Quantitative methods in archaeoseismology

Tracking Earthquake Archaeological Evidence in Late Minoan IIIB ( 1300-1200 B.C.) Crete (Greece): A Proof of Concept

“…In this research, it has been suggested that a temporally restricted approach (Jusseret and Sintubin, 2012) combined with an estimation of site-specific PGA levels can provide a methodological basis to overcome these difficulties in Minoan archaeological contexts. However, because it is likely that archaeoseismological observations alone will never be able to ascertain the reliability of seismogenic hypotheses (perhaps with the exception of direct faulting of archaeological remains or ground fracturing; see Galli and Galadini, 2001;Hinzen et al, 2011;Alfonsi et al, 2012;Berberian et al, 2012), cross validation through quantitative scientific approaches appears necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn (e.g., paleoseismological trenching, McCalpin, 2009, andRockwell et al, 2009; cosmogeochronological studies of carbonate fault scarps, Mouslopoulou et al, 2011; quantitative modeling of the effects of sitespecific ground motions on Minoan constructions, Hinzen et al, 2011). Once rigorously validated, physical effects of earthquakes (our PEAEs) may provide a unique way to understand "the type and dimensions of earthquake ground effects linked to different levels of seismic shaking" (Reicherter et al, 2009, p. 4).…”

Estudio de las transformaciones del paisaje urbano de la civitas Igaeditanorum en la Antigüedad tardía (Idanha-a-Velha, Beira Baixa, Portugal)

“…En 2016 registramos una importante muestra de estructuras de deformación, que tras su recopilación, catalogación y análisis preliminar revelaron que la muralla, las estructuras arqueológicas de la Sé-Catedral y la torre medieval se vieron afectados por un conjunto significativo de EAEs. Estos EAEs pueden ser utilizados como indicadores cinemáticos de las orientaciones de desplazamiento del terreno al paso de las ondas sísmicas durante un terremoto (Hinzen et al 2011;Giner et al 2011;Rodríguez-Pascua et al 2012; 2013; Korjenkov y Mazor 2013). De las deformaciones detectadas en estas construcciones se han inventariado hasta diez conjuntos diferentes de EAEs, ocho como efectos cosísmicos, generados por deformación transitoria del sustrato (muros basculados, muros plegados, fracturas penetrativas en bloques de sillería, fracturas conjugadas a 45°, caídas orientadas, desplazamientos de sillares, claves de arco desplazadas y esquinas fracturadas) y dos como efectos postsísmicos o indirectos (reparación de construcciones y elementos anómalos de reciclado) (Rodríguez-Pascua et al 2019: 192).…”

The Ruin of the Roman Temple of Kedesh, Israel; Example of a Precariously Balanced Archaeological Structure Used as a Seismoscope

“…Many ancient manmade structures are so delicate that it seems unlikely, from appearance alone, that they can remain standing even under static conditions ( Figure 1). As is customarily the case in archaeoseismology, hypothesized earthquake-ruined ancient constructions are the major focus of interest, and in quantitative studies [Galadini et al 2006, Hinzen et al 2009a] ground motion parameters are estimated in order to determine how and under what circumstances the constructions were damaged [Hinzen 2005, Ambraseys 2006, Hinzen , 2013. Additionally, structures such as those shown in Figure 1 can also be used as seismoscopes.…”