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 | |
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Goodman-Tchernov, B. N., et al. (2009). "Tsunami waves generated by the Santorini eruption reached Eastern Mediterranean shores." Geology 37(10): 943-946.
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.
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.
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 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.
Mart, Y. and I. Perecman (1996). "Neotectonic activity in Caesarea, the Mediterranean coast of central Israel." Tectonophysics 254(1): 139-153.
Dey and Goodman, 2010, Mediterranean Tsunamis and the Port of Caesarea Maritima over the Longue Durée: A Geoarchaeological Perspective, Journal of Roman Archaeology 23 (2010)
Marco, S., Katz, O., Dray, Y., 2014. Historical sand injections on the Mediterranean shore
of Israel: evidence for liquefaction hazard. Nat. Hazards 1449–1459.
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.
4.5.1. Archaeological Finds Presented as Evidence for a 2nd Century CE Tsunami Event
Mixed layers of sediment, described as garbage, were found in material excavated from the harbor. The excavations yielded some valuable artefacts, such as bronze figurines, and it has been argued that the supposed garbage is actually a mixture of marine and terrestrial sediment left behind by tsunami waves [42]. However, in ancient anchorages and harbors, along the shores of Israel and beyond, the remains of numerous vessels and cargoes of ancient ships were discovered, including bronze statues and valuables (e.g., in Akko harbor, [81]). Many ships have been wrecked in the Caesarea area over the years, as evidenced by numerous finds discovered in the harbor and nearby anchorages [41], (pp. 75–112, [48]), [59,82]. It is therefore more likely that the origins of the valuable artefacts discovered within the sediments in the port originated from ships that were wrecked in and around the harbor during storms, or they were objects that fell into the water during loading or unloading of the cargo. Such finds, common in ancient harbors, may not be interpreted as unequivocal evidence of a tsunami event.
4.5.2. Sedimentological Findings at Sea Presented as Indicators of a Tsunami
The core issue in tsunami sedimentology is to distinguish tsunami deposits from beach or storm deposits. Marine fauna and marine deposits found in low-lying, lagoonal water bodies near the coast are often used as paleo tsunami indicators, and so is the presence of large boulders on a rocky coast, away from the sea [42,83,84]. Identifying offshore tsunami deposits is more challenging. It has been less practiced, as there are very few analogies for comparison and it is hard to distinguish them from storm deposits [10,42,83]. A comprehensive study conducted by Mariner et al. [84] analyzed hundreds of published records of tsunami events in the Mediterranean and proposed that 90% of them are problematic and need to be re-examined.
4.5.3. Outside the Harbor
At a water depth of 10–12 m offshore, Reinhardt et al. (area W, [42]) identified beds of small angular shell fragments and potsherds dated from the 1st century BCE to the 1st century CE that were overlain by a layer of convex-up-oriented disarticulated bivalve shells. Relying on the fragmentation patterns and stratigraphy of the shells, the authors assumed that these shells could be related to the 115 CE tsunami deposits. Reinhardt et al. [42] also reported on the presence of articulated Glycymeris shells in the tsunami deposit, and suggested that these shells indicate transport from the deeper shelf, as the shallowest habitation depth for these bivalves is 18 m. However, no evidence for the presence of such articulated Glycymeris shells in the discussed deposits have ever been presented or published. Furthermore, Meinis et al. [85] noted that Glycymeris sp. (especially G. insubrica or violescens) were very common along the Israeli coast over long periods. They existed at different depths in a coastal environment (e.g., 8–16 m depth) and even at 200 m water depth. In the Adriatic Sea, their habitat was reported to be at a water depth of 2–40 m [86]. Moreover, Reinhardt et al. [42] give no explanation of how these articulated mollusks survived what they describe as the “ . . . intense wave turbulence, shell-to-shell impacts, and shells striking the harbor moles or bedrock under high wave energy, as generated by a tsunami”. Given the above, there is nothing special in finding G. insubrica in sea bed sediments which are shallower than 18 m. The existence of articulated Glycymeris bivalves in the discased Caesarea deposits is yet to be proven, while the preservation of such articulated shells under a catastrophic tsunami that was assumed to destroy the Roman Harbor, is still to be explained.
As noted above, it is difficult to distinguish between tsunami and storm deposits [83,84,87,88]. Sakuna et al. [89] noted the difficulty in identifying the shallow-marine tsunami deposits associated with the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami based on sedimentological evidence. Tamura et al. [10], who study the 2011 tsunami in Japan, concluded that this tsunami (“one of the largest modern tsunamis in the last 1200 years”) did not produce distinct sedimentary records in Sendai Bay. He also stated that there are no established unequivocal criteria for identifying shallow marine tsunami deposits and that it is impossible to identify the associated deposits at sea, since they are not preserved and might have been mixed by storms [10]. Their results agree with the suggestions of Weiss and Bahlburg [90] that the offshore tsunami deposits are unlikely to be preserved at depths shallower than 65 m. In this regard, the deposits identified by Reinhardt et al. [42] as the result of the 115 tsunami that is supposed to have destroyed the harbor, are questionable, as are the three reflected sub-bottom layers identified by Goodman-Tchernov and Austin [9] as tsunami features.
4.5.4. Tsunami Deposits in the Eastern (Inner) Basin
Excavations in the eastern basin [40] yielded a thin layer of sediments from the 1st to 2nd centuries CE, overlain by a deposit of mixed sediments. They determined that in the 1st century, and evidently up to the 3rd century CE, the prevailing conditions in the eastern basin were of a brackish body of water with good circulation. Thus, the inner harbor seems to have been in use after 115 CE. The mixed sediment deposits discovered in the eastern basin was attributed by Reinhardt and Raban [40] to cleaning and deepening of the harbor in early periods. The proposed main mechanisms for the destruction of the harbor in the study by Reinhardt and Raban [40] were the seismic and tectonic scenarios. Later, however, after reassessing the finds in light of the available new studies on tsunamis, the tectonic and seismic scenarios, as well as the dredging deposit hypothesis, gave way to the 115 CE tsunami scenario [42].
4.5.5. Tsunami Deposits on Land in Caesarea
It is reasonable to assume that a powerful tsunami, such as the one suggested to have occurred in 115 CE, should have affected other places along the Caesarea region and leave behind tsunamigenic deposits that can be traced on land in Caesarea and surrounding lowlands. Excavations carried out on the coast of Caesarea yielded deposits which were associated with 6th and 8th century CE tsunami events (Figure 14) [8,9]. However, so far, no tsunami deposits that can be attributed to the second century CE were reported from land excavations in Caesarea and around. Furthermore, boreholes taken in lowlands a few km north and south of Caesarea [91,92] (Figure 15![]()
Fig. 14
A deposit of broken pottery in the Roman circus (up to 3 m thick):
- general view, looking north-east (location of scale is marked with red arrow)
- detailed view, looking west (scale in centimeters). Goodman-Tchernov and Austin [9] proposed that the fill consists of tsunamigenic deposits dated to the 6th and the 8th century CE. It should be noted that the excavator identified the deposit as Late Roman-Byzantine urban-waste fill (Porath Y. personal communication) (for location see Figures 6d and 15).
Galili et al (2021)) revealed no tsunami deposits that can be dated to 115 CE. Nonetheless, no evidence does not mean no event, and further searches for possible 115 CE tsunamigenic deposits on land is certainly needed.![]()
Fig. 15
Location of boreholes taken in coastal lowlands few kilometers south of the Caesarea harbor [91], and in Tanninim river outlet, few km north of the Caesarea harbor [92], and location of the Roman circus fill deposit
(Modified by E. Galili after Google Earth).
Galili et al (2021)
...
4.6. Swell Storms
The winter wave climate along the Mediterranean coast of Israel is characterized by alternating periods of calm seas and storm events [23,101–103]. Since November 1993, high-quality directional wave data have been measured simultaneously offshore Ashdod and Haifa (75 km south of Caesarea, and 37 north of Caesarea respectively) by the Coastal and Marine Engineering Research Institute. At these sites, where the water depth is about 24 m, a Wave-rider buoy was deployed to acquire 30-min records of surface elevation and directional spectral information [104]. By using the Weibull distribution with a 3.7 m significant height (Hs) threshold, a statistical analysis of extreme wave events was recorded in Ashdod during the period of 1 April 1992 and 31 March 2015. The analysis shows that the significant wave height for the 20, 50 and 100-year return period are about 7.07 m, 7.75 m, 8.27 m and 8.78 m respectively [105], with a maximum height of over 13 m [23]. Furthermore, during the last 20 years, four major storms with Hs > 7 m were measured in Haifa in Feb 2001, Dec 2002, Dec 2010 and Feb 2015. The statistical analysis, as well as the last major events, show that the Israeli coast is affected by relatively high waves [106]. These storms also induced strong longshore currents that may exceed 2 m/sec [23,103,107]. Here we discuss the potential impact of those winter storms and longshore currents.
4.6.1. Wave-Induced Seabed Liquefaction
Deposits of man-made artifacts originating from shipwrecks, shells and other natural products can be sorted and stratified below the sandy seabed in various depths by storm waves. Wave-induced seabed liquefaction of the sandy sea bed occurs at depths of up to 30 m below sea level to a depth of 3 m below seabed due to wave storms (pp. 445–509, [108]; E. Kit pers. comm. 2021). The wave-induced seabed liquefaction is maximal at water depths of 8–9 m [108]. Such liquefaction results in settlement and re-solidification [109], and may lead to sorting and stratification of artifacts and other natural products in subbottom horizons. Thus, the three sub-bottom horizons reported by Goodman-Tchernov and Austin [9], should also be considered as a result of wave storms effects.References[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. |
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.
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.