Fig 1.
Geological sketch of the eastern Mediterranean modified after natural earth (https://www.naturalearthdata.com in the public domain), showing the main near-shore sediment transport mechanism (black arrows), selected thrusts (CA–Cypriot Arc) and major fault lines (CF- Carmel fault; DSF- Dead Sea Fault system; SF- Seraghaya fault; MF-Missyaf fault; YF-Yammaounch fault; [3,8], submarine landslides as well as tsunami deposits, geomorphological tsunami features and documented tsunami events (Modified from [9]).
The name compilation of the sites presented in the figure are: 1a-2a (Alexandria); 3a (Paphos, Polis, Cape, Greco); 4a-8a (Caesarea Marittima, Jiser al-Zarka); 9a (Byblos, Senani Island); 10a (Elos); 11a (Gramvousa, Balos, Falasarna, Mavros, Stomiou, Gramenos, Paleochora); 12a (Western Crete); 13a (Palaikastro); 14a (Pounta); 15a (Limni Moustou); 16a (Pylos, Porto Gatea, Archangelos, Elaphonisos); 17a (Limni Divariou); 18a (Santorini); 19a (Balos bay); 20a (Thera); 21a (Dalaman); 22a (Didim) for the previously dated tsunami deposits and 1 (Lebanon, Israel, Syria); 2 (levant coast); 3 (Paphos, Polis, Cape, Greco); 4 (S-E Cyprus); 5 (Akko); 6 (Yaffo); 7–8 (S-E Cyprus); 9–11 (Levant coast); 12 (The Nile cone); 13 (Lebanon); 14 (Levant coast); 15 (southern turkey); 16 (Cyprus); 17 (Israel); 18 (Lebanon–Israel) for the previously dated tsunami events. Further details regarding the tsunami data are discussed in S1 and S2 Tables.
Fig 2.
(a) Israel’s Carmel coastal plain: surface lithologies, streams, shelf bathymetry and elevations (Republished from [14] under a CC BY license, with permission from [the geological Survey of Israel], original copyright [1994]). The red and green triangles indicate location of Neolithic habitations based on Galili et al. [15] while the red square annotates the location of the study area. The numbered red circles represent previously studied zones in which the stratigraphic sequence was investigated and is described in the following papers according to their numbering: (1) Kadosh et al. [16]; (2) Sivan et al. [16]. The numbered hexagons annotate prehistoric sites (1) Nahal Oren (Natufian period); (2) El-wad (Natufian period); (3) Kebara (Natufian period); (4) Tel Mevorakh (PPNB period); (5) Aviel (late PPNB-PPNC period). The projected coastline during the tsunami at ca 9,910–9,290 ya ca. 9.91–9.29 ka, is presumed to have been located between at about 40 to 16 m below present-day sea-level and 3.5–1.5 km west of the current shoreline. (b) The coast of Dor with existing cores and new drilling locations as well as elevations.
Fig 3.
Core analysis and chronostratigraphic correlation.
(a) Borehole D4 with core scan; lithological unit name; sedimentological and petrophysical results; lithological identification with OSL sampling location; OSL ages presented before 2018; and corresponding sea level [23,24] as well as approximate shoreline location. (b) Chronostratigraphic cross sections in the coastal area of Dor based on sedimentological and OSL data obtained in the present study, presented for thousand years ago (ka, marked with a red star) as well as shtienberg et al. (submitted; blue star) correlated with the lithological results, and 14C calibrated dates (cal. ka; green circles) published in Kadosh et al. [16]. A closeup of units F2, F3 and F4 in core D6 with its lithological unit name and accumulative grain texture results. The modern topography portrayed in the cross sections was extracted from the DEM presented in Fig 2B. See Fig 2B for cross section location.
Table 1.
Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) age information.
OSL ages are presented as thousands of years (ka) before 2018.
Table 2.
Dose rate information for OSL samples selected from borehole D4, D12 and D6.
Fig 4.
The sedimentological features of Unit F3 presented for Boreholes D4 (panel-a), D12 (panel-b), D6 (panel-c) with their relevant core extraction depth (red dashed square).
The location of the boreholes is displayed in Fig 2B.
Fig 5.
Age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) based on the ages and stratigraphic position of the lower wetland deposit (Unit F2) the abruptly overlying sandy tsunami deposit (Unit F3) and upper wetland deposit (Unit F4) that have been correlated between cores in the study area (Fig 3).
The age constraint for the tsunami deposit (Unit F3) is based on the overlapping ages and uncertainties (highlighted by dashed red line) between the Unit F2 wetland deposit (green circle, core D6) the overlying Unit F3 tsunami deposit (yellow circle, core D4) and superimposing Unit F4 wetland deposit (blue circle, core D4).
Fig 6.
Neolithic remains and construction uncovered underwater in the south bay of Dor during joint excavations conducted by the Department of Maritime Civilizations at the University of Haifa and Scripps Center of Marine Archeology at the University of California San Diego: (a) location of the findings marked by red polygons—each letter is attributed to the finds presented in the next parts of the figure; (b) Pre pottery Neolithic–Early Pottery Neolithic arrowhead (c) Neolithic architecture which includes curved installations as well as wall foundations; (d) Pottery Neolithic ceramic base excavated in 2019 by the Department of Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa.