Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of

0 downloads 0 Views 6MB Size Report
Cobbold, P., Watkinson, J., and Cosgrove, J., 2008, Faults of the pharaohs: .... Ismail, A., Neil, L., Anderson, J., Rogers, D., Abbas, M.A., and Atekwana, E.S.,.
spe471-17   page 1

The Geological Society of America Special Paper 471 2010

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt Arkadi Karakhanyan Institute of Geological Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, 24A Marshal Baghramyan Avenue, 0019, Yerevan, Armenia Ara Avagyan GEORISK Scientific Research Company, 24A Marshal Baghramyan Avenue, 0019, Yerevan, Armenia Hourig Sourouzian The Colossi of Memnon and Amenhotep III Temple Conservation Project, German Institute of Archaeology 31, Abu el Feda Street, Cairo-Zamalek 11211, Egypt ABSTRACT Our studies in the temple of Amenhotep III, conducted under the project on Excavation and Conservation at Kom el-Hettan, provide new information about the seismic history of ancient Thebes. Distinct signs of liquefaction are revealed at the temple site. Trenches exhibit sand dikes and sills that formed extension cracks through the mechanism of lateral spreading. Clear effects of liquefaction by lateral spreading were discovered in other monuments on the west bank of the Nile. Application of historical, archaeological, and geological methods enables us to constrain the time of the earthquake responsible for the damage in the west bank temples to between 1200 and 901 B.C. Furthermore, we find no signs of an earthquake in 27 B.C. The foot of the Thebes Plateau may conceal a basement fault with combined vertical and horizontal slip kinematics. The fault located to the southeast, near an ancient sanctuary, may correspond to either seismogenic fault surface rupture, or a secondary seismic effect manifested as subordinate rupture and ground failure. INTRODUCTION

The memorial temple of Amenhotep III was one of the largest temples ever built in Egypt (Fig. 2). When completed, it included a massive array of pylons, great halls, chambers, stelae, and statues that covered an area more than 385,000 m2 (Ricke et al., 1981; Weeks, 2005). The temple’s main axis stretches ~700 m from its first pylon westward to its rear wall. Its width is estimated to be ~500 m, and, with its dependences and processional ways, it stretched between the Ramesseum and the temple of Medinet Habu through to Malqata, the vast palace of Amenhotep III. Two colossal statues of Amenhotep III, each 18 m high, known as the Colossi of Memnon, once guarded the entrance of

The funerary temple of Amenhotep III is located on the west bank of the Nile River, opposite to the modern city of Luxor (Fig. 1). As the capital city of Egypt for many hundreds of years, ancient Thebes, today’s Luxor, is one of the most famous archaeological sites in the world. On the Nile’s western bank, a small area of 10–12 km2 accommodates the famous Valley of Kings, Theban necropolis, and the Valley of Queens, as well as numerous temples built by the pharaohs of the Middle and New Kingdoms (Fig. 1).

Karakhanyan, A., Armenia, Y., Avagyan, A., and Sourouzian, H., 2010, Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt, in Sintubin, M., Stewart, I.S., Niemi, T.M., and Altunel, E., eds., Ancient Earthquakes: Geological Society of America Special Paper 471, p. XXX–XXX, doi: 10.1130/2010.2471(17). For permission to copy, contact [email protected]. © 2010 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

1

spe471-17   page 2 2

Karakhanyan et al.

B

A

N

Mediterranean Sea

N CAIRO

14 ile r. N

a

ESNA

10

11

Se

9

12

QENA

ER RIZECAT

d Re

13

LUXOR

200 km

5 4 2

7

8

6

3 Fig. 2

1 0

500 m

Figure 1. (A) General tectonic settings of Egypt according to Youssef (2003); the arrow indicates the site of works in Luxor. (B) West bank of the Nile opposite to Luxor: 1—the temple of Amenhotep III, 2—temple of Ramses III (Medinet Habu), 3—location of fragments of a colossal statue of Amenhotep III, 4—temple of Merenptah, 5—tomb of Khonsuiridis; 6—temple of Ramses II (the Ramesseum), 7—temple of Tuthmosis III near the Ramesseum, 8—XX Dynasty temple, 9—temple of Tuthmosis III in Deir al-Bahari, 10—Sheikh Abd el-Qurna hill with the Theban necropolis, 11—the village of ancient Kings Valley’s builders in Deir Al-Medina, 12—sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Meretseger and to the god Ptah, 13—the Valley of Queens, 14—the Kings Valley.

the gigantic temple complex. The colossi were named by a tradition popular in the ancient world. Legend said that the northern statue of Amenhotep III that was damaged by an earthquake gave a sound at dawn with the first sun rays as if it were singing. Ancient Greek travelers claimed that sound was the cry of Memnon, a mythical Ethiopian warrior slain by Achilles in the Trojan War, to Eos, his mother and goddess of the dawn. The “vocal” statue was presumably silenced forever after its restoration, which is assumed to have taken place under the reign of Septimius Severus in the third century A.D. With ~3500 yr of history, Egyptian papyri and epigraphic sources contain almost no clear earthquake accounts. Strabo’s account about destruction of the northern of the Memnon Colossi in the Amenhotep III temple is the earliest historical record available to date that bears direct evidence of strong destructive earthquake impacts in Egypt. Strabo writes: “Here are two colossal figures near one another, each consisting of a single stone. One is entire; the upper parts of the other, from the chair, are fallen down, the effect, it is said, of an earthquake” (Strabo, 1854–1857, book 17, v. 3, chap. 1, para. 46, p. 261–262). Strabo’s visit to ancient Thebes is

dated supposedly to 24–26 B.C.; the earthquake that could have destroyed the colossus is commonly related to some earlier date of 27 B.C. (Sieberg, 1932). However, evidence of an earthquake in 27 B.C., like in the cases of other, earlier seismic events possibly responsible for the damage of ancient temples in Thebes in the Pharaonic period, is rather vague and controversial. More than a century-long intense archaeological excavation has still been unable to provide clear information about earthquakes that could have destroyed the Memnon Colossi and other temples in the region of ancient Thebes. Meanwhile, an understanding of the long-term earthquake history is an important aspect of seismic hazard assessment for the Luxor region in terms of reconstruction of historical events during the Pharaonic period, preservation of the unique historical heritage of ancient Thebes, and seismic safety of the modern city of Luxor, with its dense tourist infrastructure. Our studies of 2007–2008 in the area of the funerary temple of Amenhotep III in the framework of the “Project on Excavation and Conservation at Kom el-Hettan” were aimed at elucidating the seismic history of the Amenhotep III temple and other ancient Theban temples.

spe471-17   page 3

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt

A

3

N Fig. 9 - Tr.2

5

B 5

4

Fig. 7; 8 - Tr.1

4

3 2

3

15

0m

1

Pit 1

Fig. 10; 11

2 Tr.3

1 0

100 m

Figure 2. (A) Satellite image of the temple of Amenhotep III. (B) Reconstruction of the temple of Amenhotep III by Dr. Nairi Hampikyan: 1—the colossi of Amenhotep III (the Memnon Colossi) in front of the first pylon of the temple, 2—the colossi of Amenhotep III in front of the second pylon of the temple, 3—the pylon, 4—stelae, 5—the Great Peristyle court; Try 1, 2, 3 and Pit 1—locations of paleoseismological trenches and pits.

SEISMICITY IN THE LUXOR REGION: BACKGROUND EVIDENCE During the first half of the twentieth century, many seismic catalogues included information about the earthquake in 27 B.C. based on the Strabo’s report about destruction of the northern colossus (Sieberg, 1932). However, the exact date, intensity, and size of that destructive impact had been argued for a long time. Ambraseys et al. (1994) determined the earthquake of 27  B.C. as a false event, referring to Quatremere (1845), and attributed destruction of the northern Memnon Colossus to deliberate mutilation by Persians, and the damage in Thebes in 27 B.C. to a revolt of local population against Rome. This suggestion by Ambraseys and his colleagues has led to exclusion of the earthquake of 27 B.C. from the main international catalogues of historical seismicity. Some authors (Abdel-Monem et al., 2004; Casciati and Borja, 2004; Haggag et al., 2008) still identify an earthquake near Luxor in 27 B.C. Accounts about other destructive historical earthquakes in Thebes and Middle Egypt during the Pharaonic period are contained in many seismological, geological, and tourist publications. Evidence for these events is more vague than the account

of the event in 27 B.C. In a radius of 200 km from Thebes, Maamoun et al. (1984) did not identify any earthquake with a magnitude higher than 5.5 over the period from 600 B.C. to A.D. 1972, while Kebeasy (1990) related the damages in the Luxor and Karnak temples to some historical earthquakes. Based on the archaeological evidence, Dolinska (2007) and Pawlikowski (1987) suggested that the temple of Tuthmosis III in Deir al-Bahari was destroyed by an earthquake, which caused a rockfall around 1100–1080 B.C., and Badawy et al. (2006) reported that Middle Egypt suffered in historical times from six major earthquakes and that the Ramses II temple on the west bank of the Nile in Luxor was almost destroyed by an ancient event. With the abundance of accounts of strong earthquakes causing damage to ancient Theban temples, the actual evidence they provide is unclear and debatable. Haggag et al. (2008) suggested that the earthquake of 600 B.C. devastated the region of Thebes (Luxor). Sieberg (1932) also identified an earthquake in Upper Egypt dated to 1200 B.C. that damaged the Abu-Simbel temple, as well as an A.D. 1899 earthquake that toppled many columns in the Karnak temple. Kink (1979) reported that an earthquake in A.D. 1969 generated a crack that propagated through pylons I, II, and IX in the Luxor temple, damaged the basement of the

spe471-17   page 4 4

Karakhanyan et al.

obelisk standing between pylon III and IV, and tilted it additionally. In contrast, Ambraseys et al. (1994) suggested there were no earthquakes in 600 B.C., 1210 B.C., and 1899 A.D. Between 2200 B.C. and A.D. 1900, Youssef et al. (1994) identified just one weak earthquake with a magnitude less than 5 at a distance of 90 km to the northeast of Luxor. No strong earthquakes have occurred in the Upper Egypt region during the twentieth century. The Egyptian National Seismic Network has recorded earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from 4 to ≤2 in the region of Luxor and to the south-southeast (Youssef, 2003). At a distance of 170–190 km to the northnorthwest of Luxor, regions between Sohag and Assiut suffered three earthquakes with magnitudes between 4 and 5, in 1998, 1999, and 2003 (Hassoup et al., 2000). These earthquakes were localized in an area corresponding to the supposed epicenter of the 1778–1779 earthquake with M = 4.8 (Ambraseys et al., 1994). El-Sayed et al. (1999) estimated the peak ground acceleration in the region of Luxor and the west bank at a value of 0.04–0.05g. EVIDENCE OF SEISMIC DAMAGE ON THE COLOSSI OF AMENHOTEP III The colossal sculptures of Amenhotep III, known as the Memnon Colossi, were just two of numerous statues that decorated the funerary temple of Amenhotep III in Thebes, the capital of Egypt in the New Kingdom. Erected in the fourteenth century B.C., the colossi depict pharaoh Amenhotep III of the Eighteenth Dynasty (1391–1353 B.C.), father of the heretic pharaoh Akhenaten. The temple complex consisted of three gigantic pylons of mud brick, the innermost of which was linked to the Great Peristyle court with a processional way that was lined along either side by columns, statues, or sphinxes (Fig. 2). Colossal statues carved of quartzite and alabaster were installed in front of each pylon. Two massive steles stood between the third pylon and the peristyle (Fig. 2). The Great Peristyle court was surrounded with porticoes that rested on massive sandstone columns. Millennia ago, most of them were demolished and reused in other west bank monuments. However, many of column bases are still in their original position, marking the location of the columns. The eastern, northern, and southern porticoes included three rows of columns, and the western had four rows. Colossal statues of the king stood between the columns. The temple area as a whole was enclosed with a mud brick wall. Structures of the temple of Amenhotep III repeatedly served as a source of building material for neighboring temples, even in the Pharaonic period, starting from the funerary temple of Merenptah, a XIX Dynasty pharaoh (ca. 1212–1202 B.C.). Statues, stelae, and religious attributes in ready form were adjusted for reuse also in other temples of the west bank. Later on, the area of the temple was many times robbed and exposed by many excavations. Early in the nineteenth century, agents acting on behalf of the French and British consuls “discovered” this site as a rich source of museum-rank antiquities.

Fragments of pharaoh’s statues and sphinxes reached the British Museum, Louvre, and St. Petersburg. Many other statues from the site are listed in Egyptian antiquity collections worldwide. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the temple of Amenhotep III, unlike many neighboring temples, was in a severely damaged condition. Local residents had been cultivating this area, and it was periodically inundated with seasonal floods of the Nile. Nothing but two huge figures of the Memnon Colossi and a few structural fragments were then visible on the surface. Several archaeological missions studied the temple of Amenhotep III in the twentieth century. In 1930, Ludwig Borcherdt undertook the sounding and mapping of some parts of the Great Peristyle court and the Hypostyle hall, inclusive of the colossi lying by the northern gate. Unfortunately, his notes remain still unpublished. In the 1950s, the Department of Antiquities of Egypt restored the large stele at the entrance of the Great Peristyle court. In 1964 and 1970, the Swiss Institute of Architecture and Archeological Studies excavated a few exploration trenches. Drastic landscape changes in Luxor after construction of the Aswan Dam in the 1960s have worsened the conditions for the temple of Amenhotep III. The direct impact of seasonal floods no longer affects the ruins, as it did in the past, but higher groundwater levels have led to active agricultural encroachment. This has led to an increase in soil salinity, and hence to intense weathering and erosion of the sandstone and limestone blocks of many temple structures. In 1990–1992, a photogrammetric survey of the Memnon Colossi was conducted (Stadelmann and Sourouzian, 2001). Since 1998, the Colossi of Memnon and Amenhotep III Temple Conservation Project, under the auspices of the Supreme Council of Antiquities of Egypt and the German Institute of Archaeology, has been working on Kom el-Hettan with the aim of conserving the temple precinct. The temple area has been cleaned of vegetation; the groundwater level has been lowered in the peristyle court and kept stable. Excavations have uncovered unique statues, wall foundations, and innumerable fragments of statuary and architectural elements (Stadelmann, 1984; Sourouzian, 2004; Sourouzian and Stadelmann, 2003). Construction and Reconstruction of the Colossi in the Antiquity The Memnon Colossi might represent the most promising object to inspect when looking for evidence of strong historical earthquakes in the temple of Amenhotep III. The two statues representing Amenhotep III seated were placed at the entrance of the first pylon and are now 17 m apart (Figs. 2 and 3). Originally, the colossi and their socles were cut from monolithic quartzite blocks. Presently, both the statues and their socles are in damaged condition and tilted one to another (Fig. 3). The upper part of the northern Memnon colossus statue and the rear part of its socle have been restored with composite blocks of quartzite (Figs. 3B, 3D, and 4) different from the rock used in the monolithic components of the colossi. As attested by neutron

spe471-17   page 5

SOUTHERN COLOSSUS S

A B

NORTHERN COLOSSUS N

2

3

2.5oS

4

1.5oS

1 oN

13.97 m

14.76 m

2.5oS

R1

1o N

1

1.5oS

C D

E

W

R1

RA

F2

F3

3 0-1oW

f1

1 oW 5m

f2 10.40 m

1

1.5-2oW

1.5-2oE F1 6.20 m 10.55 m

RP

Figure 3. The colossi of Amenhotep III (the Memnon Colossi) in front of the first pylon of the temple. (A, B) Eastern sides of the colossi; (C, D) northern sides of the colossi. 1, 2, 3, and 4—places of broken feet of the colossi; F1, F2, and F3—monolithic parts of the northern colossus carved from the quartzite extracted from the quarries at Gebel al Ahmar near Cairo; RA and RP—the restored parts of the northern colossus statue and the rear part of the socle carved of the quartzite originating from the quarry in Aswan; R1—the upper course of blocks in the restored part, where cramp hollows of two types were found; f1 and f2—monolithic parts of the southern colossus socle. Arrows indicate through-going cracks splitting the monolithic part of the northern colossus statue and its socle, and the southern colossus socle; 1.5–2°E is the angle of tilting of parts of the statues and socles.

spe471-17   page 6 6

Karakhanyan et al. SOUTHERN COLOSSUS 7m 7.97 m

N 5.78 m

NORTHERN COLOSSUS

6.67 m concrete

6.98 m

4m

19 cm 74 cm

5.15 m

4

5 1

2

3

1

2

3

4

Figure 4. Outline of the socles supporting the colossi of Amenhotep III (the Memnon Colossi) in front of the first pylon of the temple. 1—monolithic parts of the socles cut of the quartzite extracted at the quarries of Gebel al Ahmar, 2—rear section of the northern colossus socle restored with quartzite blocks from the Aswan quarry, 3—the rear section of the southern colossus socle broken into pieces, 4—through-going cracks splitting the socles of the northern and southern colossi.

activation and petrographic analyses conducted at Berkeley University, the monolithic portion of the northern Memnon colossus was cut from quartzite extracted from quarries in Gebel al Ahmar, near Cairo, which were situated more than 600 km north of the temple of Amenhotep III (Heizer et al., 1973; Stadelmann, 1984). The blocks utilized to rebuild the torso and the rear part of the socle of the northern colossus originated from a quarry in Aswan, which is located 200 km south of the temple. Bowman et al. (1984) confirmed the conclusions of Heizer et al. (1973). It is still unclear when the upper part and the socle of the northern colossus were restored. One very tentative hypothesis is that this could have happened during the rule of Roman emperor Septimius Severus around A.D. 199 (Sourouzian et al., 2006). This hypothesis is based on the observation that graffiti describing the “singing” of the statue was no longer made on it after A.D. 199 and on the tradition stating that the statue was silenced after restoration. Four courses of blocks are laid across the restored torso and head of the northern colossal statue (Figs. 3B and 3D). As reported by Sourouzian et al. (2006), hollows from anchor cramps utilized to fasten the blocks in the past were found in all of the restoration rows, and two different types of the cramp hollows can be distinguished in the upper and lower rows (Fig. 5). Type a hollow is a relatively narrow, ~18–20-cm-long groove carved in stone to a depth of 2–3 cm. This cramp hol-

low is 3 cm wide in its narrower part, but widens to 5–6 cm toward the ends, creating a swallow-tail shape (Fig. 5A). Vertical holes were carved on the wider ends to a depth of 4–5 cm. This type of hollow was certainly intended for metal cramps, commonly used by the Romans in Egypt (Kink, 1979). Copper alloy cramps still remaining in torso blocks are reported by Sourouzian et  al. (2006). Cramp hollows of type b had different design: they were large, 27–30 cm long, and carved 5–7 cm deep. The width of such cramp hollow was 8–9 cm and 16–17 cm in the narrower and wider parts, respectively. Compared to type a cramp, a typical b cramp has sizably wider ends, shaping a dove-tail contour (Fig. 5B). Cramps of this design were largely applied by the Egyptians during the Pharaonic period (Kink, 1979), but their larger size excluded use of metal. They were prepared of stone or very hard wood and could be 40 × 20 cm large. Some blocks in the restored upper part of the northern colossus have holes from both types of the cramps (Fig. 5C), but it seems unlikely that they could have been applied concurrently. Anchors of type a fastened blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Fig. 5C) firmly, and there was no reason to spend much time to carve additional hollows for type b anchors. Moreover, some of type b hollows are filled with lime mortar. Similarly, cramps of type a would not be necessary, if the blocks had been already linked with cramps of type b.

spe471-17   page 7

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt

7

B

A 5

4

20 cm

1

5

20 cm

C 5 1

4

2

Figure 5. Hollows remaining from the anchor cramps affixing blocks in the upper course R1 of the restored part of the northern colossus statue. (A) Cramp type a commonly used by the Romans in Egypt. (B) Type b used by the Egyptians during the Pharaonic period. (C) Combination of type a and type b cramps on the same blocks in the upper course of the restored part of the northern colossus statue. Numbers 1–5 correspond to block numbers in the course of stones.

3

1m

It is unlikely also that masons reutilized blocks of some older structure already bearing type b hollows to prepare blocks for the upper part of the colossus (1, 2, 3, and 4) because the axes of type b hollow counterparts in both pairs are oriented strictly opposite one to another both vertically and horizontally. We suggest that the cramp hollows of type b and type a are likely related to two different, respectively earlier and later episodes of restoration of the upper part of the northern colossus. The earlier restoration with stone cramps could have been made in the time of pharaohs. During the Roman restoration, the holes from the Pharaonic-type anchors were filled with mortar, and metal alloy cramps were used instead. A graffito in Greek runs undistorted across one of the two type b hollows on the left foot of the northern colossus (1 in Figs. 3B and 3D). Therefore, the cramp hollow should be older than this graffito. This inscription was carved when Emperor Hadrian visited the place on November 21, A.D. 130 (Bernard and Bernard, 1960). This is additional evidence in favor of a Pharaonic-period restoration episode preceding the presumed

Roman restoration in A.D. 199. The statues of queens standing by the sides of the throne have no feet: they were broken, and the broken surfaces bear clear signs of restoration, with vertical cramps and stone-working technique typical for the Pharaonic period (Fig. 3). Considering traditions of construction of memorial temples for pharaohs, it seems rather unlikely that the anchor holes on the feet of the colossus and the queen statues were part of the original design or a repair of damage caused during transportation of the statues. Such defects would not be allowed for the central statues of a living pharaoh, suggesting that most probably they were not related to the phase of design and installation. Quartzite blocks in the upper part of the northern Memnon colossus have marks from working with both bronze tools typical for the Pharaonic period, and trident iron chisels common in the Roman era. In addition, processed surfaces of some blocks appear eroded by long-term contact with soil. Indirectly, these observations also attest to two episodes of restorations of the upper part of the northern colossus—in the Pharaonic period and later, during the Roman rule.

spe471-17   page 8 8

Karakhanyan et al.

Analysis of Damage on the Colossi The most severely damaged is the northern Memnon colossus. Its upper part and the rear section of the socle were destroyed and replaced with blocks of quartzite extracted from a different quarry (Figs. 3 and 4). The preserved monolithic part of the throne is split by a through-going crack into two parts (F2 and F3). The crack cuts the monolithic part of the throne and extends into the socle as the boundary between its monolithic and composite sections made of a few separate blocks (Figs. 3 and 4). The rear section of the throne (F3) rests on the monolithic socle and on the restored blocks 1, 4, and 5 (Fig. 4) and is rotated 4°–6° counterclockwise. The statue of the southern colossus appears less damaged and bears no traces of restoration with individual blocks, but its socle is strongly damaged. A through-going crack splits it into two parts (f1 and f2 in Fig. 3), while the rear section has crashed into pieces, some of which are not preserved (Fig. 4). On both colossal statues, the frontal sections of the feet and fingers are broken off and have not been preserved. Higher sections of the feet and lower shins are split with through-going cracks (Fig. 3). In a similar manner, the feet have broken off from the figures of queens standing on both sides of each throne of the colossi. The lower rear parts of the throne on both colossal statues once resting on the socle are broken, and the corner sites of the thrones have suffered the greatest damage. Blocks 1–5 in the rear part of the northern colossus socle were installed during restoration, which would have been an infeasible task if the rear part of the colossal statue (F3) had stood in its place and rested on those blocks. Hence, either the rear part F3 was slightly raised to replace the blocks in the course of restoration, as suggested by Bowman et al. (1984), or it was toppled backward, and then raised and remounted over the repaired part of the socle. We suggest the sculptors restored the upper section of the torso (RA) and the rear section of the socle (blocks 1–5), and then they lifted and remounted the lower part of the colossal statue (F3) over the repaired part of the socle. However, these interpretations of the reconstruction of the statue are in contradiction with the historical accounts. Strabo’s account says that the upper part of the northern Memnon colossus could have been destroyed by an earthquake, but other sources ascribe the damage to warfare (Pausanias, 1898; Quatremere, 1845; Ambraseys et al., 1994). The account of Pausanias dated to the middle of the second century B.C., states:

This made me marvel, but the colossus in Egypt made me marvel far more than anything else. In Egyptian Thebes, on crossing the Nile to the so called Pipes, I saw a statue, still sitting, which gave out a sound. The many call it Memnon … This statue was broken in two by Cambyses, and at the present day from head to middle it is thrown down; but the rest is seated, and every day at the rising of the sun it makes a noise, and the sound one could best liken to that of a harp or lyre when a string has been broken. (Pausanias, 1898, book 1, v. XLII, p. 64–65)

Both the accounts of Strabo and Pausanias indicate clearly that the upper part of the colossus is broken, while the remaining statue (including F2 and F3) remains seated. In case the rear part of the throne of the northern colossus (F3) was in its place by the middle of the second century B.C., we infer that the restoration of socle blocks had been made earlier. Such conclusion is consistent with the presence of two types of cramp holes on the blocks of the upper part of the colossus and with other evidence of its restoration in the Pharaonic era (Fig. 5). Like in the case of cramps of a and b types, we assume two episodes of restoration in response to strong damage of the northern colossal statue and socle in the past. The first episode could be apparently related to the Pharaonic period, when damaged parts of the socle, feet of the colossus and queen statues, and the entire upper section of the statue were replaced, attesting to largescale destruction. Later, the upper part of the statue was again destroyed and repaired for the second time, utilizing blocks that had been preserved from the first restoration. The second restoration of the statue could have taken place in the Roman epoch, around A.D. 199. Reconstruction of Possible Seismic Impact It is possible that the destruction of the northern colossus statue and of both socles was caused by an earthquake impact and the restoration was made in an effort to repair the seismic damage. However, the statues could also have been damaged by humans. The northern colossus was damaged already by the time Strabo visited it between 24 and 26 B.C. The damage of this statue is often attributed to the invasion of the Persian army of King Cambyses in 525 B.C. Pausanias wrote about this in the second century B.C. (Pausanias, 1898). Strabo also mentions that Cambyses ruined many sanctuaries in Thebes (Strabo, 1854– 1857). Quatremere (1845) concluded that deliberate dissection of the northern colossus by Persians is the most credible cause of destruction. Ambraseys et al. (1994) agreed that Persians could have damaged the colossus and referred the large-scale destruction in Thebes in 27 B.C. to the revolt of local population against Rome mentioned by Eusebius (1846). Human aggression would primarily cause damage to the upper part of the statues of the northern and southern colossi, an effect most predictable when battering rams, hand tools, or rope toppling efforts are inferred. This may be consistent with the observed damage of the upper parts of the southern colossus and complete destruction of this upper section of the northern colossus. Faces and torso of these statues might have been mutilated also in later historical periods, e.g., during the Coptic and Islamic settlement in this area, and tradition even attributes it to the invasion of the Napoleon’s army. In contrast, it would be more difficult to assign the damage of the rear parts of the socles on both statues to man-made actions. Furthermore, the cracks that split the northern colossus, its socle, and the socle of the southern colossus are unlikely to have been caused by humans.

spe471-17   page 9

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt

When an earthquake hits large-block monolithic monuments, their lowermost corner parts are damaged first (Sinopoli, 1995). These parts are destroyed on both statues of Amenhotep III: the feet of the northern colossus and of the statues of queens standing beside the throne are broken off (Figs. 3 and 4). The corner section F3 of the northern colossus throne was broken off entirely, while most severely damaged corners RC on either side of the statue were replaced with inset triangular patches (Fig. 3). The feet and rear section of the southern colossus throne were broken in the same manner. The most damaged sections on the lower part of the colossal statues are the rear part of the northern colossus throne and the feet of the southern colossus. Rear parts of socles on both colossi are also damaged. A possible model of destruction of the feet and rear sections of the thrones of the colossal statues and their socles in a seismic event is illustrated in Figures 6A and 6B. The throughgoing crack separating the lower monolithic parts (F2 and F3) of the northern colossus also dissects the monolithic and composite parts of the socle (F1 and RP in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). This crack likely formed when the socle split and moved laterally. This offset led to the fracturing of the statue itself. Hence, formation of the main crack was most probably contemporary with the splitting of the socle (Fig. 6B). The observed inclination of socle part F1 to the west and part RP to the east by 2° alike is additional supporting data that the socle broke along line F1/RP. Casciati and Borja (2004) modeled the response of the southern colossus of Amenhotep III to a possible seismic impact by means of three-dimensional analysis of soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI). The results of the modeling show that the rear socle section and rear base of the statue experience the greatest stress and deformation. The analysis of Casciati and Borja

A

(2004) indicated that no distribution of seismic stresses would be capable of damaging the upper torso of the statue by itself. On the contrary, the model shows that the statue torso remains comparatively stable and is not destroyed until destruction of the lower part of the socle and of the statue itself. Similar results are reported by Sinopoli (1995). Therefore, we conclude that aggressive human actions are unable to explain the damage of the rear sections of socles on the northern and southern colossi, the formation of throughgoing cracks splitting almost along a single surface the northern statue, its socle, and the socle of the southern statue, as well as the backward falling of the rear section of the northern colossus. Destructive impact of a strong earthquake has been shown by modeling (Sinopoli, 1995; Casciati and Borja, 2004) to produce this damage pattern. The parallel orientation and opposite positions of the through-going cracks in the socles and statues of the northern and southern colossi suggest a single zone of deformation, possibly reflecting a parallel differential subsidence of the soil. As we describe in the following, a zone of lateral spreading and extension of liquefied soil induced by a strong earthquake likely caused the fracture pattern in the colossal statues. An analysis of restorations on the northern colossus allows us to suggest two episodes of repairs—one in Pharaonic and one in Roman time. Considering that the earlier stage of restorations was related to the replacement of socle blocks, reinstallation of the fallen rear section of the statue, and other, comparatively minor repairs, we suggest that it was most probably an effort to eliminate effects of a strong earthquake. It is still difficult to judge whether the presumed Roman-time restoration in A.D. 199 was undertaken in response to damage by an earthquake and whether it happened in 27 B.C.

B

S

C

9

Figure 6. Simplified model of possible destruction of the northern (Memnon) colossus from an earthquake. (A) Initial shaking impact stage. (B–C) Final stages of formation of the zone of lateral soil spreading, cracking of the socle and of the rear part of the statue, failure, and destruction of the rear part of the statue.

spe471-17   page 10 10

Karakhanyan et al.

PALEOSEISMOLOGICAL STUDIES IN THE AREA OF THE TEMPLE OF AMENHOTEP III Soil Conditions Early investigations of the soil conditions beneath the Memnon colossi suggested that the socles rested on limestone bedrock (Jollois and DeVilliers, 1821; Wilkinson, 1835). Wiedemann (1884) described the colossi as standing on an inhomogeneous soil or sand capable of softening. Later models (Verdel, 1993; El Shabrawi and Verdel, 1994; Casciati and Borja, 2004) suggest that the soils beneath the colossi include 6 m of alluvial silt and silty clay overlying siltstone and limestone. Boreholes drilled to the depth of 15–20 m in the temple area found soils of typical alluvial sediments of the floodplain of the Nile (MISR Laboratory, 2007). The sequence of layers from the surface to the borehole bottom includes silty clay, clayey silt, sand, and silty clay. Interlayers and lenses of fine, water-saturated sand are recorded within and in between of the three lower horizons. The upper 10.5 m of the top 15–20 m of the sediment include silty clay and clayey silt deposited by seasonal flooding of the Nile River. A 5- to 9-m-thick water-saturated layer of fine sand lies below 10.5 m depth. The lowermost layer in the boreholes (10.5–20 m) consists of dense, hard silty clay. The groundwater table lies at ~2–3.5 m. Using the empirical granulometry curves of Tsuchida and Hayashi (1971) for conditions of soil liquefaction, the substrata at the temple site are liquefiable. Trench 1 in Front of the Main Peristyle Court

7 cm

Trench 1 (Fig. 2) is located near the platform, 12 × 6 m in size, paved with stone slabs, on which the northern stele was mounted. In this trench, we documented the southern wall (1.1) and the northern wall (1.2), which are 3.5 m apart. In the base of the southern wall 1.1, there is a layer consisting of a mixture of gravel and lime mortar (d in Fig. 7). A few dikes of Trench 1-1, southern wall

NW

20 cm

17 cm

SE

fine sand, inclined to the northwest, are observed above this layer (c in Fig. 7) and intrude into the higher layer of dense clay (b in Fig. 7). We interpret the sand dikes as features of soil liquefaction. The stone slabs of the man-made platform located above the clay layer are deformed, so that the northwestern edge of the platform is 20 cm lower than the other parts, and the blocks are crashed (Fig. 7). A system of branching cracks dissects all three rows of blocks in the platform beneath the basement of the stele that fell in the eastern direction (Fig. 7). The fractured stone blocks appear to be displaced horizontally by 10–12 cm. Originally, the blocks were fastened with type b cramps. We recorded lateral chips in the edges of the cramp hollows, attesting that the blocks were pulled apart so that the anchor cramps were torn away from the affixed stone blocks. The vertical fracturing and horizontal extension in the stone blocks, as well as surface deformation of the platform, are all limited to the sand dike intrusion area only. Pieces of ceramics found in the layer of gravel mixed with lime mortar (d) and also in the dikes of liquefied sand were identified as remains of pottery dated to the Late XVIII Dynasty of the New Kingdom (1382–1295 B.C.). This period corresponds to the rule of pharaohs Amenophis III and Horemheb. The age of samples was estimated by the radiocarbon method at the Laboratory of Radiocarbon Dating of the IFAO (French Institute of Oriental Archaeology), Cairo, Egypt, in 2008. Sample 9 (cal. age of 1517–1188 B.C.), sample 10 (cal. age of 1500–1122 B.C.), and sample 19 (cal. age of 1524– 1188 B.C.) provide ante-quem dates of the liquefaction, because the sand dikes appear to crosscut the dated layers d and b (Fig. 7). We have not established a post-quem date of liquefaction on the southern wall. The northern wall 1.2 in trench 1 provides additional evidence for paleoliquefaction (Fig. 8). Similar to the southern wall, it exposes NW-inclined dikes of fine sand. A small mushroomshaped dike that originates in the fine sand layer d appears to terminate in the loam layer c. A sandstone block apparently limited further spreading of the dike upward (B in Fig. 8). The layer

Figure 7. Trench 1 near the stele, the southern wall (1.1). 1—modern soil, 2—cracked stone blocks of the platform on which the stele was installed (layer a), 3—interlayers of soil enriched with silt between the blocks, 4—lime mortar with debris, 5—dense clay (layer b), 6—sand dikes and sills (layer  c), 7—leveled layer of lime mortar (layer  d), 8—14C sampling locations, 9—ceramics sampling locations.

1

a

2 3

b

4 5 6

10

9

c 1

19

2

4

3

3/8

d 7

7

5 6

8

8 9

1m

spe471-17   page 11

dikes that are 2–5 cm wide and up to 25 cm in length (Fig. 9B). The sand dikes do not penetrate layer b. The lowermost layer d includes sandy loam with a high percent of sand (50%–60%) and abundant ceramic sherds. Two large fractures (F in Fig. 9) in the center of trench 2 break through layers c and b. Debris of destruction layer b fills the crack and provides a post-quem date of the liquefaction event. To the south, the flank of layer c is displaced by 30 cm down along fractures F (Fig. 9). At a distance of 10–15 m to the southeast, layers b and c are again broken and displaced 30–40 cm down along a few cracks. The gap between them is filled with fragments of the destruction layer. Ages of the layers in trench 2 were determined on soil samples by radiocarbon analysis and on archaeological ceramics. Radiocarbon ages were established for six samples (Table A1). Samples 1, 2, 15, and 16 taken from layers d and c provide an ante-quem date of the formation of fractures F and displacement of layer c (sample 7 is considerably younger than cal. 1530– 1252 B.C.), and sample 18 must establish a post-quem date (cal. age 1266–8962 B.C.).

capping the dike (a) is represented by sediments rich in organics deposited by seasonal floods of the Nile River. Ceramic sherds were found in the sand of the dikes and in the overlying layers of loam as well. Samples 11, 12, and 13 were taken from the northern wall 1.2 of trench 1. Sample 11 (cal. age 1562–1251 B.C.) and sample 12 (cal. age 1211–830 B.C.) may constrain an ante-quem date of the liquefaction event because the dikes crosscut the dated layer c. Sample 13 (cal. age of 766–396 B.C.) could provide a post-quem date because it is bedded stratigraphically over layer b (Fig. 8). The latter served as the floor of some structure and did not suffer any deformation; it belongs to a period much later than the time of construction of the temple of Amenhotep III. Trench 2 to the Northeast of the Peristyle The exposure in trench 2, located near the northeastern corner of the peristyle (Fig. 2), shows a section with four layers (a–d, Fig. 9). The upper layer a corresponds to the soil enriched with organics brought by seasonal floods of the Nile. The underlying deposit, layer b, has been called the “destruction layer” by archaeologists. Layer b contains fragments of the destroyed temple structures. The lower layer c is subdivided into a watersaturated clayey sand and sand. The upper boundary of layer c displays convolute bedding (Fig. 9). Layer c contains vertical sand

Trench 3 and Pit 1 near the Second Pylon Trench 3 is located at the entrance of the second pylon of the temple (Fig. 2). The section of trench 3, from top to bottom, includes layer a of soil enriched with silt and organic sediments

Trench 1, northern wall

NW

A

SE

13

12

C

10 cm

Figure 8. Trench 1 near the stele, the northern wall (1.2): (A) photo of the trench, (B) trench log, and (C) close-up view of mushroom-shaped dike. 1— brecciated sandstone fragments of the stone block over the mushroom-shaped dike, 2—organic-rich soil (layer a, sediments of the seasonal floods of the Nile), 3—dense clay, presumably corresponding to the floor of some structure (b), 4—dense loam (layer c), 5—sand dikes and sills (d), 6—14C sampling locations, 7—ceramics sampling locations.

11

B 0.5 m

a

13

b 1 2

a

3

b

4

c

5

d

6 7

12

c

C 11 d 0.5 m

spe471-17   page 12 12

Karakhanyan et al.

A

NW

B

Trench-2 D

C

SE

a Figure 9. Trench 2 northeast of the peristyle. (A–C) Photos of the trench and (D) trench log.1—organic-rich soil layer a (seasonal flood sediments of the Nile), 2—destruction layer (b) composed of temple structure debris, 3— dense loam (layer c1), 4—loam containing up to 50%–60% of sand (layer c), 5—14C sampling locations; 6—ceramics sampling locations.

18

b 7

17

F

Convoluted level

c1 Convoluted level

F c

16

15 1

1

2

6

5 2

1m

c

d

5

3

4

from seasonal floods of the Nile (Fig. 10) and destruction layer b of sandstone debris bedded beneath. Similar to trench 2, layer b may have been generated by earthquake damage. Materials from this layer may have been recycled for construction of other temples in the Pharaonic period, although the evidence of this is conjectural. Layer c is composed of dense compact clay from older deposits of the Nile River. The sand dike with inclusions of rounded fragments of silicified limestone and pieces of ceramics crosscuts layer b. A mushroom-shaped liquefaction feature is capped by layers that span >8 m. The surface of this feature is slightly depressed toward the center. The groundwater table in the trench matches the depth of the mushroom cap. Ceramics found in layers c and b and in the sand dike provide age constraints of the liquefaction event. Calibrated age estimates were obtained for five samples of paleosol (no. 4–8) collected from trench 3 (Table A1). Samples 4, 5, and 7 can constrain an ante-quem date of the liquefaction (sample 7 gives a cal. age of 1386–976 B.C.) because they belong to layer c, which is crosscut by the dike. It is more difficult to judge about the position of sample 6 (cal. 1310–924 B.C.) because it is not finally clear whether the surface of layer c was deformed. Most probably, it was deformed, and layer b was distorted after. In such case, the age of sample 8 (cal. 1306–901 B.C.) could provide a post-quem date or even constrain the date of the event. Trench 3 is located 5 m away from the two fallen statues of pharaoh Amenhotep III. They were similar to the Memnon

5

6

Colossi, but were smaller in size (2 in Fig. 2). Both statues were knocked down from their socles, rotated counterclockwise, and lie on the ground oriented 154°–166°SE with their right side down (Fig. 11). The head and some fragments of the northern statue were lying separately, but thrown away in the same direction. Pit 1 was excavated beneath the fallen northern statue (1 in Fig. 11). The ceramic pieces found in it were sampled and dated by the radiocarbon method to 1290–1226 B.C., an age presumably corresponding to the time when the statue fell (Annales du Service, 2006). The radiometric age of sample 3 taken from the layer in which the ceramics was found was estimated at 1392–995 B.C. by 2s or 1270–1054 B.C. by 1s. These dates are similar to the radiometric estimates of the ante-quem dates of the liquefaction event (cal. 1267–1048 B.C. by 1s or 1310–924 by 2s). Therefore, we suggest that the effects of liquefaction were related to a strong earthquake that toppled both statues in the same direction. Causes of Soil Liquefaction Soil liquefaction effects in unconsolidated sedimentary environments can be often generated not by seismicity, but such phenomena as floods, artesian settings, landslides, and others (Holzer and Clark, 1993; Li et al., 1996). The seismic origin of the features of liquefaction we identified in the area of the Amenhotep III temple still needs to be confirmed. Next, we provide a few indications in support of the supposed seismic origin.

spe471-17   page 13

13

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt

A Trench-3

a

B

NE

a

SW

b

A

c

a

d

74 m

b 8

2 6 73 m

1

5

7

c

c1

c1

d

2

3

4

c

5

6

7

4

1 1m

Figure 10. Trench 3 at the second pylon. (A) Photo of the trench and (B) trench log. 1—soil rich in silt and organics brought by seasonal floods of the Nile (layer a), 2—destruction layer (b), 3—dense clay above (layer c) and below (c1) the dike, 4—sand dike (layer d), 5—14C sampling locations, 6—ceramics sampling locations, 7—elevation mark of 74 m above sea level.

Trench 3 2(N154o) 1(N166o)

N

Pit 1 2 1

Figure 11. Archaeological mapping of the fallen colossi at the second pylon of the temple of Amenhotep III. 1 and 2— the fallen colossi, 3 and 4—pedestals of the colossi.

4 3

0

At a distance of 400 m to the N-NE from the Amenhotep III temple, we found a man-made hollow in an old Nile terrace thought to be a boundary of the palace area of Amenophis III (5  in Fig. 1). The terrace is built by paleo-Nile sediments of alternating horizontal layers of densely consolidated clay and

2m

rounded gravel. Some other Theban monuments such as the tomb of Khonsuiridis, and temples of Tuthmosis IV and Ramses II are located on the same terrace. A system of multiple extension cracks dissects the vertical wall of this 4–5-m-high man-made hollow (Fig. 12A). The

spe471-17   page 14 14

Karakhanyan et al.

B

A

Nile River

k r

a

b

c

2m

C River

Figure 12. (A–B) System of vertical extension cracks filled with sand (indicated with arrows) in the wall of a man-made hollow of the paleo-Nile terrace at the supposed boundary of the palace area of Amenophis III. k—tomb of Khonsuiridis; r—Ramesseum; a, b and c—crater-like hollows filled with sand, possibly corresponding to sand blows. (C) Lateral spread model (according to Youd, 1984).

cracks are mostly vertical, open from 5 to 30 cm wide, and expose minor vertical offsets of the clay and gravel layers by 30–35 cm. We recorded common plunge of the eastern wings of the cracks toward the Nile River. All cracks are filled with fine sand containing individual pebbles and displaying clear vertical zoning. Sand of this kind is found nowhere on the surface, and hence filling of the cracks from the surface can be ruled out. Moreover, on the exposure wall, we observed many blind sand-filled fractures not propagating to the surface. This fact, along with the density and vertical zoning of the sand inside the cracks and their strike perpendicular to the slope gradient, i.e., to water erosion direction, does not support the surface-filling option either. An outcrop found about 100 m south of the described hollow, on the west margin of the main road, contains fine sand deposited beneath the layer of clay and gravel in the paleo-Nile terrace that is completely similar to the sand found in the cracks. Therefore, the cracks intruded this sand from the underlying stratum by splitting layers of clay and gravel of the paleoterrace.

The drilling at the site of the temple of Amenhotep III confirms that the layer of fine sand occurs at a depth of 7–8 m, under the layer of loam and clay. The cracks strike 130°–140° and can be also traced on the top surface of the terrace as far as 10–25 m away from the edge of the hollow. The pattern illustrated in Figure 12A is a clear demonstration of typical lateral spreading (Fig. 12C) commonly caused by liquefaction during strong shaking (Youd, 1984). Accordingly, liquefaction and deformation of the underlying layer can generate vertical cracks in the upper soil, and split it into separate blocks, which then move horizontally or in the slope gradient direction (i.e., toward the river). The blocks deform and tilt to different sides, which repeatedly amplifies the destructive seismic effect and leads to strongest damage of the overlying structure. This effect likely facilitated the severe destruction of the temple of Ramses II (r in Fig. 12B), which is just 170 m north of the extension cracks. Meanwhile, the tomb of Khonsuiridis of the

spe471-17   page 15

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt

seventh century B.C., located right over the cracks, suffered no damage from them (k in Fig. 12B). This monument was built of mud brick, and an ~5–6-m-high pylon has been preserved from it. Our inspection in the tomb of Khonsuiridis indicates that foundations of structures east of the pylon are absolutely undamaged, despite the fact that they were built right above an open crack filled with sand. When outcropping on the ground surface, the vertical cracks (a, b, and c in Fig. 12A) formed craters on the terrace, which is yet another observation supplementing and supporting the suggested pattern. The origin of these features from erosion by rainwater flowing down from the terrace must be excluded considering that some of these craters are still filled with dense packed sand or are 0.5–1 m away from the scarp edge that is prone to this erosion. In addition, with appreciable eastward and northward inclination of the terrace slope, crater-like hollows are recorded on the opposite southern slope. Altogether, these observations allow us to suggest that the crater-like hollows could correspond to original sand blows generated by earthquakes as a consequence of liquefaction and spouting of sand from the underlying layer through the opened fractures. We observed similar patterns of deep fractures filled with sand and gravel ascending from the lower strata in many other places, including areas of the temple of Tuthmosis III, XX Dynasty temple, and the village of Deir Al-Medina. Fronabarger (2002) described sand-filled vertical cracks in tombs TT 72 and TT 121 at the Sheih Abd el Qurna hill. A few fractures in trench 2 at the site of Amenhotep III temple that are filled with fragments of the destruction layer can also be explained by spreading effects. The fractures all strike in similar directions. The liquefaction and spreading effects detected over an area of 2.2 km2 were everywhere associated with extensive damage of the ancient temples. The most important features of the recorded structural damage are deformations of subsidence and tilting, as well as numerous cases of rotation of large blocks and falling of colossal statues that can be attributed to earthquake impacts only (Fig. 13). The estimated dates of liquefaction and falling of the statues at the second pylon of the Amenhotep III temple are similar. In many cases, we observed that the features of liquefaction and spreading were located in areas 50–60 m higher by elevation than the highest recorded boundary of seasonal floods of the Nile River, and therefore could not be affected even by the highest flood. The three rows of stone blocks in the platform located near trench 1 in the area of the Amenhotep III temple could have been deformed by intrusion of liquefaction dikes. Near the tomb of Khonsuiridis, temple of Tuthmosis III, XX Dynasty temple, and the village of Deir Al-Medina, firmly cemented sediments of the Nile terrace are dissected with sand-filled cracks that bear evidence of a sudden and short-term pulse of great hydraulic force exerted in the upward direction. Therefore, we suggest that the seismic origin of the observed effects of liquefaction is attested by the regionwide development of the liquefaction features and diversity of their forms (sand cra-

15

ters, dikes, sills, and spreading) in the context of seismic damage of the temples, lack of settings suitable for aseismic liquefaction, and indications of short-term pulse of tremendous vertical hydraulic force. Chronological Constraints In trenches 2 and 3, near the peristyle and the second pylon, respectively, destruction layer b is deposited above the layers deformed by soil liquefaction. This layer consists of sandstone and limestone fragments found nowhere near the temple. The destruction layer is clearly an anthropogenic layer. The petrographic study of fragments in the destruction layer shows that they consist of the same limestone and sandstone used for construction of structures in the temple of Amenhotep III. The archaeological interpretation is that the layer was deposited at the time of pharaohs, when masons were recycling material from structures in the temple of Amenhotep III. The so-called destruction layer might correspond to a colluvium formed as a consequence of both earthquake damage of temple structures, and construction debris from a building phase. The age and structural relations of the destruction layer with other strata may be important for determination of the date of past earthquakes. In trench 2, layer c, located below the destruction layer b, is cut by fractures. The lower boundary of destruction layer b fills the space between two fractures, while the upper boundary is even and has no deformations (Fig. 9). A possible explanation is that the upper boundary was leveled by people, and as a result does not show signs of cracking or lateral extension. If, however, the destruction layer had already existed by the time of the earthquake, the fractures would have necessarily broken through b and would have been noticeable inside it. We observe no continuation of the cracks inside the destruction layer. Hence, it is possible to conclude that the destruction layer formed after the earthquake. We can additionally support this inference based on the following observation. Many unconsolidated fragments of temple structures in destruction layer b are aligned so that their longer axes are horizontal with respect to layer c and the ground surface. If the earthquake and associated spreading cracks occurred later than the accumulation of the destruction layer, the latter’s fragments would have been chaotically filled in the vertical gap caused by the two fractures. The trench wall should have shown signs of such chaotic filling of the extension fracture with debris, but careful inspection of the wall does not record such a pattern. In contrast, the fragments in the lower part of the gap are parallel to the ground surface, suggesting a relatively regular, likely anthropogenic infilling of the cracks (Fig. 9). Most probably, people used the wreckage to fill in the crack generated by the spreading, and the space freed after layer c lowered by 30 cm, trying to even and rebuild the temple floor after an earthquake. This could also explain the leveled surface of the upper boundary of layer b. Besides, upper corners of layer c are eroded on both fractures shoulders, and the bottom of the separating gap is

spe471-17   page 16

A

B

C

D1

c

D2

b

d a

D3

D4

E1

E2

Figure 13. Evidence of damage in other temples on the west bank. (A) An architrave on the northern side of the Second Court in the Medinet Habu temple. (B) Nilometer located on the southern side of the Medinet Habu temple. (C) Clockwise rotation of the path (a–b) leading to the nilometer in the Medinet Habu temple and its consequent restorations (c and d). (D) Deformations of the first pylon in the Ramesseum: (D1 and D2) rotations of blocks on the opposite flanks of the pylon in the Ramesseum, (D3 and D4) wavelike bend of the central part of the pylon. (E1–E2) Fallen colossal statue of Ramses II in the Ramesseum.

spe471-17   page 17

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt

filled with material of this erosion. The aggregate of these findings shows that the destruction layer formed after the earthquake. The fractures originated in layer c, which is composed of easily eroding loams. If the interval between the cracking and the filling of cracks with destruction material had been large, erosion on the edges of the cracks would have been much more considerable. Therefore, we may suggest that the filling of the gap with destruction layer material followed shortly after the earthquake, and the age of destruction layer can be regarded a close postquem date of the seismic event. According to this interpretation, it is critical to determine the age of the destruction layer. Trench 2 (Fig. 9) allows us to do this by considering age difference between samples 17 and 18, which constrain the formation of the destruction layer to a period after 1530–1252 B.C. (calibration by 2s is applied everywhere) and before 1266–896 B.C. However, we cannot date the destruction layer earlier than construction of the temple of Amenhotep III (1382–1344 B.C.). In this regard, trench 3 may appear most informative because its sample 6 and sample 7 (Fig. 10), taken just beneath the lower boundary and in the center of the destruction layer, respectively, constrain its age between 1310–924 and 1386–976 B.C. The age estimate of sample 8 (1310–976 B.C.) for the destruction layer can be used as a post-quem date, since the earthquake and the layer must have similar ages, and it is confirmed by sample 18 from Trench 2 (1266–896 B.C.). Sample 12 from trench 1 and sample 6 from trench 3 provide the best ante-quem dates of the earthquake. Table 1 summarizes all possible earthquake dates inferred by radiometric method for all trenches. Sand dikes and sills exposed by the trenches in the temple of Amenhotep III, as well as the layers deposited below and above, yielded abundant ceramics, which attest to a historical age of the earthquake that generated widespread liquefaction in this area. The chronological analysis of ceramics sampled in the trenches was conducted by Dr. David Aston, who concluded that none of the samples contained any later material than the period of Amenophis III–Horemheb (1382-1295 B.C.).

Trench 1, excavated under the fallen statue of northern colossus at the second pylon, provided ceramics dated to 1290– 1226 B.C. (Annales du Service, 2006). Considering that failure of both colossi near the second pylon was most likely caused by an earthquake, the age of ceramics extracted from beneath the statue can be regarded as an ante-quem limit. Sample 3 taken from the same layer had a radiometric age estimate of 1392–995 by 2s or 1270–1054 by 1s. Therefore, we use the generalized values of radiometric estimates, ages of ceramics, and the dates of construction of the damaged temples to conclude that the earthquake happened between 1211 and 901 B.C. INFERRED INTENSITY, MAGNITUDE, AND EPICENTRAL DISTANCE According to the world’s statistics, the threshold magnitude capable of producing isolated liquefaction effects of limited scale is 4.5, and perfect soil liquefaction features can develop starting from magnitude 5.5 and higher (Ishihara, 1985; Ambraseys, 1988; McCalpin, 1996). Differential soil subsidence caused by liquefaction and spreading effects in the temple of Amenhotep III is ~30 cm, while the mushroom-shaped cap of the sand dike near the second pylon is more than 8 m long. Craters that were presumably formed by sand blows at the terrace opposite to the temple of Ramses II are 1–1.2 m in diameter. The length of multiple spreading cracks may range up to 30–50 m near the temple of Tuthmosis III and ~100 m near the XX Dynasty temple. The zone where lateral spreading cracks are recorded stretches parallel to the bank of the Nile from the tomb of Khonsuiridis to the XX Dynasty temple over a total distance of at least 1200 m. On the west bank, we recorded many features of soil liquefaction and lateral spreading over an area of at least 2.2 km2. The destruction of the temple of Tuthmosis III in Deir el-Bahari mentioned by Pawlikowski (1987) and Dolinska (2007) and fault motions damaging KV14 (Tausert-Setnakht) in the King Valley according to Cobbold et al. (2008) expand the affected area to 5 km2,

TABLE 1. EARTHQUAKE DATES INFERRED FROM THE PALEOSEISMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS Calibrated age (B.C.) Earthquake date (B.C.) Earthquake date (B.C.)* Earthquake ante-quem date Earthquake post-quem date 1σ 2σ 1σ 2σ 1σ 2σ † † 1 1088–905 746–688 766–396 Between 1088 and 688 1211 –830 Between 1211 and 396 Sample 12 Sample 13 Sample 13 Sample 12 § § 2 1458–1370 1530–1252 1130–972 1266–896 Between 1458 and 972 Between 1530 and 896 Sample 17 Sample 17 Sample 18 Sample18 † § † Between 1267 and 977 1267–1048 1386–976 1208–977 Between 1386 and 901 1306–901 3 Sample 7 Sample 7 Sample 8 Sample 8 § After 1392 Pit 1 1290–1226* 1392–995 N.D. N.D. After 1270 1270–1054 Sample 3 Sample 3 *The age of ceramics from the fallen statue near the second pylon. † The inferred earthquake date is between 1211 and 901 B.C. by 2σ. § Because multiple damages are recorded in the temple of Amenhotep III, the earthquake cannot be dated to a period preceding construction of the temple in 1382–1344 B.C. Trench

17

spe471-17   page 18 18

Karakhanyan et al.

while the evidence of damage in the temples over the west and east banks documents a total area of as much as 36 km2 for soil liquefaction and destruction. According to the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research) (Medvedev, Shponkhoer, and Karnik) scale (Michetti et al., 2004), soil liquefaction of this size can originate with earthquake intensity ranging from VIII to X on the MM or MSK (Medvedev, Shponkhoer, and Karnik) 64 scales. In our case, earthquake intensity most probably can be estimated at IX. Ambraseys (1988), Papathanassiou et al. (2005), Youd (1984), and Kuribayashi and Tatsuoka (1975) have proposed various relations linking liquefaction intensity, causative earthquake magnitude, and epicentral distance. The minimum magnitude sufficient to generate multiple liquefaction effects on the scale compatible with what we recorded in the study area ranges between 5.5 and 6.5. The epicenter could have been located from 5 to 50 km away from the site where liquefaction features were concentrated (Ambraseys, 1988). If the epicenter was farther, inferred earthquake magnitude would have been obviously higher. The region of Luxor is located 150 km and 250 km away from the west coast and the central part of the Red Sea, respectively. The zone of the Red Sea opening represents the lithospheric boundary between African and Arabian plates, and it is certainly capable of generating strong earthquakes (Maamoun et al., 1984; Ambraseys et al., 1994; El-Sayed et al., 1999). However, considering how far Luxor is from the Red Sea, the earthquake responsible for the widespread liquefaction effects should have had a magnitude in the range of 7.3–7.7 (Ambraseys, 1988). As an alternative hypothesis, the earthquake could have been associated with the Kalabsha fault zone or other seismogenic structures near the Aswan Dam, located 50-170 km south of Luxor. Here, an earthquake of 1778–1779 with a magnitude of 4.8, and another three seismic events with magnitudes ranging from 4 to 5 occurred in 1998, 1999, and 2003 to the northnorthwest of Luxor, between Sohag and Assiut. However, if this was the epicentral area of the earthquake responsible for liquefaction on the west bank of the Nile opposite to Luxor, the 150–170 km distance implies a magnitude in the range of 7.3–7.5 (Ambraseys, 1988). Damages caused by a M 7.3–7.7 earthquake would have had to be extremely severe, covering a vast region from Alexandria to Abu Simbel. Destruction of such proportion should have been reflected in ancient structures and left evidence in historical sources, while there seems to be no evidence of this kind for the period around 1200–901 B.C., except for an earthquake that supposedly destroyed Abu Simbel in 1210 B.C. as suggested by Sieberg (1932), though disregarded by Ambraseys et al. (1994). In conclusion, we reject the hypothesis of distant and strong events and suggest a proximal localization of a 6.0–6.5 earthquake within a distance of 5–50 km from the Nile’s west bank area opposite to Luxor. If so, the search for active faults capable of generating earthquakes of this size should be confined to the Nile canyon faults.

FAULTS ON THE WEST BANK OF THE NILE OPPOSITE TO LUXOR The temple of Amenhotep III is located on the west Bank of the Nile, at the boundary of two morphological units—the modern and paleo-floodplains of the Nile, bordered by the Sheikh Abd el Qurna hills behind (8 in Fig. 14). West of the temple and the hills, a rocky massif forms a natural barrier between the Western Desert and the Nile Valley. The frontal side of the massif is dissected by many wadi, among which are the famous Kings Valley and the Valley of Queens. The stratigraphy and lithology of the west bank are well studied (e.g., Said, 1990; Pawlikowski, 2001; Fronabarge, 2002; among others). The oldest formation in the west bank is up to ~15 m thick and includes the late Paleocene limestone and the Tarawan chalk overlain with 60 m of Esna shales (Said, 1990; Pawlikowski, 2001). These sedimentary deposits are covered by the Lower Eocene limestone of the Theban Formation, which is up to 290 m thick (Said, 1990; Pawlikowski, 2001; Fronabarge, 2002). Unconformably overlying the bedrock on the Sheikh Abd el Qurna hill, there is a conglomerate bed (Said, 1990). A narrow strip of Pliocene deposits of the paleo-Nile, consisting of marl, clay, and sand, stretches from Esna to Qena along the west bank (Fig. 1A). The central part of the Nile valley represents a graben bounded on either side by large normal faults (RIGW, 1997). A thick sequence of Nile River sediments of Holocene and Pleistocene age fills the graben and discordantly overlies the Pliocene clay and shales of the paleo-Nile (Ismail et al., 2003; RIGW, 1997). According to Said et al. (2000), the principal Kings fault is roughly oriented N-S along the west side of the Kings Valley and has an estimate of up to 30 m of maximum displacement along the fault, the average value being much less. Unfortunately, Said et al. (2000) did not mention anything about the kinematics and chronology of the fault, but they did document the occurrence of many minor faults and shallow open fractures in the tomb of Ramses III and upslope from it, which are destroying the burial chambers. They also recorded a normal fault in tomb KV-5. Cobbold et al. (2008) identified normal and strike-slip faults in the Kings Valley as evidence of principally NE-SW–oriented extension. This stress field is responsible for earthquake generation at present. Some of these faults are observed in the tombs of Ramesses VI (KV9) and also in Tausert-Setnakht (KV14), where fault displacement likely occurred after the tomb construction in the historical time (Cobbold et al., 2008). Said et al. (2000) suggested that faults and fractures in the Kings Valley formed 20,000 yr ago as a result of seismic activity. In the area of Deir Al-Bahari (9 in Fig. 1), Pawlikowski and Wasilewski (2004) identified a system of jointing along with many generations of tectonic faults that have deformed and crashed the rocks. The faults are discontinuous. Cobbold et al. (2008) suggested that Theban lowlands correspond to a vast landsliding area, considering that the arcuate form of the Theban cliffs, concaved toward the Nile, is typical of

spe471-17   page 19

19

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt

N

a 5 6

7 QV 13

SMP

8 9 4

10

12

3

11 2

0 1

500 m 2

3

4

b

1

Figure 14. Faults on the west bank of the Nile opposite to Luxor. 1—listric faults, 2—scarps associated with the leftlateral transtensional flower structure, 3—lateral spreading zones, 4—soil liquefaction. Numbers in the figure indicate: 1—temple of Amenhotep III, 2—tomb of Khonsuiridis and the temple of Ramses II (the Ramesseum), 3—temple of Tuthmosis III near the Ramesseum, 4—the XX Dynasty temple, 5—the Kings Valley, 6—site on the path from the Kings Valley with recorded change of bedding angle in the Thebes Formation, 7—changed angle of bedding in the Thebes Formation near the guard post, 8—site west of the Sheikh Abd el-Qurna hill with a listric sliding plane shown in Figure 17, 11—fault at the Valley of Queens entrance, shown in Figure 15, 9 and 10—eastward extension of the fault, 12 and 13—westward extension of the same fault, QV—the Valley of Queens, SMP—fault near the sanctuary to the goddess Meretseger and to the god Ptah shown in Figures 16 and 17; a–b—line of the section shown in Figure 18.

an upper landslide scar. We conducted reconnaissance field surveys in search for evidence of any active faults on the west bank of the Nile opposite to Luxor. Despite commonly horizontal bedding of the Theban limestone, it is observed to tilt NW in many places. Fronabarge (2002) and Cobbold et al. (2008) recorded such tilt and related it to the listric sliding and block slumping from the El Qurna hill. Between the Valley of Queens and the hill of Sheih Abd el Qurna, we analyzed limestone of the Theban Formation and in many places recorded bedding angles dipping from 15° to 70° to the northwest or to the west. In addition to changes in the bedding dip, disharmonic folding of the limestone was observed. The tilt of limestone strata is most clear along a path leading from the Valley of Queens to the village of Deir al-Medina (11 in Fig. 1, Fig. 14). Closer to the top of the southern slope, beds are inclined 45°–70°NW (6 in Fig. 14). The bedding is again horizontal down along the slope up to the guard post, but with farther steep dips of the beds traced up to the western slope of the depression accommodating the village of Deir al-Medina (7 in Fig. 14). In both cases of dip change, the inclined bedding is consistent with two clear fault scarps that are traced over a distance of 3 km from the south-southwestern edge of the Valley of Queens to the northeastern flank of the Sheikh Abd el-Qurna hill (Fig. 14).

At the foot of the El-Qurna hill (8 in Fig. 14), we observed a gently dipping fault plane, which, along with the subvertical scarp located higher on the slope, creates a typical listric geometry. The presence of listric faults is well illustrated by relation of dip angles in the bedding of Esna Formation on the western and eastern margins of the village of Deir al-Medina. Therefore, the west bank has two or more listric slide surfaces, the southeastern wings of which were displaced by normal faulting as confirmed by preliminary evidence of Cobbold et al. (2008). Large slumped blocks that moved along the listric faults are present in the Valley of Queens, in the village of Deir Al-Medina, and on the El-Qurna hill. On the southeastern slope of a small hill opposite to the Valley of Queen’s entry, we observed a clear open ditch oriented to the NE (11 in Fig. 14; Fig. 15). The ditch developed in the Theban limestone but cuts through the upper layer of slope colluvium likewise. Two fault planes located by the sides of the ditch are inclined toward one another with the Esna formation intruded in between. This pattern may bear evidence of a flower-type structure of the fault plane. The subvertical wall of the scarp exposes distinct tectonic striation (Fig. 15). We analyzed and measured nine striations along the main scarp, concluding that just two of them a contain near-vertical displacement component, while the remaining seven

spe471-17   page 20 20

Karakhanyan et al. N

NW

SE

10 9 4 6

3

8

1 2

5 7

11

D

A

B

C

20 cm

Figure 15. (A) Fault scarp at the entrance of the Valley of Queens (11 in Fig. 14). (B–C) Examples of oblique-slip striations on the scarp. (D) Schmidt lower-hemisphere projection of measured striated fault planes.

correspond to left-lateral strike-slip motions. The fault scarp shown in Figure 15 can be traced over a distance of 2.5–3 km (9–13 in Fig. 14). The sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Meretseger and to the god Ptah is located 320 m to the northeast, inside the fault zone (10 in Fig. 14). Originally, this sanctuary was a structure carved in the rock. Presently, its roof and outer walls are almost completely collapsed. The fragments of the fallen ceiling and walls lie in the same place (Fig. 16). The sanctuary was mainly carved in the Theban limestone, but on the southwestern flank of the structure, we record a layer of Esna shales that are in tectonic contact with the Theban limestone. Fault plane striation (f1 in Fig. 16) indicates left-lateral strike-slip displacements. In the same outcrop, there is a secondary fault striking N-S and dipping 70°–80° to the west (f2 in Fig. 16). Our preliminary examination of the sanctuary suggests that it could have been destroyed by reactivation of these structures. Landslide or flood impact can be ruled out considering that the sanctuary to the god Ptah is located on a gentle hillslope. Moreover, the character of damage excludes an anthropogenic cause, while strong earthquake is the most likely cause of destruction. Arrows on a detailed view (Fig. 17) point to fault plane F2 dissecting the entrance of the sanctuary. Pieces of plaster and a drawing painted red (b and c, Fig. 17) have been preserved on the remaining structure of the sanctuary entrance A. It is possible that the motion along rupture f2 was generated by an earthquake and destroyed the entrance. The date of construction of the sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Meretseger and to the god Ptah is related

to a period between 1200 and 1150 B.C. Therefore, this interval can provide yet another ante-quem date of the earthquake. The offset along fault f2 that destroyed the entrance bears clear signs of a normal kinematics with the downthrown western wing. The offset was oriented transversely with respect to the main fault f1; hence, for the latter, we may suggest a vertical reverse-fault component in combination with a left-lateral strikeslip component of displacement. Development of listric slumps can result from active motion along a concealed, deep basement fault with subvertical plane and reverse-slip components (e.g., Naylor et al., 1994). Walters and Thomas (1982) demonstrated that high-angle reverse basement faults can develop under intense horizontal stresses associated with the strike-slip or oblique-slip tectonics. Applying the models suggested by Naylor et al. (1994) and Koyi and Skelton (2001), we infer the presence of an obliqueslip basement fault at the foot of the Thebes Plateau, along the paleo-Nile shore line (Fig. 18). During an earthquake, basement fault motions at depth could activate listric faults on the slopes of the Thebes Plateau. The fault located on the southeastern slope of the hill, opposite to the entrance of the Valley of Queens, and the sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Meretseger and to the god Ptah, could be a surface manifestation of a deep basement fault motion (Fig. 18) and could have generated the earthquake that destroyed the ancient Theban temples between 1200 and 900 B.C. However, continued investigation is necessary to resolve the character of the subsurface structure definitely.

spe471-17   page 21

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt

Te

f2 f1

Es

Fig.17A

1m

Figure 16. Sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Meretseger and to the god Ptah (10 in Fig. 14). Te—Thebes Formation, Es—Esna Formation, f1—the main fault, f2—secondary rupture.

21

ity at depth of the major basement fault. The geodynamics of the region, characterized by the collision between Africa and Eurasia, and the Red Sea opening, imply compression in the northwest-southeast direction. Hence, we may infer reverse-fault and left-lateral strike-slip components of motion for the supposed basement fault stretching along the line of Er Rizecat–Qena (Fig. 1A). Such a fault mechanism is supported by the evidence we collected for the fault located at the Valley of Queens entrance and by the data of Cobbold et al. (2008) for the Kings Valley. The strip of deformed beds emphasizing the occurrence of the basement fault from Er Rizecat to Qena spans 65–70 km, a length sufficient to generate a M = 6.5 earthquake. There is some vague evidence attesting to location of a basement fault with vertical displacements and a downthrown and tilted eastern block also under Wadi Qena on the east bank of the Nile. In the case where the Wadi Qena fault is a western extension of the Er Rizecat–Qena fault, Mmax estimates would be much higher. CONCLUSION

A

f2

b c

B

b c

a

a 1m

Figure 17. (A) Entrance to the southern room in the sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Meretseger and to the god Ptah. (B) Detail of the entrance destroyed by motion on the secondary rupture f2. a—remains of plaster colored with red paint, b—stele constructed on the fault plane, and c—other stone stelae with inscriptions and paintings.

A strip of Pliocene deposits steeply tilted 45°–70° to the northwest is recorded along the western bank of the Nile, from Er Rizecat to Qena. Distinct cirques of slump blocks have developed in the rear of the tilted beds. Apparently, the high-dipping setting has concealed any surface deformations related to activ-

The archaeoseismological investigation of the Amenhotep III temple on the west bank of the Nile River reveals extensive damage attributable to strong earthquake effects. These findings are most impressive for the famous Memnon Colossi that stood at the first pylon of the temple. Trenches and exposures near the temples of Amenhotep III, Ramses II (Ramesseum), Tuthmosis III, and the XX Dynasty temple reveal signs of liquefaction and horizontal soil spreading that correlate with serious damage of the temples. It is not possible to refer this damage to human aggression or any natural phenomenon other than that of an earthquake. Damages attributable to earthquake effects have been found also in other temples of the west bank. Our preliminary investigation indicates that similar effects could be established also for the temples of Karnak and Luxor on the east bank of the Nile. The colossi damaged in the temple of Amenhotep III and in the Luxor temple bear signs of restorations referable to the time of pharaohs. Also, the type of damage of these statues allows one to imply earthquake impact. Structural damage in the sanctuary of the goddess Meretseger and the god Ptah can be also ascribed to motion along the secondary rupture plane, associated with the main strike-slip fault. To determine the date of the earthquake, we applied data of radiometric estimations, ages of the ceramic, and temple damage analysis. The bulk of analytical evidence demonstrated no internal age conflicts and showed good convergence of dates derived from different methods. This use of the historical, paleoseismological, and archaeological methods allows us to conclude that the earthquake that destroyed the Theban temples on the west and possibly east banks of the Nile occurred between 1200 B.C. and 900 B.C. In contrast, we did not find any evidence of earthquake in 27 B.C. Moreover, the two episodes of restoration of the northern Memnon Colossus, one related to the Pharaonic period

spe471-17   page 22 22

Karakhanyan et al.

A NW

b

a

Te

Fig. 15

QV Te

Es

+ Tr Basement faults

B 1 2 Te 3 Es 4 Tr 5

and one to the Roman era, suggest that another earthquake could have happened. Effects of soil liquefaction and lateral spreading during the earthquake are recorded over an area of 2.2 km2 on the west bank, stretching from the village of Deir al-Medina to the XX Dynasty temple. The area of recorded earthquake damage in the temples is almost 5 km2 large. Temple damage evidence collectively for the west and east banks of the Nile may extend the area of destruction and soil liquefaction up to 36 km2. Soil subsidence rates range up to 30 cm, craters possibly formed by sand blows are 1–1.2 m in diameter, and the sand dikes are more than 8 m long. Individual lengths of the spreading cracks vary in the range from 30 to 100 m, while the total length of zone of cracking is at least 1200 m. According to the INQUA scale (Michetti et al., 2004), the earthquake intensity capable of producing soil liquefaction of this scale can be estimated at IX, and magnitude of the causative earthquake will then be not less than 6.0–6.5. Our field studies on the west bank of the Nile suggest that an oblique-slip basement fault could be located at the foot of the Thebes Plateau along the shoreline of the paleo-Nile. During the earthquake, motions along the basement fault concealed at depth could have activated the listric slump faults on the slopes of the plateau. The fault possibly located on the southeastern slope of the hill opposite the entrance of the Valley of Queens at the sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Meretseger and to the god Ptah may correspond to either direct surface evidence of the coseismic rupture generated by an earthquake, or its secondary effect in the form of subordinate rupture and ground failure. It is possible that these effects resulted from the same earthquake responsible for the destruction in the temples of ancient Thebes between 1200 and 900 B.C. A strip of the paleo-Nile Pliocene deposits consisting of clay, marl, and sand, steeply tilted 45°–70° to the northwest, is recorded along the western bank of the Nile, from Er Rizecat to Qena. Distinct cirques of slump blocks have developed in

Putty ridge 0

Figure 18. (A) Schematic section along line a–b shown in Figure 14, 1—Quaternary alluvium, 2—Thebes Formation (Te), 3—Esna Formation (Es), 4—listric sliding; Tr—Tarawan Formation, QV—Valley of Queens. (B) Modeling of motion along an oblique-slip fault according to Naylor et al. (1994).

3 cm

Basement fault

the rear of the tilted beds. Apparently, the high-dipping setting has concealed any surface deformations related to the basement fault activity at depth. The strip of deformed beds demarcating the basement fault spreads over 65–70 km, a length sufficient to generate a M ≥6.5 earthquake. There is plausible evidence to suggest extension of the basement fault toward Wadi Qena, in which case the estimate of Mmax of the fault must be much higher. It is obvious that seismic hazard assessments for the Luxor region available for today and resulting in values of Mmax = 4.7–5.2 (Fat-Helbary et al., 2008) and 0.04–0.05g (El-Sayed et al., 1999) need to be revised. The studies we conducted in 2007–2009 are preliminary and should be continued with further archaeoseismological, paleoseismological, and geological investigations in Luxor. Such studies may help elucidate many details of seismic history for the temple of Amenhotep III (and its Memnon Colossi in particular), and for other ancient Theban temples, and provide valuable results for updated seismic hazard assessment for Luxor and improve conservation and protection of the historical heritage, population, and the tourist business. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The studies were accomplished under the Project on Excavation and Conservation at Kom el-Hettan. We want to thank Rainer Stadelmann, Nairi Hampikyan, and the project team for advice and help in the implementation of this study. We are grateful to Zbigniew Szafranski, Herve Philip, and Miroslaw Barwik for valuable information and also to Yelena Abgaryan, Suren Arakelyan, and Arshaluis Mkrtchyan for their support in the preparation of this chapter. This article is a contribution to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation– International Geoscience Programme IGCP 567, “Earthquake Archaeology: Archaeoseismology along the Alpine-Himalayan Seismic Zone.”

spe471-17   page 23

23

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt

10

Site

Trench 1, southern wall

Sample number 9

TABLE A1. RESULTS OF RADIOCARBON AGE ESTIMATION FOR TRENCH LAYERS Unit Material Calibrated age (B.C.) 1σ 2σ B Silty clay 1442–1266 1517–1188 B

Silty clay

1430–1260

1500–1122

D

1450–1269

1524–1188

C

Charcoal at the silty clay level with abundant ceramics Silty clay

1497–1370

1562–1251

C

Silty clay

1088–905

1211–830

C

Silty clay

746–688

766–396

1

D

2040–1890

2144–1866

2

D

2139–1650

2231–1882

15

D

Charcoal, in the clayey level with abundant ceramics Charcoal, clayey level with abundant ceramics Clayey level with abundant ceramics

2151–2011

2287–1901

16

C

Silty clay

1688–1530

1771–1453

Soil, upper part of the silty clay level with abundant ceramics Cl a y

1458–1370

1530–1252

1130–972

1266–896

1

Silty clay

1408–1208

1452–1048

1

19

13

17 18

Trench 2

12

Trench 1, northern wall

11

1

C A C

05

C

Silty clay

1416–1261

1455–1128

06

C

Silty clay

1212–1013

1310–924

C

Silty clay

1267–1048

1386–976

C

Soil from the destruction la yer

1208–977

1306–901

1270–1054

1392–995

07 08

Trench 3

04

Pit

03

Under the northern colossus of the Clay under the wedge of altered second pylon quartzite

REFERENCES CITED Abdel-Monem, S.M., Sakr, K., Hassoup, A., Mahmoud, S., Tealeb, A., AlIbiary, M., and Mansour, M., 2004, Crustal deformation measurements and seismicity of the middle part of the Nile valley in Egypt: Egyptian Geophysical Society (EGS) Journal, v. 2, no. 1, p. 123–133. Ambraseys, N.N., 1988, Engineering Seismology: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, v. 17, p. 1–105, doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290170101. Ambraseys, N., Melville, C., and Adams, R., 1994, The Seismicity of Egypt, Arabia and the Red Sea: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 181 p. Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Egypte, 2006, Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, Maslahat al-Athar, v. 80: Cairo, p. 323– 365. Badawy, A., Abdel-Monem, S.M., Sakr, K., and Ali, Sh.M., 2006, Seismicity and kinematic evolution of Middle Egypt: Journal of Geodynamics, v. 42, p. 28–37, doi: 10.1016/j.jog.2006.04.003. Bernard, A. and Bernard, E., 1960, Les Inscriptions Grecques et Latines du Colosse de Memnon: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut français d’archéologie orientale: Cairo, 267 p. + 73 p. of plates. Bowman, H., Stross, F.H., Asaro, F., Hay, R.L., Heizer, R.F., and Michel, H.V., 1984, The northern Colossus of Memnon: New slants: Archaeometry Oxford, v.  26, no.  2, p.  218–229, doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.1984 .tb00336.x. Casciati, S., and Borja, R., 2004, Dynamic FE analysis of south Memnon Colossus including 3D soil-foundation-structure interaction: Computers & Structures, v. 82, p. 1719–1736, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.02.026.

Comments Ante-quem date Ante-quem date Ante-quem date Ante-quem date Ante-quem date Post-quem date Ante-quem date Ante-quem date Ante-quem date Ante-quem date Ante-quem date Post-quem date Ante-quem date Ante-quem date Post-quem date Ante-quem date Post-quem date Ante-quem date

Cobbold, P., Watkinson, J., and Cosgrove, J., 2008, Faults of the pharaohs: Geoscientist, v. 18, no. 6 (available at http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/ GSL/lang/en/page3994.html). Dolinska, M., 2007, Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom 6, in Haring, B., and Klug, A., eds., Aegyptologische Tempeltagung. Funktion und Gebrauch Altaegyptischer Tempelraeume: Wiesbaden, Germany, Leiden, p. 4–7. El-Sayed, A., Vaccari, F., and Panza, G.F., 1999, Deterministic Seismic Hazard in Egypt: Miramare-Trieste, Italy, Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, p. 32. El Shabrawi, A., and Verdel, T., 1994, The seismic risk on ancient masonry structures studied by the use of the distinct element method. Application to an Egyptian monument, in Vasco Fassina, V., Ott, H., and Zezza, F., eds., La conservation dei monumenti nel bacino del Mediterraneo [The conservation of monuments in the Mediterranean basin]: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium, Venice, 22–25 June 1994: Venice, p. 373–381. Eusebius, 1846, Hieronimi interpretatio chronicae Eusebii Pamphili [The First Book of the Chronicles of Eusebius Pamphilus], in Migne, J.-P., ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, vol. 27. Fat-Helbary, R.E., Khashab, H.M., Dojcinovski, D., El Faragawy, K.O., and Abdel-Motaal, A.M., 2008, Seismicity and seismic hazard analysis around the proposed Tushka new city site, Egypt: Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, v. 5, no. 4 (152), p. 389–398. Fronabarger, A., 2002, Conservation Report, 2001: Preliminary Report on the Geology and Structural Stability of Three Theban Tombs: TT 72, TT 121 and MMA 850: Serapis Research Institute and the University of

spe471-17   page 24 24

Karakhanyan et al.

Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, Theban Tombs Publication Project, Tombs No. 72 (Ray) and 121 (Ahmose), p. 16. Haggag, H.M., Gaber, H.H., Sayed, A.D., and Ezzat, M., 2008, A review of the recent seismic activity in the southern part of Egypt (Upper Egypt): Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, v. 5, no. 1 (149), p. 19–29. Hassoup, A., Othman, A., and Sakr, K., 2000, Intensity and micro-seismicity with the December 14, 1998, Sohag earthquake, Egypt: Al-Azhar Bulletin of Science, v. 10, no. 1, p. 283–298. Heizer, R.F., Stross, F.H., Hester, T.R., Albee, A., Perlman, I., Asaro, F., and Bowman, H., 1973, The Colossi of Memnon revisited: Recent research has established the source of the stone of the two 720-ton statues at Thebes: Science, v.  182, no.  4118, p.  1219–1225, doi: 10.1126/science .182.4118.1219. Holzer, T.L., and Clark, M.M., 1993, Sand boils without earthquakes: Geology, v.  21, p.  873–876, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1993)0212.3 .CO;2. Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural soil deposits during earthquakes, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Balkema, v. 1, p. 321–376. Ismail, A., Neil, L., Anderson, J., Rogers, D., Abbas, M.A., and Atekwana, E.S., 2003, Hydrogeophysical Investigation at Luxor, Southern Egypt: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 84, Fall Meeting supplement, abstract H31B-0452, p. 1–17. Jollois, J.B.P., and DeVilliers, R.E., 1821, Description de l’Egypte, Volume 2: Paris, Pankoucke, 69 p. Kebeasy, R.M., 1990, Seismicity, in Said, R., ed., The Geology of Egypt: Rotterdam, the Netherlands, A. A. Balkema, p. 51–59. Kink, Kh.A., 1979, The Ancient Egyptian Temple: Moscow, NAUKA, Chief Editorial Office of Oriental Literature, 102 p. [in Russian]. Koyi, H.A., and Skelton, A., 2001, Centrifuge modeling of the evolution of low-angle detachment faults from high-angle normal faults: Journal of Structural Geophysics, v. 23, p. 1179–1185. Kuribayashi, E., and Tatsuoka, F., 1975, Brief review of liquefaction during earthquakes in Japan: Soil and Foundation, v. 15, no. 4, p. 81–92. Li, Y., Craven, J., Schweig, E., and Obermeier, S., 1996, Sand boils induced by the 1993 Mississippi River flood: Could they one day be misinterpreted as earthquake-induced liquefaction?: Geology, v. 24, no. 2, p. 171–174, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1996)0242.3.CO;2. Maamoun, M., Megahed, A., and Allam, A., 1984, Seismicity of Egypt: Bulletin of the Helwan Institute of Astronomy & Geophysics, v. 4, p. 109–160. McCalpin, J.P., ed., 1996, Paleoseismology: San Diego, Academic Press, 587 p. Michetti, A.M., Esposito, E., Gurpinar, A., Mohammadioun, B., Mohammadioun, J., Porfido, S., Rogozhin, E., Serva, L., Tatevossian, R., Vittori, E., Audermand, F., Comerci, V., Marco, S., McCalpin, J., and Morner, N.A., 2004, The INQUA scale: An innovative approach for assessing earthquake intensities based on seismically induced ground effects in natural environment, in Vittori, E., and Comerci, V., eds., Memorie Descriptive della Carta Geologica D’Italia, v. 67, 116 p. MISR Laboratory, 2007, Soil Testing, the Colossi of Memnon and Amenhotep III Conservation Project, Kom el-Hettan–Thebes, Geotechnical Investigation: Prepared for German Archaeological Mission in Egypt: Luxor, 34 p. Naylor, M.A., Laroque, J.M., and Gauthier, B.D.M., 1994, Understanding extensional tectonics: Insights from sandbox models, in Roure, F., Ellouz, N., Shein, V.S., and Skvortsov, I., eds., Geodynamic Evolution of Sedimentary Basins: Proceedings of the Moscow Symposium, 18–23 May: Paris, Edition Technip, p. 69–83. Papathanassiou, G., Pavlides, S., and Ganas, A., 2005, The 2003 Lefkada earthquake: Field observations and preliminary microzonation map based on liquefaction potential index for the town of Lefkada: Engineering Geology, v. 84, p. 12–31, doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.08.006. Pausanias, 1898, Description of Greece, Book I, XLII, p. 64–65 (English translation, vol. 1, commented by J.G. Frazer, 6 vols.): London, New York, 561 p. Pawlikowski, M., 1987, Ekspertyza w sprawie zagrozeniq swiatyn w Dolinie Deir el-Bahari: Krakow, Institut Geologii i Surowcow Mineralnych, AGH, p. 1–41. Pawlikowski, M., 2001, Geological investigation of a cliff archaeological site above the Hatshepsut Temple in Deir El-Bahari: Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, in Polish-Egyptian Archaeological and Conservation Mission of the Temple of Queen Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari Reports

2000, XII: Warsaw, Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archeology, Warsaw University, p. 234–235. Pawlikowski, M., and Wasilewski, M., 2004, Some remarks on jointing in the Theban Limestone in the region of Deir El-Bahari, Egypt: Geologia, v. 30, no. 1, p. 47–56. Quatremere, M., 1845, Histoire de Sultans Mamlouks de l’Egypte: London, Oriental Translation Fund, 4 vols. Ricke, H., Haeny, G., and Habachi, L., 1981, Untersuchungen im Totentempel Amenophis’ III, in Haeny, G., ed., Beitrege zur Egyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde, no. 11, p. 31–37: Wiesbaden, 122 p. RIGW (Research Institute of Groundwater), 1997, Hydro-Geological Map of Luxor Area, Explanatory Notes: Research Institute of Groundwater: Kalioubia, Egypt, scale 1:100,000. Strabo, 1889, The Geography of Strabo: Literally Translated, with Notes by H.C. Hamilton and W. Falconer: London, G. Bell & Sons, Book 17, 1854 p. Said, R., 1990, The Geology of Egypt: Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema, p. 1–170. Said, R., Aubry, M.-P., Ouda, Kh., and Dupuis, C., 2000, Thebes International Geo-Archaeological Project: Geological Framework for the Preservation, Sustainable Environmental Management and Geo-Hazards of the Thebes Archaeological Sites on the West Bank of the Nile (Luxor, Egypt): Under the Auspices of Prof. Zahi Hawass, Secretary General, Supreme Council of Antiquities: Cairo, 26 p. Sieberg, A., 1932, Untersuchugeb uber erdbeben und bruchschollenbau im oslichen mittelmeergebeit; Denkschriften der medizinisch-naturwissenschaftlichen: Gesselschaft zu Jean, v. 18, no. 2, p. 161–273. Sinopoli, A., 1995, Earthquakes and large block monumental structures: Annali di Geofisica, v. XXXVIII, no. 5–6, p. 737–750. Sourouzian, H., 2004, Report on works at the Colossi of Memnon and the Temple of Amenophis III at Thebes: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo, v. 60, p. 171–236, pl. 25–60. Sourouzian, H., and Stadelmann, R., 2003, Report on work at the Colossi of Memnon and the Temple of Amenophis III at Thebes: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo, v. 59, p. 425–446, pl. 71–76. Sourouzian, H., Stadelmann, R., Madden, B., and Gayer-Anderson, T., 2006, Three seasons of work at the temple of Amenhotep III at Kom el Hettan. Part I: Work at the Colossi of Memnon: Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte, v. 80, p. 323–366. Stadelmann, R., 1984, Die Herkunft der Memnon-Kolosse: Heliopolis oder Aswan?: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo, v. 40, p. 291–296. Stadelmann, R., and Sourouzian, H., 2001, Der Totentempel Amenophis’ III, in Theben. Grabungen und Restaurierung am Kom el-Hettân, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo, v. 57, p. 271–280. Tsuchida, H., and Hayashi, S., 1971, Estimation of liquefaction potential of sandy soils, in Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Meeting, U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects: Tokyo, U.S.-Japan Cooperation Program (UNJR), p. 91–101 Verdel, T., 1993, Geotechnique et Monuments Historiques, Methodes de Modelisation Appliquées à des cas Egyptiens [Ph.D. thesis]: Nancy, France, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine–Ecole des Mines, 293 p. Walters, J.V., and Thomas, J.N., 1982, Shear zone development in granular materials, in Esisenstein, Z., ed., Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Edmonton 1982: Edmonton, Canada, Balkema, p. 263–274. Weeks, K.R., 2005, The Illustrated Guide to Luxor: Tombs, Temples and Museums: Cairo, American University in Cairo Press, 563 p. Wilkinson, I.G., 1835, Topography of Thebes and General View of Egypt: London, Murray, 568 p. Wiedemann, A., 1884, Agyptische Geschichte, Volume 2: Gotha, F.A. Perthes, 780 p. Youd, T.L., 1984, Geologic Effects—Liquefaction Associated Ground Failure: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-760, p. 210–232. Youssef, M.M., Ibrahim, H.A., Bakheit, A.A., and Senosy, M.M., 1994, Surface and sub-surface tectonic pattern of Sohag region, Middle Egypt: Bulletin of the Faculty of Science of the Assiut University, v. 23, no. 1-F, p. 317–360. Youssef, S.E.-H., 2003, Seismicity of Egypt: Newsletter of the European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre, v. 20, p. 19–23. Missing Manuscript Date

Printed in the USA