GEOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT HARBOR SITE OF CAESAREA MARITIMA, ISRAEL - EVIDENCE FROM SEDIMENTOLOGY AND PALEOECOLOGY OF BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA

Citation
Eg. Reinhardt et al., GEOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT HARBOR SITE OF CAESAREA MARITIMA, ISRAEL - EVIDENCE FROM SEDIMENTOLOGY AND PALEOECOLOGY OF BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA, Journal of foraminiferal research, 24(1), 1994, pp. 37-48
Citations number
33
Categorie Soggetti
Paleontology
ISSN journal
00961191
Volume
24
Issue
1
Year of publication
1994
Pages
37 - 48
Database
ISI
SICI code
0096-1191(1994)24:1<37:GOTAHS>2.0.ZU;2-N
Abstract
Foraminiferal analysis and C-14 dating of a core obtained from the ent rance of the ancient harbor site of Caesarea Maritima, Israel provided paleo-environmental information which has enhanced previous archaeolo gical interpretations. This integrated micropaleontological-sedimentol ogical approach presents a new tool for solving marine archaeological problems. Four distinct sedimentological units related to the harbor's history were recognized: preharbor deposits, harbor construction rubb le, harbor and post harbor deposits. The sediments from the active har bor were characterized by mud, interrupted by intervals of coarse sand deposited during large low periodicity (25-50 years) storms. The area outside the harbor moles was continuously under the influence of wave action resulting in deposition of a coarse sandy substrate. The sedim ent distribution corresponded with two distinct foraminiferal assembla ges: Biofacies 1 was related to a low energy muddy substrate and was c haracterized by Ammonia tepida, Cornuspira foliacea, Haynesina depress ula and Triloculina subgranulata; Biofacies 2 was related to a high en ergy sand substrate and was characterized by Ammonia parkinsoniana and Porosononion granosum. Sedimentological and foraminiferal evidence as well as C-14 dates indicated that the mud was from the active harbor (commissioned in 21 BC) and that the harbor was no longer functioning according to its original design probably by the mid third century and definitely by no later than 490 AD. Previous research had suggested t hat the degradation of the harbor was most likely related to tectonic movement of the area. However, the timing of this event was not exactl y known. Archaeologists have speculated that the Byzantine Emperor Ana stasius I refurbished the harbor in the early 6th century. The results of this study have indicated that, even if this reconstruction did oc cur, the harbor was not returned to its original design or function.