tivity on the carmel faul

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1.4.1 Seismicity and paleo-seismicity of Mount Carmel The recent ac<strong>tivity</strong> of the CF is evident in the steepness of its cliffs, displaced stream channels (e.g. Fig. 3) and its frequent micro-earthquakes (Marco et al., 2006). Ashkar et al. (2005) list some surface phenomenon indicating ac<strong>tivity</strong> along the CF and yet, they conclude that although there are many, the pace and amount of movement on the fault are still not clear. According to data collected by the Geophysical Institute of Israel, between the years 1940 to 2007, 41 earthquakes (2.0
vertical offset. Dating of sand samples yielded an age of approximately 55ka (OSL method). This age was interpreted to suggest a normal faulting at a rate of 0.2mm/y. Zilberman et al. (2006) found evidence for two tectonically active periods in a trench dug perpendicular to the Nesher fault (Fig. 1). Dating with the OSL method yielded the following ages: (1) late, middle Pleistocene (ca. 176,000y) and (2) late Pleistocene (between 75,000 and 27,000y). The evidence from the Nesher fault does not allow for a determination of the age or magnitude of seismic events, but does provide evidence for ac<strong>tivity</strong>. Since the trench was dug along a secondary fault, Zilberman et al. (2006) assumed that their findings represent only part of the paleoseismic ac<strong>tivity</strong> along the main fault. No evidence for Holocene ac<strong>tivity</strong> was found, but it is noted that during that period the research area was subjected to human ac<strong>tivity</strong> which did not allow sediments to accumulate and therefore preserve evidence of tectonic movements. In the same study Zilberman et al. (2006) observed a shutter ridge across a stream valley between Yoqneam and Jalame that was formed by a left lateral movement of the N-S segment of the CF. At the back of the ridge evidence of a slow stage of sedimentation between the Late Pleistocene up until ca. 24,500y ago was found. Another, faster sedimentation stage is dated to 3,500-2,500y. Both those ages were obtained using the OSL method as well. The authors considered the movement of the fault as a possible cause for these sedimentation stages due to a temporary blockage of the stream valley. The site of Megiddo is situated close the the trace of the CF (Fig. 1) and has reasonably well-dated archaeological strata. These attributes prompted an archeo-seismic study of the site by Marco et al. (2006). They reported structural damage of potentially seismic origin in several strata, two of which are particularly well dated. One is of the late 4 th millennium BCE, where monumental walls of an Early Bronze (EB) I temple are fractured in several places along their strike as well as perpendicular to the strike. The overlying walls of the EB III temple were no fractured, which constrains the age of the earthquake. The other seismic event which caused structural damage is dated to the 9 th century BCE. This observation is based on several findings throughout the site (e.g. tilted pillars, tilted buildings) all dated to Iron II. They further concluded that biblical indications for a major earthquake in ca. 760 BCE seem to coincide with the damage found for 8 th century BCE buildings. All ages are based on accumulated evidence derived from chronocultural identification of archaeological contexts determined from associated material culture and 14 C assays. They are expressed in a conventional nomenclature for the sequence of late prehistoric and historic cultures of the southern Levant (Stern et al., 2008). Specific 22
Page 1: Dating Paleo-seismic Activi
Page 5 and 6: Abstract Mt Carmel is defined to it
Page 7 and 8: Table of content 1. Introduction...
Page 9: List of Tables Table 1: Isochron sa
Page 12 and 13: 1998; Lacave et al., 2004; Kagan et
Page 14 and 15: statistical study indicated that th
Page 16 and 17: The first step in establishing viab
Page 18 and 19: crystal lattice; (5) when detrital
Page 20 and 21: caused by curved segments along the
Page 22 and 23: 1 2 Yagur Jalame 3 4 Yoqne’am Meg
Page 26 and 27: eferences to Early Bronze Age I and
Page 28 and 29: Figure 5: Earthquakes for the years
Page 30 and 31: 15 30 Figure 7: Geological map of t
Page 32 and 33: a b c Figure 9: Pictures from a qua
Page 34 and 35: 3 1 2 4 5 Figure 11: Seismic featur
Page 36 and 37: the cave can be viewed in Appendix
Page 38 and 39: Figure 14: Sample DN-7 3.3 Dating o
Page 40 and 41: [3] ( 230 Th)/( 232 Th) d = ( 234 U
Page 42 and 43: extremely high errors for these val
Page 44 and 45: DN-62 Iso-III Iso-II Iso-I Iso-V Is
Page 46 and 47: contribution of 232 Th carried by d
Page 48 and 49: 3.3.3 Cluster dating Osmond isochro
Page 50 and 51: 4. Results A total of 68 speleothem
Page 52 and 53: Table 5: Denya Cave seismite I.D.'s
Page 54 and 55: Figure 17: Dated seismite uncorrect
Page 56 and 57: Table 6: Dated seismite samples' is
Page 58 and 59: 1.14 1.10 1.06 234 U/ 238 U 1.02 0.
Page 60 and 61: Sample name 230/238 err 234/238 err
Page 68 and 69: Seismic events in Denya Cave Broken
Page 70 and 71: isochron of 10.4ka (MSWD = 107), it
Page 72 and 73: data-point error ellipses are 2σ 1
Page 74 and 75:
5. Discussion The purpose of the pr
Page 76 and 77:
case, it is not clear which of thos
Page 78 and 79:
indicates that there is a possibili
Page 80 and 81:
5.2.1 Considerations for comparison
Page 82 and 83:
easonable assumption that whatever
Page 84 and 85:
establish a unique correction facto
Page 86 and 87:
References Achmon, M., 1986. The Ca
Page 88 and 89:
Hofstetter, A., Feldman, L. and Rot
Page 90 and 91:
acceleration using the parameter of
Page 92 and 93:
I-a. Table of Denya Cave speleothem
Page 95 and 96:
DEN-2 Sample DEN-2 is a type C-1 se
Page 97 and 98:
DN-4 Sample DN-4 is a type C-1 seis
Page 99 and 100:
DN-7 DN-7 appeared to be a stalagmi
Page 101 and 102:
DN-11, 12 and 13 These samples are
Page 103 and 104:
Seismic contact pre 12.51ka DN-17 D
Page 105 and 106:
DN-21 DN-21 is a type C-1 seismite.
Page 107 and 108:
DN-25 DN-25 is a sample of flowston
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
DN-34 DN-34 is a flowstone core of
Page 113 and 114:
DN-37a DN-37a is a flowstone core i
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
DN-43 This stalactite was located c
Page 119 and 120:
Seismic contact DN-45 DN-45 is a ty
Page 121 and 122:
DN-47 DN-47 is a flowstone core of
Page 123 and 124:
DN-51 DN-51 is a stalactite formati
Page 125 and 126:
DN-62 DN-62 is a flowstone sample o
Page 127 and 128:
DN-65 DN-65 is a flowstone sample o
Page 129 and 130:
Seismic contact DN-68 DN-68 is a a
Page 131 and 132:
II-b. Laboratory protocol for the p
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix III: All seismites conside
Page 135 and 136:
,10.4±0.7 שהשאירו את חו
Page 138:
משרד התשתיות הלאומ
show all

tivity on the carmel faul

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?