tivity on the carmel faul

The first step in establishing viability is the exclusion of all other non-seismic causes for
damage in Denya Cave. Becker et al. (2006) compiled all non-seismic alternative causes for
damage, which needed to be refuted for Denya Cave:
1. Anthropogenic sources—recent damage by construction of the Denya neighborhood
can be distinguished from less recent seismic events by morphological assessment
(Crispim, 1999) and dating. Initial results indicate that ages of damage are within the
range of thousands of years or more. Human and animal ac<strong>tivity</strong> in the cave is ruled
out as sources of damage since the cave was closed to the surface until its artificial
opening in the twentieth century CE.
2. Underground glaciers and ice creep or frost action—in this part of the Levant cave
temperatures were significantly above freezing during the period investigated
(Frumkin et al., 1999; Bar-Matthews et al., 2000; Ayalon et al., 2002).
3. Erosion and soil creep—water circulation in the cave seems to be of a very low
energy and no areas of the cave seem to have sediment fills that show any signs of
creep.
4. Flood and debris flow—as well as a lack of evidence of sediment fills, the overall
structure of the cave does not seem to show any signs of flooding. Furthermore, there
doesn’t seem to be any convenient water source that could cause a major flood in the
area or any aperture whereby a large amount of water could enter and/or exit the cave.
5. Incations (cave instability that may result in rock fall or the collapse of whole cave
sections)—these occurrences may well be the result of earthquakes, but might also be
due to gravitational effects caused by the instability of crevasses or the overall
construction of karstic cavities. There is some evidence of subsidence in Denya Cave.
The lower chamber collapsed onto itself, but the cause or date of the event cannot be
deduced from what we know. The assessment that the collapse was caused by seismic
ac<strong>tivity</strong> is based on three assumptions: (1) in this chamber bedrock layers are still
horizontal, confirming that no tilting movements caused the incation. (2) evidence for
corroborative data can be found in other, nearby caves (see ch. 1.4.2 and Fig. 9); (3)
the Carmel region is seismically active, and thus, affirms the likelihood of earthquake
damage there. Observations of this kind will be elaborated below (see ch. 1.4.1-
Seismicity of Mt. Carmel).
6. Slope movements—these too can be triggered by earthquakes, but may also be
considered as expressions of common slope degradation processes in rapidly uplifting
terrains with deeply incised river valleys. Mt. Carmel is considered to be an uplifting
13