Paleoseismic History of the Dead Sea Fault Zone

International audienceThe aim of this entry is to describe the DSF as a transform plate boundary pointing out the rate of activedeformation, fault segmentation, and geometrical complexities as a control of earthquake ruptures. Thedistribution of large historical earthquakes from a revisited seismicity catalogue using detailedmacroseismic maps allows the correlation between the location of past earthquakes and fault segments.The recent results of paleoearthquake investigations (paleoseismic and archeoseismic) with a recurrenceinterval of large events and long-term slip rate are presented and discussed along with the identification ofseismic gaps along the fault. Finally, the implications for the seismic hazard assessment are also discussed

Archaeoseismology: Methodological issues and procedure

Archaeoseismic research contributes important data on past earthquakes. A limitation of the usefulness of archaeoseismology is due to the lack of continuous discussion about the methodology. The methodological issues are particularly important because archaeoseismological investigations of past earthquakes make use of a large variety of methods. Typical in situ investigations include: (1) reconstruction of the local archaeological stratigraphy aimed at defining the correct position and chronology of a destruction layer, presumably related to an earthquake; (2) analysis of the deformations potentially due to seismic shaking or secondary earthquake effects, detectable on walls; (3) analysis of the depositional characteristics of the collapsed material; (4) investigations of the local geology and geomorphology to define possible natural cause(s) of the destruction; (5) investigations of the local factors affecting the ground motion amplifications; and (6) estimation of the dynamic excitation, which affected the site under investigation. Subsequently, a 'territorial' approach testing evidence of synchronous destruction in a certain region may delineate the extent of the area struck by the earthquake. The most reliable results of an archaeoseismological investigation are obtained by application of modern geoarchaeological practice (archaeological stratigraphy plus geological–geomorphological data), with the addition of a geophysical-engineering quantitative approach and (if available) historical information. This gives a basic dataset necessary to perform quantitative analyses which, in turn, corroborate the archaeoseismic hypothesis. Since archaeoseismological investigations can reveal the possible natural causes of destruction at a site, they contribute to the wider field of environmental archaeology, that seeks to define the history of the relationship between humans and the environment. Finally, through the improvement of the knowledge on the past seismicity, these studies can contribute to the regional estimation of seismic hazard

Realising consilience: How better communication between archaeologists, historians and natural scientists can transform the study of past climate change in the Mediterranean

This paper reviews the methodological and practical issues relevant to the ways in which natural scientists, historians and archaeologists may collaborate in the study of past climatic changes in the Mediterranean basin. We begin by discussing the methodologies of these three disciplines in the context of the consilience debate, that is, attempts to unify different research methodologies that address similar problems. We demonstrate that there are a number of similarities in the fundamental methodology between history, archaeology, and the natural sciences that deal with the past (“palaeoenvironmental sciences”), due to their common interest in studying societal and environmental phenomena that no longer exist. The three research traditions, for instance, employ specific narrative structures as a means of communicating research results. We thus present and compare the narratives characteristic of each discipline; in order to engage in fruitful interdisciplinary exchange, we must first understand how each deals with the societal impacts of climatic change. In the second part of the paper, we focus our discussion on the four major practical issues that hinder communication between the three disciplines. These include terminological misunderstandings, problems relevant to project design, divergences in publication cultures, and differing views on the impact of research. Among other recommendations, we suggest that scholars from the three disciplines should aim to create a joint publication culture, which should also appeal to a wider public, both inside and outside of academia.This paper emerged as a result of a workshop at Costa Navarino and the Navarino Environmental Observatory (NEO), Greece in April 2014, which addressed Mediterranean Holocene climate and human societies. The workshop was co-sponsored by IGBP/PAGES, NEO, the MISTRALS/PaleoMex program, the Labex OT-Med, the Bolin Centre for Climate Research at Stockholm University, and the Institute of Oceanography at the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research. We also acknowledge funding from the National Science Centre, Poland, within the scheme of the Centre's postdoctoral fellowships (DEC-2012/04/S/HS3/00226 (A.I)); the Swedish Research Council (grant numbers 421-2014-1181 (E.W.) and 621-2012-4344 (K.H.)); CSIC-Ramón y Cajal post-doctoral program RYC-2013-14073 and Clare Hall College, Cambridge, Shackleton Fellowship (B.M.); the EU/FP7 Project ‘Sea for Society’ (Science and Society - 2011-1, 289066)