al-Harif Aqueduct
Correlation of results among paleoseismic trenching, archaeoseismic excavations, and tufa analysis. In paleoseismic trenching, the youngest age for event X is not constrained, but it is, however, limited by event Y. In archaeoseismic excavations, the period of first damage overlaps with that of the second damage due to poor age control. In tufa analysis, the onset and restart of Br-3 and Br-4 mark the damage episodes to the aqueduct; the growth of Br-5 and Br-6 shows interruptions (I) indicating the occurrence of major events. Except for the 29 June 1170 event, previous events have been unknown in the historical seismicity catalogue. The synthesis of large earthquake events results from the timing correlation among the faulting events, building repair, and tufa interruptions (also summarized in Fig. 12 and text). Although visible in trenches (faulting event X), archaeoseismic excavations (first damage), and first interruption of tufa growth (in Br-5 and Br-6 cores), the A.D. 160–510 age of event X has a large bracket. In contrast, event Y is relatively well bracketed between A.D. 625 and 690, with the overlapped dating from trench results, the second damage of the aqueduct, and the interruption and restart of Br-3 and onset of Br-4. The occurrence of the A.D. 1170 earthquake correlates well with event Z from the trenches, the age of third damage to the aqueduct, and the age of interruption of Br-4, Br-5, and Br-6.
Sbeinati et al (2010)
- Fig. 3 Location Map from
from Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Fig. 3
The 90-km-long Missyaf fault segment and the Al Harif Roman aqueduct site. The back-ground topography (SRTM 30 arc posting digital elevation model; Farr and Kobrick, 2000) clearly delineates the fault segment (arrowheads) in between the Ghab and Al Boqueaa pull-apart basins. The Roman aqueduct at Al Harif (see also Fig. 4) was designed to bring freshwater from western ranges to Apamea and Shaizar. LRB — Lebanese restraining bend.
Sbeinati et al (2010)
- Fig. 3 Location Map from
from Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Fig. 3
The 90-km-long Missyaf fault segment and the Al Harif Roman aqueduct site. The back-ground topography (SRTM 30 arc posting digital elevation model; Farr and Kobrick, 2000) clearly delineates the fault segment (arrowheads) in between the Ghab and Al Boqueaa pull-apart basins. The Roman aqueduct at Al Harif (see also Fig. 4) was designed to bring freshwater from western ranges to Apamea and Shaizar. LRB — Lebanese restraining bend.
Sbeinati et al (2010)
- Displaced Al-Harif aqueduct in Google Earth
Displaced Al-Harif aqueduct in Google Earth
click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Figure 5
Microtopographic survey (0.05 m contour lines) of the Al-Harif aqueduct and related flat alluvial terrace. The aqueduct (thin blue crosses) shows a total of 13.6 ± 0.20 m left-lateral slip along the fault zone (Meghraoui et al., 2003).
Roman numbers indicate archaeoseismic excavations (in red-dish and orange, labeled 1 to IV)
Letters indicate paleoseismic trenches (in gray and black, labeled A, B, C, and E).
The dragged wall fragment is located between excavation IV and trench E and is marked by a dense cluster of survey points.
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Figure 10 A
Trench logs A, B, and C north of the aqueduct site (see location in Fig. 5). All trenches display the Dead Sea fault zone as a negative flower structure affecting all alluvial units below unit a. Calibrated 14C dates are in Table 1. Fault branches in trench C are labeled 1 to V (see text for explanation). The sedimentary units are very comparable and show three to four faulting events denoted W to Z (see text for explanation). Trench log A is in meters.
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Legend
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Figure 10
Trench logs A, B, and C north of the aqueduct site (see location in Fig. 5). All trenches display the Dead Sea fault zone as a negative flower structure affecting all alluvial units below unit a. Calibrated 14C dates are in Table 1. Fault branches in trench C are labeled 1 to V (see text for explanation). The sedimentary units are very comparable and show three to four faulting events denoted W to Z (see text for explanation). Trench log A is in meters.
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Legend
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Figure 10C
Trench logs A, B, and C north of the aqueduct site (see location in Fig. 5). All trenches display the Dead Sea fault zone as a negative flower structure affecting all alluvial units below unit a. Calibrated 14C dates are in Table 1. Fault branches in trench C are labeled 1 to V (see text for explanation). The sedimentary units are very comparable and show three to four faulting events denoted W to Z (see text for explanation). Trench log A is in meters.
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Legend
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
(B) Mosaic of excavation 1 exhibits the main fallen wall (A and B) and dragged wall piece (C), scattered wall pieces and the fault zone; note also location of cement sample CS-1-4 (see text for explanation).
(C) Trench E (excavation 1, north wall) exposes faulted sedimentary units below the archaeological remains and wall fragment C visible in bottom of Figure 8B
fz-fault zone
sedimentary units are similar to those of trenches A, B, and C (see also Fig. 10); and dating characteristics are in Table 1.
- a - present-day soil and alluvial terrace (plough zone)
- d—reddish alluvial fine gravel
- e—dark-brown silty clay (with rich organic matter)
- f—gravels and pebbles in silty-clay matrix
- g—massive gey clay with scattered gravels
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Figure 14
Schematic reconstruction (with final stage from Fig. 5) of the A.D. 160-510, A.D. 625-690, and A.D. 1170 large earthquakes and related faulting of the Al Harif aqueduct. Except for the A.D. 1170 earthquake (see historical cata-logue of Sbeinati et al., 2005), the dating of earthquake events are from Figure 12. The white small section is the rebuilt wall after event X (see buried wall A and B in Fig. 8B); the subsequent gray piece corresponds to the rebuilt wall after event Y (see wall section C in Fig. 8B), which was damaged and dragged after event Z. The earlier aqueduct deformation (warping of the eastern wall near the fault rupture) may have recorded —4.3 m of coseismic left-lateral slip that remained relatively well preserved during the subsequent fault movements.
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Figure 7
Schematic sections of the aqueduct western wall and related tufa deposits (B, C, D, and E indicate earlier core sections of tufa deposits (Meghraoui et al., 2003). Tufa samples AQ-Tr-B13 and AQ-Tr-D5 (Table 1) are from cores B and D, respectively. The right and left vertical sections show the relative tufa thickness of the originally built part (with Opus caementum and quadratum stones) and the rebuilt part, respectively. The plan view indicates the variation of tufa deposition and shows the core distribution and related thickness along the western wall of the aqueduct.
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Figure 11
Synthetic description of cores with lithologic content and sample number for radiocarbon dating (see Table 1 and Fig. 6 for core locations)
I stands for major interruption.
The very porous tufa indicates major interruptions in tufa growth (e.g. a major interruption of core growth in BR-3 is visible at —22 cm (Br-3-4 sample; see text for explanation). The correlation between major interruptions of tufa growth and faulting events in trenches and archaeoseismic building constrains the timing of repeated earthquakes along the Missyaf segment of the Dead Sea fault.
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)
Fig. 12 (A)
Calibrated dating of samples (with calibration curve INTCAL04 from Reimer et al. [2004] with 2σ age range and 95.4% probability) and sequential distribution from Oxcal pro-gram (see also Table 1; Bronk Ramsey, 2001). The Bayesian distribution computes the time range of large earthquakes (events W, X, Y, and Z) at the Al Harif aqueduct according to faulting events, construction and repair of walls, and starts and interruptions of the tufa deposits (see text for explanation). Number in brackets (in %) indicates how much the sample is in sequence; the number in % indicates an agreement index of overlap with prior distribution.
Sbeinati et al (2010)
Correlation of results among paleoseismic trenching, archaeoseismic excavations, and tufa analysis. In paleoseismic trenching, the youngest age for event X is not constrained, but it is, however, limited by event Y. In archaeoseismic excavations, the period of first damage overlaps with that of the second damage due to poor age control. In tufa analysis, the onset and restart of Br-3 and Br-4 mark the damage episodes to the aqueduct; the growth of Br-5 and Br-6 shows interruptions (I) indicating the occurrence of major events. Except for the 29 June 1170 event, previous events have been unknown in the historical seismicity catalogue. The synthesis of large earthquake events results from the timing correlation among the faulting events, building repair, and tufa interruptions (also summarized in Fig. 12 and text). Although visible in trenches (faulting event X), archaeoseismic excavations (first damage), and first interruption of tufa growth (in Br-5 and Br-6 cores), the A.D. 160–510 age of event X has a large bracket. In contrast, event Y is relatively well bracketed between A.D. 625 and 690, with the overlapped dating from trench results, the second damage of the aqueduct, and the interruption and restart of Br-3 and onset of Br-4. The occurrence of the A.D. 1170 earthquake correlates well with event Z from the trenches, the age of third damage to the aqueduct, and the age of interruption of Br-4, Br-5, and Br-6.
Sbeinati et al (2010)
Figure 9
Excavations II (A) and III (B) that expose the aqueduct wall foundation (see also Fig. 5) and related sedimentary unit e underneath. The difference in the size of stones between excavation II (A) and excavation III (B) implies a rebuilding phase of the latter wall.
Sbeinati et. al. (2010)