open a high resolution magnifiable image in a new tab Photo by Jefferson Williams - 20 April 2023 
Sign from the park at Caesarea explaining the "Archaeological Deposit". Deposits are described as Late Roman and
Early Byzantine deposited in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. Dating is presumed to be derived from pottery and stratigraphy.Click on Image to open a higher resolution and slightly magnifiable image in a new tab Photo by Jefferson Williams - 20 April 2023 |
|
| Collapse and debris | Area TPS, on the S side of the Temple Platform and the octagonal church on the platform
Figure 1 Roman and Crusader Caesarea, map of the excavations and the current excavation (sourced from ESI 17:38).. JW: Excavations were in Areas D and E marked in red on the map Ad et al (2017)
Area TP: plan showing foundations of the octagonal church.Stern et. al. (2008) |
|
- Area LL
- Beverly Goodman-Tchernov (personal communication, 2023) suggests that the earthquake did not leave a directional signature of damage and collapse largely because site LL experienced liquefaction during this earthquake but the impact of the tsunami did leave a directional signature as shown below
- Fig. 8 from Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 8Tsunami corridor. Based on the damage to the southern and southwestern walls and orientation of the collapsed building stones, the dominant destruction came from the southern harbor facing side of the corridor.
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
-
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
| Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liquefaction and Subsidence | outer harbor breakwater
Figure 4 The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021)
Fig. 1Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010)
Figure 1View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor, fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas. JW: Area K is top left Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
Figure 2 Stratigraphic sections from excavation areas from intermediate and inner harbor (see Fig. 1 for locations). For biofacies characters and 87Sr/86Sr data, see Table 1. Stratigraphic, foraminiferal, and 87Sr/86Sr data from TN1a, I14, and I9 were reported by Reinhardt et al. (1998a), Yule and Barham (1999a, 1999b), and Raban et al. (1999b). 14C samples were measured at Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel (sample numbers RT2585, RT2631, and RT2650-RT2654) and calibrated to calendar ages using method of Stuiver and Reimer (1993). Reinhardt and Raban (1998)
Figure 3Figure 3. A–D: Possible harbor configurations through time based on stratigraphy from intermediate and inner harbor. C is also based upon earlier archaeological excavations from within inner harbor described by Raban (1996). Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
|
VI-VII+ |
| Tsunami | Offshore Caesarea
Fig. 1 Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010)
Fig. 3Location of sediment cores extracted in 2005 and 2007 Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010) |
Fig. 4 Dip and strike CHIRP profiles (see Fig. 3), from which sample segments “a” and “b” have been enlarged for comparison with previously identified sediment core and underwater excavation stratigraphic compilations within the surveyed area (Reinhardt et al., 2006; Reinhardt and Raban, 2008; Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Three horizons, representing four tsunami events, are recognizable from the available core evidence within the surveyed area (for core locations, see Fig. 1C). Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015)
Fig. 4Summary of tsunamigenic characteristics identified in cores and excavations from the shore ('NS') and terrestrial area (`T') to greater depths JW: Later publications redated Byzantine 551 A.D. to 749 .A.D. with possible reworked 551 A.D. deposits. If Roman 115 A.D. deposit is tsunamogenic, it was more likely caused by the early 2nd century Incense Road Earthquake rather than the distant 115 A.D. Trajan Quake Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010) |
|
IX + |
| Tsunami | Harbor
Figure 4 The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021)
Fig. 1Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010)
Figure 1View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor, fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas. JW: Area K is top left Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
Figure 2 Stratigraphic sections from excavation areas from intermediate and inner harbor (see Fig. 1 for locations). For biofacies characters and 87Sr/86Sr data, see Table 1. Stratigraphic, foraminiferal, and 87Sr/86Sr data from TN1a, I14, and I9 were reported by Reinhardt et al. (1998a), Yule and Barham (1999a, 1999b), and Raban et al. (1999b). 14C samples were measured at Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel (sample numbers RT2585, RT2631, and RT2650-RT2654) and calibrated to calendar ages using method of Stuiver and Reimer (1993). Reinhardt and Raban (1998)
Fig. 4Dip and strike CHIRP profiles (see Fig. 3), from which sample segments “a” and “b” have been enlarged for comparison with previously identified sediment core and underwater excavation stratigraphic compilations within the surveyed area (Reinhardt et al., 2006; Reinhardt and Raban, 2008; Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Three horizons, representing four tsunami events, are recognizable from the available core evidence within the surveyed area (for core locations, see Fig. 1C). Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) |
|
IX + |
| Fallen port architecture | harbor
Figure 4 The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021)
Fig. 1Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010)
Figure 1View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor, fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas. JW: Area K is top left Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
|
VIII + |
-
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
| Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vault 2 in Area CV
Figure 130 Area CV block plan William Isenberger drawing Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 129Area CV (foreground), looking east across JECM Field C. Vaults 1 and 2 lie beneath remains of U-shaped building and soil deposits in center. At upper left, JECM Areas C.7, C.8, and C.ll with exposed sub-flooring of U-shaped building. Foreground, CV/1 and CV/2 with pavement CV/1047. CV/10 lies to the right (south). Zaraza Friedman photo. Raban et al. (1993 v. II) |
Figure 133 Area CV/2, structural collapse from Vault 2, looking west. Ceramics crushed by falling masonry (L2017) Lisa Helfert photo Raban et al. (1993 v. II)
Figure 132Area CV/1, south balk. Five phases are visible:
Lisa Helfert photo. Raban et al. (1993 v. II) |
|
|
-
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
| Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tsunami | Offshore Caesarea and Jisr al-Zikra
Fig. 1 Topographic map of the study area, depicting the Crocodile River position, aqueducts, dams, and Carmel Ridge in central Israel (adapted from Reinhardt et al., 2003) Location map of sediment cores offshore Caesarea and Jisr al-Zarka: 1–3, 5, 6 (marked as black hexagons) and Area W underwater excavation (marked as a black square), isobaths are in meters. A surface sample from −50 m below sea level was also collected and is indicated by the * within the upper left inset. Tyuleneva et al (2017)
Fig. 3Location of sediment cores extracted in 2005 and 2007 Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010) |
Fig. 8 Stratigraphic correlation of the core 6 offshore Jisr al-Zarka with representative core 2 (see Fig. 1) from Caesarea (adapted from Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Sea level data are according to Sivan et al. (2001, 2004). Tyuleneva et al (2017)
Fig. 4Dip and strike CHIRP profiles (see Fig. 3), from which sample segments “a” and “b” have been enlarged for comparison with previously identified sediment core and underwater excavation stratigraphic compilations within the surveyed area (Reinhardt et al., 2006; Reinhardt and Raban, 2008; Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Three horizons, representing four tsunami events, are recognizable from the available core evidence within the surveyed area (for core locations, see Fig. 1C). Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015)
Fig. 4Summary of tsunamigenic characteristics identified in cores and excavations from the shore ('NS') and terrestrial area (`T') to greater depths JW: Later publications redated Byzantine 551 A.D. to 749 .A.D. with possible reworked 551 A.D. deposits. If Roman 115 A.D. deposit is tsunamogenic, it was more likely caused by the early 2nd century Incense Road Earthquake rather than the distant 115 A.D. Trajan Quake Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010) |
|
IX + |
| Tsunami | Harbor
Figure 4 The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021)
Fig. 1Caesarea harbor, overview (adapted from Boyce et al 2009) Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010)
Figure 1View of ancient harbor area showing rubble spill of ancient break-waters, probable configuration of Herod's harbor, fault lines extending through harbor, and excavation areas. JW: Area K is top left Reinhardt and Raban (1998) |
Figure 2 Stratigraphic sections from excavation areas from intermediate and inner harbor (see Fig. 1 for locations). For biofacies characters and 87Sr/86Sr data, see Table 1. Stratigraphic, foraminiferal, and 87Sr/86Sr data from TN1a, I14, and I9 were reported by Reinhardt et al. (1998a), Yule and Barham (1999a, 1999b), and Raban et al. (1999b). 14C samples were measured at Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel (sample numbers RT2585, RT2631, and RT2650-RT2654) and calibrated to calendar ages using method of Stuiver and Reimer (1993). Reinhardt and Raban (1998)
Fig. 4Dip and strike CHIRP profiles (see Fig. 3), from which sample segments “a” and “b” have been enlarged for comparison with previously identified sediment core and underwater excavation stratigraphic compilations within the surveyed area (Reinhardt et al., 2006; Reinhardt and Raban, 2008; Goodman-Tchernov et al., 2009). Three horizons, representing four tsunami events, are recognizable from the available core evidence within the surveyed area (for core locations, see Fig. 1C). Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) |
|
IX + |
| Collapsed Vault or Walls, Tsunami, and a Fire | Area LL
Figure 1D Aerial view of the archaeological site and southern part of the Upper aqueduct, where reference samples were collected. All colored dots are linked to locations where samples were taken [as references for non tsunamogenic deposits]. Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 1EAerial view of Area LL, bordering the northern side of the inner harbor basin.
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 3Plan Ad et al (2018) |
Figure 8 Wall Collapse looking west Ad et al (2018)
Figure 3Cores C1 and C2 (left) and Southern Baulk section (right) Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 2BAnomalous layer (the top of which touched the Abbasid floor above) Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 2CUmayyad archaeological fill directly underlying the anomalous deposit. Inset shows fire-burnt stones in the eastern wall of the corridor, at the same level as the top of the Umayyad archaeological fill. Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Core LL16 C1 results.
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 5'LL Southern Baulk’ Results.
Everhardt et. al. (2023)
Figure 8Tsunami corridor. Based on the damage to the southern and southwestern walls and orientation of the collapsed building stones, the dominant destruction came from the southern harbor facing side of the corridor. Everhardt et. al. (2023) |
|
VIII-IX + |
| Tsunami deposit ? | Terraced Gardens
Figure 6 Aerial photo of the Caesarea coast
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021)
Fig. 1Late antique/early Islamic Caesarea, with principal sites and excavation areas mentioned in the text. Dey et al(2014) |
Fig. 14 A deposit of broken pottery in the Roman circus (up to 3 m thick):
Galili et al (2021)
The "archaeological deposit" on the north side of the Roman Circus. View from the SouthClick on Image to open a high resolution magnifiable image in a new tab Photo by Jefferson Williams - 20 April 2023
Sign from the park at Caesarea explaining the "Archaeological Deposit". Deposits are described as Late Roman and
Early Byzantine deposited in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. Dating is presumed to be derived from pottery and stratigraphy.Click on Image to open a higher resolution and slightly magnifiable image in a new tab Photo by Jefferson Williams - 20 April 2023 |
|
IX + |
| Collapse and debris | Area TPS, on the S side of the Temple Platform and the octagonal church on the platform
Figure 1 Roman and Crusader Caesarea, map of the excavations and the current excavation (sourced from ESI 17:38).. JW: Excavations were in Areas D and E marked in red on the map Ad et al (2017)
Area TP: plan showing foundations of the octagonal church.Stern et. al. (2008) |
|
VIII + |
- Fig. 2 Aerial view of site LL from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 2
The excavation, aerial photograph looking north
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 3 Early phases Plan of Area LL from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 3
Plan
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 4 Building remains and Roman floors
in a probe, looking north Ad et al (2018)
Figure 4
Building remains and Roman floors in a probe, looking north.
Ad et al (2018) - Fig. 8 Wall Collapse in Stratum VI (Umayyad) from Ad et al (2018)
Figure 8
Wall Collapse looking west
Ad et al (2018) - Sandy Deposits Just north of Area LL
Sandy Deposits Just north of Area LL
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 20 April 2023 - View into room below warehouses
View into room below warehouses
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 20 April 2023 - Beach and Western Wall of the Warehouses in Area LL - View from South
Beach and Western Wall of the Warehouses in Area LL - View from South
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 20 April 2023 - Beach and Western Wall of the Warehouses in Area LL - View from North
Beach and Western Wall of the Warehouses in Area LL - View from North
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 20 April 2023
The warehouses of Area LL were built on the beach in the north part of the harbour of Caesarea. The underlying sediments are loose unconsolidated and fully saturated beach sands. There are un-excavated rooms beneath the warehouses in Area LL. Some of the sands above the beach are exposed so I examined them. They are soft, loose, and unconsolidated. This location should be highly susceptible to liquefaction during seismic shaking. I do not know how deep the original foundations were sunk.
- Toe Failure at Northwest Corner of Crusader Wall
- Long shot - View from North
Toe Failure at Northwest Corner of Crusader Wall - View from North
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 20 April 2023 - Toe Failure at Northwest Corner of Crusader Wall
- A closer Long shot - View from North
Toe Failure at Northwest Corner of Crusader Wall - View from North
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 20 April 2023 - Toe Failure at Northwest Corner of Crusader Wall
- Medium shot - View from North
Toe Failure at Northwest Corner of Crusader Wall - View from North
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 20 April 2023 - Toe Failure at Northwest Corner of Crusader Wall
- Closeup - View from North
Toe Failure at Northwest Corner of Crusader Wall - View from North
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 20 April 2023
