DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeological, Geomorphological and Cartographical Evidence of the Sea Level Rise in the Southern Levantine Basin in the 19Th and 20Th Centuries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Archaeological, Geomorphological and Cartographical Evidence of the Sea Level Rise in the Southern Levantine Basin in the 19Th and 20Th Centuries Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint Archaeological, geomorphological and cartographical evidence of the sea level rise in the southern Levantine Basin in the 19th and 20th centuries ∗ E. Tokera,b, , J. Sharvitc, M. Fischerd, Y. Melzere, O. Potchterf a Kibbutzim College, Mordechai Namir 149, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel b Porter School of Environmental Studies, Tel-Aviv University, Israel c Underwater Archaeology Unit of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockfeller Museum, Jerusalem, Israel d Institute of Archaeology of Tel-Aviv University, Israel e Survey of Israel, Lincoln St 1, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel f Department of Geography, Man and Environment, Beit Berl College, 44905, Israel ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Sea level variability affected by sea water mass is strongly associated with global, regional and local climate. In Sea level this context, the eastern Mediterranean Sea has been intensively investigated in recent decades because of its Archaeological sea level indicators sensitivity to climatic and environmental variables, due to the influence of the Eastern Mediterranean Transient Historical maps (EMT). The sea level in Israel during the Crusader period (12th-13th centuries CE) was found to be 19th century −0.5 ± 0.20 m relative to the present mean sea level (MSL). The difference between the Crusader sea level and Acre the present-day MSL raises some questions which bring us to the aim of this study: estimating the timeline of the Jaffa Caesarea changes in sea level elevation in the eastern Mediterranean over the last two centuries. Archaeological evidence from areas of low tidal range, such as the Mediterranean Sea, can provide significant information on sea level changes for times when instrumental measurements where not yet available (e.g., before 1955 in Israel). The method employed in this study integrates two dimensions: The vertical—estimating the changes in sea levels relative to the present MSL, based on archaeological evidence; and the horizontal—determining the coastline changes, based on coastal architectural and geomorphological structures appearing in historical maps. Both the structural and the cartographic evidence for sea level changes date to the 19th Century, and indicate a rise of 0.36 m over the last two centuries. Findings attesting to horizontal changes, indicate a gradual migration of the coastline landward, to the east since 1863 and a rapid change in the coastal geomorphology at the beginning of the 20th century. The sea level increase from the 19th century might be, in part, a consequence of regional trends and, in part, a result of a gap between method accuracy (archaeology and modern measurements). Nevertheless, the drastic change in the geomorphology of the coastline may indicate an extreme meteorological event, such as a storm at sea, accom- panied by a local rise of sea level, but further research is required to verify this. 1. Introduction Sea level measurements reflect a vertical movement of sea water in relation to the adjacent land, which can be influenced by both vertical Sea level variability that is a result of changes in sea water mass is land movements and variability in ocean volume and density (Lambeck strongly associated with global, regional and local climate changes and Purccel, 2005; Peltier, 2004). (Jevrejeva et al., 2006; Milne et al., 2009; Church and White, 2011; The majority of coastlines in the eastern Mediterranean have been Alley et al., 2005; Douglas, 2000; Fairbanks, 1989). In this context, the identified as tectonically and isostatically unstable in the last two mil- Mediterranean Sea has been intensively investigated in recent decades lenia (Lambeck et al., 2011; Antonioli et al., 2007; Ferranti et al., 2006; since it is sensitive to climatic and environmental variables (Tsimplis Pirazzoli, 2005; Anzidei et al., 2010; Morhange et al., 2006). This and Baker, 2000; Tsimplis and Josey, 2001; Klein et al., 2004; Vigo makes it complicated to monitor and assess the land's movements in et al., 2005). order to associate sea level variability with climate changes. In the ∗ Corresponding author. Kibbutzim College, Mordechai Namir 149, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Toker), [email protected] (J. Sharvit), fi[email protected] (M. Fischer), [email protected] (Y. Melzer), [email protected] (O. Potchter). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2019.05.015 Received 11 February 2019; Received in revised form 12 May 2019; Accepted 13 May 2019 1040-6182/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Please cite this article as: E. Toker, et al., Quaternary International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2019.05.015 E. Toker, et al. Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx another (Tsimplis et al., 2006; Vigo et al., 2005). Scholars relate these findings to the Eastern Mediterranean Transient (EMT) and to other environmental and meteorological factors. It is these negligible land movements and the sensitivity to climatic changes that make the Israeli Mediterranean coastline a significant lo- cation for the research of sea levels and climate changes. Sea level measurements taken in Israel continuously since 1958 show that the mean sea level (MSL) is 0.055 m above the Israel Geodetic Datum (Shirman, 2004; Toker et al., 2012). Based on this data, ac- cording to Auriemma and Solinas’ (2009) method, the present MSL along the Israeli coastline is calculated as 0.06 m (Toker et al., 2012). Estimates of past MSL rely largely on archaeological indicators along the Israeli coastline (Flemming, 1969; Sneh and Klein, 1985; Nir and Eldar, 1986; Sneh, 2000; Sivan et al., 2001, 2004; Galili et al., 2007; Galili and Nir, 1993; Nir, 1997; Toker et al., 2012). Archaeological evidence from areas of low tidal range, such as the Mediterranean Sea, can provide significant information on sea level changes; namely, coastal structures that were constructed with deliberate relation to the sea can be used as indicators of the sea level at the time of their con- struction (Lambeck et al., 2004).Archaeological evidence of past sea level (SL) dating as far back as ∼6900 BCE (∼8850 BP) (Glili and Nir, 1993) is scattered along the Israeli coastline. There are two methods of determining changes in sea level using archaeological evidence (Vunsh et al., 2017). The first based on direct evidence provided by man-made structures along the coastline, which were originally directly related to sea level at the time they were constructed and functioning (e.g. sea fortress foundations and drainage outlets) (Auriemma and Solinas, 2009; Toker et al., 2012). The second indirect evidence involves in- termediate factors, between man-made structures and sea level. For instance, the coastal wells required water table levels which lean and adjust to sea-level (Sivan et al., 2004; Marcus, 1991; Nir and Eldar, 1986). Our study focuses on direct findings, which provide evidence for sea levels over the last 200 years when the land adjacent to the sea has been relatively stable. Frequent changes of ruling powers during this period Fig. 1. Map of study area. enable dating the archaeological SL evidence to relatively short time ranges of around a century each. The two exceptions are evidence from – 1970's, these difficulties were discussed regarding the tectonic and neo- the Mamluk period (1291 1517), which was not sea oriented and left tectonic stability of the Mediterranean coastline of Israel. Discourse on little archaeological SL evidence, and from the days of the Ottoman determining stability or instability became intense and focused in the Empire, which ruled in the Holy Land for 400 years, often making it ffi fi 1990s on the coastline of Caesarea (Neev et al., 1973; Mart and di cult to date its remains to a speci c time within this span. The Perecman, 1996). However, recent studies show that for at least the last paucity of coastal evidence from these two adjacent periods forms a gap two millennia land movements along the Israeli Mediterranean coast- in SL measurements between the end of the Crusader period (1291) and line (as a result of both isostatic and tectonic movement), have been employment of modern measurements in Israel (1958). The exceptions ff negligible (Schattner et al., 2010; Gvirtzman et al., 2008; Sneh, 2000; are two wells in Ja a and Acre dating to ca.1700 (Toker et al., 2012; Sivan et al., 2001, 2004; Toker et al., 2012). It is for this reason that the Vunsh et al., 2017). Israeli coastline, located on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean The sea level in Israel during the Crusader period was found to be − Basin (Fig. 1)reflects sea level and climate variability, with land 0.5 ± 0.20 m relative to the present MSL (Toker et al., 2012). A movement being a minimal factor (Sivan et al., 2001, 2004; Anzidei study of the Crusader period MSL in Malta produced similar results fi ff et al., 2010; Toker et al., 2012). Moreover, although nine earthquakes (Furlani et al., 2013). The signi cant di erence between the Crusader have been documented off the eastern Mediterranean coastline since and the present-day MSL raises two questions: how was this 1837 none of them impacted the Israeli coastline (Salamon et al., 2007, 0.5 ± 0.20 m gap closed and when did this change take place? 2010). Furthermore, two tsunami waves were documented in the Le- The aim of this study is therefore to determine the course of the vant one in 1759 as a result of earthquakes in Lebanon, and the second changes in MSL in the eastern Mediterranean Sea during the last two fl off the Israeli coastline in 1856 (Zohar, 2017). Neither of these tsunami centuries, as re ected in archaeological evidence scattered along the events have been shown to have altered the Israeli coastline.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Planning and Injustice in Tel-Aviv/Jaffa Urban Segregation in Tel-Aviv’S First Decades
    Planning and Injustice in Tel-Aviv/Jaffa Urban Segregation in Tel-Aviv’s First Decades Rotem Erez June 7th, 2016 Supervisor: Dr. Stefan Kipfer A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Student Signature: _____________________ Supervisor Signature:_____________________ Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Abstract .............................................................................................................................................4 Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................6 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................9 Chapter 1: A Comparative Study of the Early Years of Colonial Casablanca and Tel-Aviv ..................... 19 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Historical Background ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Conquest of Arsuf by Baybars: Political and Military Aspects (MSR IX.1, 2005)
    REUVEN AMITAI THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM The Conquest of Arsu≠f by Baybars: Political and Military Aspects* A modern-day visitor to Arsu≠f1 cannot help but be struck by the neatly arranged piles of stones from siege machines found at the site. This ordering, of course, represents the labors of contemporary archeologists and their assistants to gather the numerous but scattered stones. Yet, in spite of the recent nature of this "installation," these heaps are clear, if mute, evidence of the great efforts of the Mamluks led by Sultan Baybars (1260–77) to conquer the fortified city from the Franks in 1265. This conquest, as well as its political background and its aftermath, will be the subjects of the present article, which can also be seen as a case-study of Mamluk siege warfare. The immediate backdrop to the Mamluk attack against Arsu≠f was the events of the preceding weeks. At the end of 1264, while Baybars was hunting in the Egyptian countryside, he received reports that the Mongols were heading in force for the Mamluk border fortress of al-B|rah along the Euphrates, today in south- eastern Turkey. The sultan quickly returned to Cairo, and ordered the immediate dispatch of advanced light forces, which were followed by a more organized, but still relatively small, force under the command of the senior amir (officer) Ughan Samm al-Mawt ("the Elixir of Death"), and then by a third corps, together with © Middle East Documentation Center. The University of Chicago. *I would like to thank Prof. Israel Roll of Tel Aviv University, who conducted the excavations at the site, and was most helpful when he showed us the site.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Rivers of Israel
    Sl. No River Name Draining Into 1 Nahal Betzet Mediterranean Sea 2 Nahal Kziv Mediterranean Sea 3 Ga'aton River Mediterranean Sea 4 Nahal Na‘aman Mediterranean Sea 5 Kishon River Mediterranean Sea 6 Nahal Taninim Mediterranean Sea 7 Hadera Stream Mediterranean Sea 8 Nahal Alexander Mediterranean Sea 9 Nahal Poleg Mediterranean Sea 10 Yarkon River Mediterranean Sea 11 Ayalon River Mediterranean Sea 12 Nahal Qana Mediterranean Sea 13 Nahal Shillo Mediterranean Sea 14 Nahal Sorek Mediterranean Sea 15 Lakhish River Mediterranean Sea 16 Nahal Shikma Mediterranean Sea 17 HaBesor Stream Mediterranean Sea 18 Nahal Gerar Mediterranean Sea 19 Nahal Be'er Sheva Mediterranean Sea 20 Nahal Havron Mediterranean Sea 21 Jordan River Dead Sea 22 Nahal Harod Dead Sea 23 Nahal Yissakhar Dead Sea 24 Nahal Tavor Dead Sea 25 Yarmouk River Dead Sea 26 Nahal Yavne’el Dead Sea 27 Nahal Arbel Dead Sea 28 Nahal Amud Dead Sea 29 Nahal Korazim Dead Sea 30 Nahal Hazor Dead Sea 31 Nahal Dishon Dead Sea 32 Hasbani River Dead Sea 33 Nahal Ayun Dead Sea 34 Dan River Dead Sea 35 Banias River Dead Sea 36 Nahal HaArava Dead Sea 37 Nahal Neqarot Dead Sea 38 Nahal Ramon Dead Sea 39 Nahal Shivya Dead Sea 40 Nahal Paran Dead Sea 41 Nahal Hiyyon Dead Sea 42 Nahal Zin Dead Sea 43 Tze'elim Stream Dead Sea 44 Nahal Mishmar Dead Sea 45 Nahal Hever Dead Sea 46 Nahal Shahmon Red Sea (Gulf of Aqaba) 47 Nahal Shelomo Red Sea (Gulf of Aqaba) For more information kindly visit : www.downloadexcelfiles.com www.downloadexcelfiles.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Building Sites in Antiquity the Culture, Politics and Technology of Monumental Architecture
    ARCHAEOLOGY WORLDWIDE 2 • 2013 Magazine of the German Archaeological Institute Archaeology Worldwide – Volume two – Berlin, October – DAI 2013 TITLE STORY GIANT BUILDING SITES IN ANTIQUITY The culture, politics and technology of monumental architecture CULTURAL HERITAGE PORTRAIT INTERVIEW Turkey – Restoration work in the Brita Wagener – German IT construction sites in the Red Hall in Bergama ambassador in Baghdad archaeological sciences ARCHAEOLOGY WORLDWIDE Locations featured in this issue Turkey, Bergama. Cultural Heritage, page 12 Iraq, Uruk/Warka. Title Story, page 41, 46 Solomon Islands, West Pacific. Everyday Archaeology, page 18 Ukraine, Talianki. Title Story, page 48 Germany, Munich. Location, page 66 Italy, Rome/Castel Gandolfo. Title Story, page 52 Russia, North Caucasus. Landscape, page 26 Israel, Jerusalem. Title Story, page 55 Greece, Athens. The Object, page 30 Greece, Tiryns. Report, page 60 Berlin, Head Office of the German Archaeological Institute Lebanon, Baalbek. Title Story, page 36 COVER PHOTO At Baalbek, 45 million year old, weather- ing-resistant nummulitic limestone, which lies in thick shelves in the earth in this lo- cality, gained fame in monumental archi- tecture. It was just good enough for Jupiter and his gigantic temple. For columns that were 18 metres high the architects needed no more than three drums each; they measured 2.2 metres in diameter. The tem- ple podium is constructed of colossal lime- stone blocks that fit precisely together. The upper layer of the podium, today called the "trilithon", was never completed. Weighing up to 1,000 tons, these blocks are the big- gest known megaliths in history. DITORIAL E EDITORIAL DEAR READERS, You don't always need a crane or a bull- "only" the business of the master-builders dozer to do archaeological fieldwork.
    [Show full text]
  • Bimt Seminar Handout
    Bringing the Bible to LifeSeminar Physical Settings of the Bible Seminar Topics Session I: Introduction - “Physical Settings of the Bible” Session II: “Connecting the Dots” - Geography of Israel Session III: Archaeology & the Bible Session IV: Life & Ministry of Jesus Session V: Jerusalem in the Old Testament Session VI: Jerusalem in the Days of Jesus Session VII: Manners & Customs of the Bible Goals & Objectives • To gain a new and exciting “3-D” perspective of the land of the Bible. • To begin understanding the “playing board” of the Bible. • To pursue the adventure of “connecting the dots” between the ancient world of the Bible and Scripture. • To appreciate the context of the stories of the Bible, including the life and ministry of Jesus. • To grow in our walk of faith with the God of redemptive history. 2 Bringing the Bible to Life Seminar About Biblical Israel Ministries & Tours Biblical Israel Ministries & Tours (BIMT) was created 25 years ago (originally called Biblical Israel Tours) out of a passion for leading people to a personalized study tour experience of Israel, the land of the Bible. The ministry expanded in 2016. BIMT is now a support-based evangelical support-based non-profit 501c3 tax-exempt ministry dedicated to helping people “connect the dots” between the context of the ancient world of the Bible and Scripture. The two-fold purpose of BIMT is: 1. Leading highly biblical study-discipleship tours to Israel and other lands of the Bible, and 2. Providing “Physical Settings of the Bible” teaching and discipleship training for churches and schools. It is our prayer that BIMT helps people to not only grow in a deeper understanding (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Conquests of Canaan
    ÅA Wars in the Middle East are almost an every day part of Eero Junkkaala:of Three Canaan Conquests our lives, and undeniably the history of war in this area is very long indeed. This study examines three such wars, all of which were directed against the Land of Canaan. Two campaigns were conducted by Egyptian Pharaohs and one by the Israelites. The question considered being Eero Junkkaala whether or not these wars really took place. This study gives one methodological viewpoint to answer this ques- tion. The author studies the archaeology of all the geo- Three Conquests of Canaan graphical sites mentioned in the lists of Thutmosis III and A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and Shishak and compares them with the cities mentioned in Joshua 10-12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence the Conquest stories in the Book of Joshua. Altogether 116 sites were studied, and the com- parison between the texts and the archaeological results offered a possibility of establishing whether the cities mentioned, in the sources in question, were inhabited, and, furthermore, might have been destroyed during the time of the Pharaohs and the biblical settlement pe- riod. Despite the nature of the two written sources being so very different it was possible to make a comparative study. This study gives a fresh view on the fierce discus- sion concerning the emergence of the Israelites. It also challenges both Egyptological and biblical studies to use the written texts and the archaeological material togeth- er so that they are not so separated from each other, as is often the case.
    [Show full text]
  • ACADEMIC PROGRAM 2018 ASOR ANNUAL MEETING the Denver Marriott Tech Center, Denver, Colorado
    ACADEMIC PROGRAM 2018 ASOR ANNUAL MEETING The Denver Marriott Tech Center, Denver, Colorado *Please note that times and rooms are subject to change * The presenter’s name will be underlined when they are not the first author Wednesday, November 14 7:00–8:15pm Plenary Address Evergreen Ballroom Hélène Sader (American University of Beirut), “Between Looters, Private Collectors, and Warlords: Does Archaeology Stand a Chance?” 8:30–10:00pm Opening Reception Rocky Mountain Event Center Thursday, November 15 8:20–10:25am Session 1 1A. Ancient Inscriptions I Evergreen A CHAIRS: Michael Langlois (University of Strasbourg) and Anat Mendel-Geberovich (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Israel Antiquities Authority) PRESENTERS: 8:20 Aren Wilson-Wright (University of Zurich), “Semitic Letter Names in Group Writing: A Reevaluation of the Halaḥam-Ostracon from TT99” (20 min.) 8:45 Jean-Philippe Delorme (University of Toronto), “A Place Among the Baals/Lords? A New Reading of the Sarcophagus Inscription of Aḫirōm, King of Byblos (KAI 1:1)” (20 min.) 9:10 Andrew Burlingame (University of Chicago), “The Head and Pectoral Inscriptions of Eshmunazor’s Sarcophagus (AO 4806 = KAI 14)” (20 min.) 9:35 Shirly Ben Dor Evian (Israel Museum), “Sheshonq at Megiddo: A New Interpretation” (20 min.) 10:00 Fokelien Kootstra (Leiden University), “Analyzing Variation: Statistical Methods and Dadanitic epigraphy” (20 min.) 1B. Archaeology and Biblical Studies I Evergreen B Theme: This session explores the intersections between and among history, archaeology, and the Jewish and/or Christian Bibles and related texts. CHAIR: Jonathan Rosenbaum (Gratz College) PRESENTERS: 8:20 Erez Ben-Yosef (Tel Aviv University), “Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater: On a Prevailing Methodological Flaw in the Treatment of Nomads in Current Biblical Archaeology” (20 min.) 8:45 Peter Feinman (Institute of History, Archaeology, and Education), “What Happened on October 30, 1207 B.C.E.
    [Show full text]
  • RIMS 35 Color.Indd
    אוניברסיטת חיפה המכון ללימודי ים ע"ש ליאון רקנאטי R.I.M.S. NEWS UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA LEON RECANATI INSTITUTE FOR MARITIME STUDIES Elisha Linder 1924 – 2009 REPORT NO. 35, 2009 Contents Yaacov Kahanov - Dear Friends 1 Yossi Mart, Yaacov Kahanov Remembering Elisha Linder 1924–2009 3 Michal Artzy Liman Tepe Underwater Excavations: A retrospective 11 Assaf Yasur-Landau and Eric H. Cline The Renewed Excavations at Tel Kabri and New Evidence for the Interactions between the Aegean and the Levant in the Middle Bronze II Period (ca. 1750–1550 BCE) 16 Rika Navri Dor 2006 Shipwreck – Report of the 2009 Excavation Season 20 Deborah Cvikel Overseas Expedition: The Underwater Excavation of the Jeanne-Elisabeth (Maguelone 2) 22 Between Continents – 12th International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology 23 Yossi Salmon Advanced Workshop for Ground Penetrating Radar Data Processing 24 Joint Geo-archaeological Project, Stavnsager, Denmark 24 15th European Association of Archaeologists Annual Meeting, Riva del Garda, Italy 25 Summaries of Theses Submitted to the Department of Maritime Civilizations, 2008–9 Aviad P. Scheinin The Population of Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), Bottom-Trawl Catch Trends and the Interaction between the Two along the Mediterranean Continental Shelf of Israel 26 Oren Sonin Aspects of the Dynamics of Fish Populations and Fishery Management in the Mediterranean Coastal Waters of Israel 30 Arad Haggi Harbors in Phoenicia, Israel and Philistia in the 9th–7th Centuries BCE: Archaeological Finds and Historical Interpretation
    [Show full text]
  • Caesarea Maritima (1996–2003)
    ‘Atiqot 92, 2018 A CHRONOLOGIcaL REVISION OF THE DATE OF THE POTTERY FINDS FROM THE EASTERN CIRCUS AT CAESAREA MARITIMA PETER GENDELMAN INTRODUCTION The pottery from the excavations of the Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima (JECM) in the Eastern Circus of Caesarea (cf. Humphrey 1974; 1975; 1986:477–491) provided valuable material for the pioneering article published by Riley (1975). Some twenty years later, an excavation team on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) headed by Y. Porath, returned to this magnificent monument. These excavations, during 1996–2003 (see Porath, this volume), extended JECM Probe H5 near the obelisk (Humphrey 1975:15–24) and opened a new area at the southern edge of the spina and the meta prima (Areas VI, VIa). The pottery unearthed from the stratified layers discovered by the IAA expedition are of prime importance for the dating of the circus, which is the main goal of this study.1 The pottery finds are arranged in the plates according to strata and divided into four categories: fine tablewares, household vessels, cooking wares and amphorae. Most of pottery types discussed below were previously identified in large quantities from well- dated contexts in the IAA excavations at Herod’s Circus (Gendelman, in prep. a) and Insula W2S3 (Gendelman, in prep. b), where they were analyzed and discussed comprehensively. The typology used here follows that developed in the above-mentioned excavation reports. Consequently, the pottery in this article is treated briefly, with reference to the forthcoming reports. The pottery presented here was carefully chosen from stratigraphic contexts related to four major stages: Stratum IV—pre-Circus remains; Stratum III—the construction phase of the Eastern Circus subdivided into three phases (a–c); Stratum II—post-Circus activities; and Stratum I—modern topsoil (see Porath, this volume).
    [Show full text]
  • Jaffa's Ancient Inland Harbor: Historical, Cartographic, and Geomorphological Data ������������������������� 89 Aaron A
    c hapter 4 Jaffa’s ancient inland harbor: historical,cartographic, and geomorphological data a aron a. burke,1 shelley wachsmann,2 simona avnaim-katav,3 richard k. dunn,4 krister kowalski,5 george a. pierce,6 and martin peilstöcker7 1UniversityofCalifornia,Los Angeles; 2Te xasA&M; 3UniversityofCalifornia, LosAngeles; 4Norwich University; 5Johannes GutenbergUniversity; 6BrighamYoung University; 7Humboldt Universität zu Berlin Thecontext created by recent studies of thegeomorphologyofLevantine harborsand renewedarchaeologicalresearchinthe Late Bronze AgelevelsofTel Yafo (Jaffa) by theJaffa Cultural Heritage Projecthaveled to efforts to identifythe location of apossible inland Bronze andIronAge harbor at Jaffa, Israel.Althoughseveral scholarsduring thetwentieth centuryspeculatedabout theexistenceand location of an ancient inlandharbor, theextent of theproxy data in supportofits identification hasnever been fullyassessed. Nonetheless, a range of historical, cartographic, arthistorical,topographical, andgeomorphologicaldata can be summoned thatpoint to theexistenceofabodyofwater thatlay to theeastofthe settle- ment andmound of ancient Jaffa. This feature is likely avestige of Jaffa’searliestanchorage or harbor andprobablywentout of usebythe startofthe Hellenisticperiod. slongasbiblicalscholars, archaeologists, always directly relatedtoits declineasaport(see historians,and geographershaveconcerned historicaloverviews in Peilstöcker andBurke 2011). athemselves with Jaffa, itsidentityhas revolved Jaffa’seclipse by anotherportisfirstattestedwiththe
    [Show full text]
  • Early Jaffa: from the Bronze Age to the Persian Period
    C HA pt ER 6 EARLY JAFFA: FROM THE BRONZE AGE TO THE PERSIAN PERIOD A ARON A . B URKE University of California, Los Angeles lthough Jaffa is repeatedly identified featured a natural, deepwater anchorage along its rocky as one of the most important ports of the western side. A natural breakwater is formed by a ridge, Asouthern Levantine coast during the Bronze located about 200 m from the western edge of the Bronze and Iron Ages, limited publication of its archaeological Age settlement, that can still be seen today.2 remains and equally limited consideration of its his- Although a geomorphological study has yet to be torical role have meant that a review of its historical undertaken, a number of factors indicate that an estuary significance is still necessary. Careful consideration of existed to the east of the site and functioned as the early Jaffa’s geographic location, its role during the Bronze harbor of Jaffa (see Hanauer 1903a, 1903b).3 The data and Iron Ages, and its continued importance until the for this include: (1) a depression that collected water early twentieth century C.E. reveal that its emergence to the south of the American (later German) colony as an important settlement and port was no accident. known as the Baasah (Clermont-Ganneau 1874:103; This essay reviews, therefore, the evidence for Jaffa’s see also Hanauer 1903b:258–260) (see also Figure 13.1 foundation and subsequent role from the Early Bronze and Figure 13.2); (2) a wall identified as a seawall that Age through the coming of Alexander at the end of the was encountered at some depth within this depression Persian period.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status of Jaffa in the First Century of the Current Era
    The Status of Jaffa in the First Century of the Current Era S. Applebaum A group of three Greek inscriptions recently published by Dr. Ya’akov Kaplan1 raises a number of questions relating to the status and history of Jaffa in the earlier period of the Roman Empire. The three inscriptions are nominally uniform, but were written in very careless lettering, two of them certainly by a semiliterate, being mere test sketches on moulds in which inscribed weights were to be cast. No. 2, however, was sufficiently clear to enable the text to be read, and to show that all three reflected one formula.2 The main point is that each ends with the name and function of a Jewish official — Judah the agoranomos, son of Zozomus (?). Not less important are the two signs opening the common formula; each of these represents the well-known sign Ἔ’, which stands for ‘Year’ in numerous Greek inscriptions,3 and is invariably followed by a figure. On inscription No. 2 this is Θ, i.e. year 9; No. 7 is a botched version of the same date; Θ is here represented by ‘O’. The figure on No. 3, on the other hand, is Δ , i.e. year 4. As the inscriptions begin with the name of the emperor Trajan, the years concerned are the fourth and ninth of his reign, i.e. 101/2 and 106/7. Dr. Kaplan has drawn my attention to the horizontal line or bar above the Ἔ’ sign, and, in his opinion, connected with it, as it commences the first line of the second inscription, numbered by him as ‘2’ (Plate 68, No.
    [Show full text]