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 | |
King Herod built the town of Caesarea between 22 and 10/9 BCE, naming it for his patron - Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus. The neighboring port was named Sebastos - Greek for Augustus (Stern et al, 1993). Straton's Tower, a Phoenician Port city, existed earlier on the site. When the Romans annexed Judea in 6 CE, Caesarea became the headquarters for the provincial governor and his administration (Stern et al, 1993). During the first Jewish War, Roman General Vespasian wintered at Caesarea and used it as his support base (Stern et al, 1993). After he became Emperor, he refounded the city as a Roman colony. Caesarea is mentioned in the 10th chapter of the New Testament book of Acts as the location where, shortly after the crucifixion, Peter converted Roman centurion Cornelius - the first gentile convert to the faith. In Early Byzantine times, Caesarea was known for its library and as the "home-town" of the Christian Church historian and Bishop Eusebius. After the Muslim conquest of the 7th century, the city began to decline but revived again in the 10th century (Stern et al, 1993). Crusaders ruled the city for most of the years between 1101 and 1265 CE (Stern et al, 1993). After the Crusaders were ousted, the town was eventually leveled in 1291 CE and remained mostly desolate after that (Stern et al, 1993).
Neither Reinhardt et. al. (2006) nor
Goodman-Tchernov et. al. (2009) nor
Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015)
saw evidence of a tsunami in near shore shelf deposits of Caesarea around 304 CE.
Salamon et. al. (2011)
noted that a tsunami was reported in a number of earlier earthquake catalogs (e.g. Shalem, 1956,
Ben-Menahem, 1991,
Amiran et al., 1994) which
several of the cataloguers (Shalem, 1956 and Amiran et al., 1994) viewed as doubtful - according to Salamon et al (2011). The alleged tsunami was likely generated from
Eusebius' report of the sea casting up the body of the martyrdom of Apphian at the gates of Caesarea at the same time as the
[Eusebius Martyr Quake] in Sidon.
Salamon et al (2011) noted that a seismic sea wave is not specifically mentioned in Eusebius' text and it is common along the eastern Mediterranean coast,
even in normal weather conditions, that the sea casts up dead bodies of drowned people at the shore.
Tyuleneva et. al. (2017) identified what appears to be the same tsunamite in a core (Jisr al-Zarka 6) taken offshore of nearby Jisr al-Zakra. This core was located ~1.5-4.5 km. north of the Caesarea cores. The tsunamite deposit from Jisr al-Zarka was more tightly dated to 658-781 CE (1292-1169 Cal BP) – within the time window for the Holy Desert Quake of the Sabbatical Year Earthquake sequence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 Everhardt et. al. (2023:5) reports that fire-reddened walls (see inset of Figure 2C) were found at
the same level as the destruction layer(s).
2 Everhardt et. al. (2023:14-15) described the radiocarbon samples as follows:
A single piece of charcoal from the surface of the Umayyad archaeological fill (Unit C) in core C1 has been radiocarbon dated with 95.4% probability to 649–687 calCE (73.5%) or 743–773 calCE (22.0%), consistent with the archaeological finds. A second radiocarbon age was measured on a mix of small organic materials from the same layer as the previous charcoal sample, with a result of 605–665 cal CE (95.4% probability).
In excavations of the shallow intermediate harbor (TN area, Fig. 1C; Reinhardt and Raban, 2008:155-182 ), there is an extensive deposit of mixed (Early Islamic- Byzantine–4th to 8th century CE) refuse, ranging from high-value intricate items of varying erosion state and exposure—suggesting broad mixing of typical harbor refuse (e.g., broken amphora/pots) and newly introduced, undamaged domestic wares and personal items (e.g., intricate hair combs, fine sections of Islamic coins, statuette, a satchel of copper coins). Unlike other harbor deposits, these materials are of broad origin (domestic, commercial, religious), value range and preservation state, suggesting the kind of non-deliberate and rapid burial a tsunami event would produce. In addition, because the ages of the ceramics found in this excavation range from early Islamic to late Byzantine (6th through 8th centuries CE), no distinctive stratigraphy offshore today separates what may have been two distinct tsunami events.Dey and Goodman-Tchernov (2010:278) reported on potential 6th century CE tsunami deposits in the inner and outer harbors.
The inner harbour was blanketed with a thick deposit of heterogeneous rubble, including bones and other organic remains, pottery, and architectural materials.63 Meanwhile, in the outer harbour, a powerful scouring effect mixed materials datable from the 1st c. B.C. to the 6th c. A.D. into a single, undifferentiated mass, further undermined the breakwaters, and cut a trench into the channel between the outer moles.64 The signs from both the inner and outer harbour are dramatic enough to have led previous commentators already to propose the tsunami of 551 as a possible cause.65
Footnotes[63] Raban 1996, 662; Yule and Barham 1999, 277-78; Reinhardt and Raban 2008, 177-78.
[64] Reinhardt and Raban 2008, 178-79.
[65] See, e.g., Raban 1996, 662; Yule and Barham 1999, 277-78; Reinhardt and Raban 2008, 177-78.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 Everhardt et. al. (2023:5) reports that fire-reddened walls (see inset of Figure 2C) were found at
the same level as the destruction layer(s).
2 Everhardt et. al. (2023:14-15) described the radiocarbon samples as follows:
A single piece of charcoal from the surface of the Umayyad archaeological fill (Unit C) in core C1 has been radiocarbon dated with 95.4% probability to 649–687 calCE (73.5%) or 743–773 calCE (22.0%), consistent with the archaeological finds. A second radiocarbon age was measured on a mix of small organic materials from the same layer as the previous charcoal sample, with a result of 605–665 cal CE (95.4% probability).
Elias, A., et al. (2007). "Active thrusting offshore Mount Lebanon: Source of the tsunamigenic A.D. 551 Beirut-Tripoli earthquake." Geology 35(8): 755-758.
Salamon, A. and P. Di Manna (2019). "Empirical constraints on magnitude-distance relationships for seismically-induced submarine tsunamigenic landslides." Earth-Science Reviews 191: 66-92.
Variable | Input | Units | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Magnitude | |||
km. | Distance to earthquake producing fault | ||
Variable | Output - Site Effect not considered | Units | Notes |
unitless | Local Intensity | ||
unitless | Conversion from Intensity to PGA using Wald et al (1999) |
Location | Approx. Distance to Caesarea (km.) |
---|---|
en Feshka (N end of Dead Sea) |
105 |
al-Masraa, Jordan (S end of Dead Sea) |
136 |
Safi, Jordan | 173 |
Taybeh Trench | 235 |
Qatar Trench | 290 |
Variable | Input | Units | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Magnitude | |||
km. | Distance to earthquake producing fault | ||
Variable | Output - Site Effect not considered | Units | Notes |
unitless | Local Intensity | ||
unitless | Conversion from Intensity to PGA using Wald et al (1999) |
Location | Approx. Distance to Caesarea (km.) |
---|---|
al-Harif Aqueduct | 320 |
Apamea | 350 |
Antioch | 430 |
Variable | Input | Units | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Magnitude | |||
km. | Distance to earthquake producing fault | ||
Variable | Output - Site Effect not considered | Units | Notes |
unitless | Local Intensity | ||
unitless | Conversion from Intensity to PGA using Wald et al (1999) |
Location | Approx. Distance to Caesarea (km.) |
---|---|
Tyre | 88 |
Sidon | 123 |
Beirut | 163 |
Estimated Epicenter of Elias et al (2007) | 175 |
Byblos | 192 |
Variable | Input | Units | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Magnitude | |||
km. | Distance to earthquake producing fault | ||
Variable | Output - Site Effect not considered | Units | Notes |
unitless | Local Intensity | ||
unitless | Conversion from Intensity to PGA using Wald et al (1999) |
Location | Approx. Distance to Caesarea (km.) |
---|---|
Bet She'an | 56 |
Tiberias | 68 |
‘Ad, U.; Kirzner, D., Shotten-Hallel, Vardit, and Gendelman, P., 2017, the Crusader Market. Preliminary Report; Hadashot Arkheologiyot
‘Ad, U.; Arbel, Y.; Gendelman, P. Caesarea, 2018, Area LL. 2018; Hadashot Arkheologiyot
Dey, H. and B. Goodman-Tchernov (2010). "Tsunamis and the port of Caesarea Maritima over the longue durée: a geoarchaeological perspective." Journal of Roman Archaeology 23: 265-284.
Dey, H., et al. (2014). "Archaeological evidence for the tsunami of January 18, A.D. 749: a chapter in the history of Early Islamic Qâysariyah (Caesarea Maritima)." Journal of Roman Archaeology 27: 357-373.
Everhardt, C. J., et al. (2023). "Earthquake, Fire, and Water: Destruction Sequence Identified in an 8th
Century Early Islamic Harbor Warehouse in Caesarea, Israel." Geosciences 13(4): 108.
Galili, E., et al. (2021). "Archaeological and Natural Indicators of Sea-Level and Coastal Changes: The Case Study of the Caesarea Roman Harbor." Geosciences (Switzerland) 11.
Goodman-Tchernov, B. N., et al. (2009). "Tsunami waves generated by the Santorini eruption reached Eastern Mediterranean shores." Geology 37(10): 943-946.
Goodman-Tchernov, B. N. and J. A. Austin Jr (2015). "Deterioration of Israel's Caesarea Maritima's ancient harbor
linked to repeated tsunami events identified in geophysical mapping of offshore stratigraphy." Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3: 444-454.
Marco, S., Katz, O., Dray, Y., 2014. Historical sand injections on the Mediterranean shore
of Israel: evidence for liquefaction hazard. Nat. Hazards 1449–1459.
Mart, Y. and I. Perecman (1996). "Neotectonic activity in Caesarea, the Mediterranean coast of central Israel." Tectonophysics 254(1): 139-153.
Reinhardt, E. G. and A. Raban (1999). "Destruction of Herod the Great's harbor at Caesarea Maritima, Israel—Geoarchaeological evidence." Geology 27(9): 811-814.
Reinhardt, E. G., et al. (2006). "The tsunami of 13 December A.D. 115 and the destruction of Herod the Great's harbor at Caesarea Maritima, Israel." Geology 34(12): 1061-1064.
Reinhardt and Raban, 2008, Site formation and stratigraphic development of Caesarea’s ancient harbor
in Holum, K. G., et al. (2008). Caesarea Reports and Studies: Excavations 1995-2007 Within the Old City and the Ancient Harbor.
Rink, W. J. (2008) Optical luminescence dating of sediments from Herod’s harbor
in Holum, K. G., et al. (2008). Caesarea Reports and Studies: Excavations 1995-2007 Within the Old City and the Ancient Harbor.
Salamon, A., et al. (2011). "A critical evaluation of tsunami records reported for the Levant Coast from the second millennium bce to the present." Isr. J. Earth Sci. 58: 327-354.
Salamon, A. and P. Di Manna (2019). "Empirical constraints on magnitude-distance relationships for seismically-induced submarine tsunamigenic landslides." Earth-Science Reviews 191: 66-92.
Tyuleneva, N., et al. (2017). "A new chalcolithic-era tsunami event identified in the offshore sedimentary record of Jisr al-Zarka (Israel)." Marine Geology 396: 67-78.
Levine L.I. and Netzer E. 1986. Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979—Final Report (Qedem 21). Jerusalem.
Raban, A. and O. British Archaeological Reports (1989). "The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima.
Results of the Caesarea Ancient Harbour Excavation Project, 1980-1985. Volume I: The Site and the Excavations." BAR International series 491.
Raban A, Holum KG, Blakely JA. 1993. The combined Caesarea
expeditions: field reports of the 1992 season. Haifa:
University of Haifa.
Holum, K. G., J. A. Stabler and E. G. Reinhardt (edd.) 2008. Caesarea reports and studies: excavations 1995-2007 within the Old City
mid the ancient harbor (BAR 51784; Oxford).
Stabler J. and Holum K.G. 2008. The Warehouse Quarter (Area LL) and the Temple Platform (Area TP), 1996–2000 and 2002 Seasons.
In K.G. Holum, J.A. Stabler and E.G. Reinhardt eds. Caesarea Reports and Studies: Excavations 1995-2007 within the Old
City and the Ancient Harbor (BAR Int. S. 1784). Oxford. Pp. 1–39.
[8] Dey, H.; Goodman-Tchernov, B.; Sharvit, J. Archaeological evidence for the tsunami of January 18, 749 Islamic: A chapter in the
history of Early Caesarea, Qaysariyah (Caesarea Maritima). J. Rom. Archaeol. 2014, 27, 357–373.
[9] Goodman-Tchernov, B.N.; Austin, J.A., Jr. Deterioration of Israel’s Caesarea Maritima’s ancient harbor linked to repeated tsunami
events identified in geophysical mapping of offshore stratigraphy. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2015, 3, 444–454.
[10] Tamura, T.; Sawai, Y.; Ikehara, K.; Nakashima, R.; Hara, J.; Kanai, Y. Shallow-marine deposits associated with the 2011 Tohoku-oki
tsunami in Sendai Bay, Japan. J. Quat. Sci. 2015, 30, 293–297.
[23] Zviely, D. Sedimentological Processes in Haifa Bay in Context of the Nile Littoral Cell. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geography
and Environment Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, 2006. (In Hebrew, English Abstract)
[40] Reinhardt, E.; Raban, A. Catastrophic destruction of Herod the Great’s Harbor at Caesarea Maritima, Israel—Geoarchaeological
Evidence. Geology 1999, 27, 811–814.
[41] Galili, E. Ancient harbors and anchorages in Caesarea. In Ancient Caesarea-Conservation and Development of a Heritage Site;
Fuhrmann, Y.L., Porath, S., Eds.; Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem, Israel, 2017; pp. 11–27.
[42] Reinhardt, E.; Goodman, B.N.; Boyce, J.; Lopez, G.; van Hengstum, P.; Rink, W.J.; Mart, Y.; Raban, A. The tsunami of 13 December,
A.D. 115 and the destruction of Herod the Great‘s harbor at Caesarea Maritima, Israel. Geology 2006, 34, 1061–1064.
[48] Raban, A. The history of Caesarea harbors. In Treasures of Caesarea II; Porat, S., Ayalon, E., Izdarehet, A., Eds.; Keter: Jerusalem,
Israel, 2011; pp. 75–112. (In Hebrew)
[59] Raban, A.; Artzy, M.; Goodman, B.; Gal, Z. (Eds.) The Harbour of Sebastos (Caesarea Maritima) in Its Roman Mediterranean Context;
BAR International Series 1930; Archeopress: Oxford, UK, 2009.
[81] Silberstein, N.; Galili, E.; Sharvit, J. Chapter 3, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Ceramics. In The Akko Marina Archaeological
Project; Galili, E., Ed.; BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2017; Volume 2862, pp. 320–344.
[82] Galili, E.; Dahari, U.; Sharvit, J. Underwater Survey and Rescue Excavations off the Israeli Coast. Int. J. Naut. Archaeol. 1993, 21,
61–77.
[83] Papadopoulos, G.A.; Gràcia, E.; Urgeles, R.; Sallares, V.; De Martini, P.M.; Pantosti, D.; Gonzálezd, M.; Yalcinere, A.C.; Masclef, J.;
Sakellarioug, D.; et al. Historical and pre-historical tsunamis in the Mediterranean and its connected seas: Geological signatures,
generation mechanisms and coastal impacts. Mar. Geol. 2014, 354, 81–109.
[84] Marriner, N.; Kaniewski, D.; Morhange, C.; Flaux, C.; Giaime, M.; Vacchi, M.; Goff, J. Tsunamis in the geological record: Making
waves with a cautionary tale from the Mediterranean. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700485.
[85] Mienis, H.; Ben-David, Z.; Bar-Yosef, D.E. Glycymeris in the Levant sea, finds of recent Glycymeris Insubrica in the south corner
of the Mediterranean Sea. Triton 2006, 13, 5–9.
[87] Pratt, B.R. Storms vs tsunamis: Dynamic interplay of sedimentary, diagenetic, and tectonic processes in the Cambrian of Montana.
Geology 2002, 30, 423–426.
[88] Fujiwara, O.; Masuda, F.; Sakai, T.; Irizuki, T.; Fuse, K. Tsunami deposits in Holocene Bay mud in southern Kanto region, Pacific
coast of central Japan. Sediment. Geol. 2000, 135, 219–230.
[89] Sakuna, D.; Szczucinski, W.; Feldens, P. Sedimentary deposits left by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami on the inner continental
shelf offshore of Khao Lak, Andaman Sea (Thailand). Earth Planets Space 2012, 64, 931–943.
[90] Weiss, R.; Bahlburg, H.A. Note on the preservation of offshore tsunami deposits. J. Sediment. Res. 2006, 76, 1267–1273.
[91] Shtienberg, G. Morphological Changes in Caesarea’s Coastal Zone during the Last 2000 Years. Master’s Thesis, Department of
Maritime Civilization, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, 2011. (In Hebrew, English Abstract).
[92] Avnaim-Katav, S.; Almogi-Labin, A.; Agnon, A.; Porat, N.; Sivan, D. Holocene hydrological events and human induced
environmental changes reflected in a southeastern Mediterranean fluvial archive. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2017, 468,
263–275.
[101] Rosen, D.S.; Kit, E. Evaluation of the Wave Characteristics at the Mediterranean Coast of Israel. Israel J. Earth Sci. 1982, 30,
120–134.
[102] Rosen, D.S.; Kaplan, A. Environmental loads design criteria for nearshore structures improved environmental loading design
criteria for nearshore structures. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Coastal Engineering; ASCE: San Diego,
CA, USA, 2006; pp. 4456–4468.
[103] Kit, E.; Kroszynski, U. Marine Policy Plan for Israel: Physical Oceanography, Deep Sea and Coastal Zone Overview; P.N. 800/14;
CAMERI—Coastal and Marine Engineering Research Institute, Technion City: Haifa, Israel, 2014.
[106] Bitan, M.; Zviely, D. Sand beach nourishment: Experience from the Mediterranean coast of Israel. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 273.
[107] Galili, E.; Weinstein-Evron, M. Rate of coastal transport along the southeastern Mediterranean coast during storms using water
hyacinth. Geo Mar. Lett. 1989, 9, 103–108.
[108] Fredsøe, J.; Sumer, B.M. The Mechanics of Scour in the Marine Environment; Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering: Volume 17;
World Scientific: Farrer Road, Singapore, 2002.
[109] Huang, Y.; Bao, Y.; Zhang, M.; Liu, C.; Lu, P. Analysis of the mechanism of seabed liquefaction induced by waves and related
seabed protection. Nat. Hazards 2015, 79, 1399–1408.
at least the Hellenistic Period.
Item | Photos | Description |
---|---|---|
The quay of the Hellenistic northern harbor of Straton’s Tower | 6
![]() ![]() Aerial photo of the Caesarea coast
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021) 7 ![]() ![]()
Galili et al (2021) |
The quay (Figures 6a and 7a), described by Raban (pp. 82–84, [48]) is built of headers. It is at an elevation that still enables functioning today, suggesting stable sea-level conditions since the 2nd century BCE. |
Harbor wharves in the central basin | 4
![]() ![]() The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021) 6 ![]() ![]() Aerial photo of the Caesarea coast
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021) 7 ![]() ![]()
Galili et al (2021) |
The wharves were built on the kurkar ridge and they retained their original level [41]: On the south-western side of this basin, a Roman quay was built of headers and it is presently at sea level (Figures 4(1) and 7b). Another quay was excavated by Raban on the northeastern side of this basin and was dated to the Herodian period (p. 86 and Figure 22, p. 115 and Figure 6, [48]) (Figures 4(2) and 7c). Both structures are currently at an elevation that enables functioning. |
A surface built of large ashlars | 4
![]() ![]() The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021) 7 ![]() ![]()
Galili et al (2021) |
The surface was discovered in the western basin at more than 5 m depth (Figures 4(3) and 7d). This structure was interpreted as a submerged pavement, supposedly indicating that the west basin of the harbor underwent tectonic subsidence and could no longer function as a port (p. 96 and Figure 38a,b [48]; [56–59]). This surface, however, could have been originally built underwater (see below). |
Rock-cut Roman-palace pool | 6
![]() ![]() Aerial photo of the Caesarea coast
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021) 8 ![]() ![]() The rock-cut Roman pool in the reef palace, looking south (for location see Figure 6b). Galili et al (2021) |
The rectangular basin in the southern palace (socalled Cleopatra pool) (Figures 6b and 8) (pp. 217–228, [60]), was interpreted as a swimming pool. It was operated by sea-water and its elevation still enables functioning today. |
Roman harbor installations in the eastern basin | 4
![]() ![]() The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021) |
A Roman mooring stone and staircase leading to it were found on the eastern quay of the eastern basin (p. 208, [46]) (Figure 4). Their elevation enables functioning today |
Byzantine sewer outlet in the northern anchorage | 6
![]() ![]() Aerial photo of the Caesarea coast
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021) 9 ![]() ![]() Byzantine sewer outlet on the coast and partly submerged in the northern anchorage (marked with red arrows, for location see Figure 6c), and a beachrock ridge designating the location of the coastline before the construction of the harbor (marked with blue arrows, for location see Figure 6f), looking north. Galili et al (2021) |
The Byzantine sewer outlet has been ruined by the advancing sea (Figures 6c and 9). The ruins of this stone-built structure are now scattered along the sea bed to a distance of 35 m offshore. Originally, this indicates the location of the Byzantine coastline at the time that the sewer was still operating, some 1500 years ago. Its present location suggests that the coastline has shifted eastwards since the Byzantine period (p. 20, [41]) (Figures 6c and 9). |
Water wells | A study of tens of water wells at Caesarea suggests that the sea level was constant in the last 2 ky, and that there were no tectonic changes in the region during that period [30,61]. |
|
Stone-built pool near Kibbutz Sedot-Yam | 6
![]() ![]() Aerial photo of the Caesarea coast
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021) 10 ![]() ![]() Stone-built pool near Kibbutz Sedot-Yam, looking north-west (for location see Figure 5d) [43] Galili et al (2021) |
The rectangular stone-built pool that can be filled with sea water by gravity is currently at present sea level (Figures 6d and 10). Given its building style and location (close to the southern Byzantine city wall), it can be dated to the Byzantine period. The structure could have served as a swimming pool. |
Crusader mole in the northern part of the central basin | 5
![]() ![]() The Caesarea region
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021) 11 ![]() ![]() . Crusader mole in the northern part of the central basin of the harbor:
Galili et al (2021) |
The Crusader mole was built of secondary-used pillars, which were placed on the flat, natural rock (probably abrasion platform). Its elevation enables functioning today (Figures 5d and 11). |
Abrasion platforms | 6
![]() ![]() Aerial photo of the Caesarea coast
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021) |
North and south of the harbor, the coastal kurkar ridge was abraded by the sea and the abrasion platforms are at the same elevation as present sea levels (Figure 6e). The abrasion platforms and wave notches in Caesarea and along the entire Carmel coast suggest stable sea-level conditions over the last few thousand years, since sea levels reached their present elevation, ca. 4 ky ago [12,29]. |
Oysters on the quay of the eastern basin of the Roman harbor | 4
![]() ![]() The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021) |
The mollusks attached to the stones suggest that during the Roman Period, the water level in the eastern basin was similar to that of today (p. 208, [46]) (Figure 4(5)). |
Beachrock north of the northern Crusader wall | 4
![]() ![]() The Roman, Herodian harbor of Caesarea left panel—aerial photo right panel—artist reconstruction [43]
Galili et al (2021) 12 ![]() ![]() Beachrock north of the northern Crusader Wall:
Galili et al (2021) |
(Figures 4(6) and 12)—A 50 m long deposit of beach rock, with Roman marble chank traps in it, is attached to the kurkar rock at present day sea-level elevations, suggesting stable sea-level conditions over the last two thousand years. |
Beach rock ridge in the northern anchorage (Figures 6f and 9) | 6
![]() ![]() Aerial photo of the Caesarea coast
Table 1 [41,43] Galili et al (2021) 9 ![]() ![]() Byzantine sewer outlet on the coast and partly submerged in the northern anchorage (marked with red arrows, for location see Figure 6c), and a beachrock ridge designating the location of the coastline before the construction of the harbor (marked with blue arrows, for location see Figure 6f), looking north. Galili et al (2021) |
A massive strip of in-situ beach rock deposit, about 2.8 m-thick, is at 0.2–3.0 m below the present sea level. The deposit is located parallel to the coast, some 60 m west of the present shore and the remains of the aqueduct foundations (Figures 9 and 6f). This beachrock probably marks the location of the ancient coastline before the construction of the harbor and the aqueduct, and indicates that the shoreline has retreated horizontally some 60 m eastwards since the construction of the Roman aqueduct. This coastline shift must have occurred under stable sea-level conditions (p. 20, [41]). |
References Cited by Galili et al (2021) |
References
[12] Galili, E.; Sharvit, J. Ancient Coastal Installations and the Tectonic Stability of the Israeli Coast in Historical Times. In Coastal
Tectonics; Stewart, I.S., Vita-Finzi, C., Eds.; Geological Society London, Special Publications: Oxford, UK, 1998; Volume 146,
pp. 147–163. |
kmz | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
Right Click to download | Master Caesarea kmz file | various |
Right Click to download | Location of Stratton's Tower - kmz file | various |