See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236960355

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

Book in Special Paper of the Geological Society of America · October 2010

DOI: 10.1130/2010.2471(17)

CITATIONS READS
11 4,030

3 authors, including:

Ara Avagyan
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
104 PUBLICATIONS 2,102 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IRG project View project

GEOENVIRONMENTAL EVOLUTION OF KARIN TAK PALEOLITHIC SITE IN ARTSAKH View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ara Avagyan on 29 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 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 Exca-
vation and Conservation at Kom el-Hettan, provide new information about the seis-
mic 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 his-
torical, 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
The funerary temple of Amenhotep III is located on the west a massive array of pylons, great halls, chambers, stelae, and
bank of the Nile River, opposite to the modern city of Luxor statues that covered an area more than 385,000 m2 (Ricke et al.,
(Fig. 1). As the capital city of Egypt for many hundreds of years, 1981; Weeks, 2005). The temple’s main axis stretches ~700 m
ancient Thebes, today’s Luxor, is one of the most famous archae- from its first pylon westward to its rear wall. Its width is estimated
ological sites in the world. On the Nile’s western bank, a small to be ~500 m, and, with its dependences and processional ways,
area of 10–12 km2 accommodates the famous Valley of Kings, it stretched between the Ramesseum and the temple of Medinet
Theban necropolis, and the Valley of Queens, as well as numer- Habu through to Malqata, the vast palace of Amenhotep III.
ous temples built by the pharaohs of the Middle and New King- Two colossal statues of Amenhotep III, each 18 m high,
doms (Fig. 1). known as the Colossi of Memnon, once guarded the entrance of
Karakhanyan, A., Armenia, Y., Avagyan, A., and Sourouzian, H., 2010, Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt, in Sin-
tubin, 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 editing@geosociety.org. © 2010 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

1
 spe471-17   page 2

2 Karakhanyan et al.

A N

B Mediterranean Sea

N
CAIRO
14

r. N
ile
QENA
13

Re
d
9 ER RIZECAT

Se
12

a
LUXOR
ESNA
11 10

200 km

5
7 8
4 6
3
2
Fig. 2

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 Khonsuiri-
dis; 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 tra-
dition popular in the ancient world. Legend said that the north-
ern statue of Amenhotep III that was damaged by an earthquake
gave a sound at dawn with the first sun rays as if it were sing-
ing. 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 restora-
tion, 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 avail-
able to date that bears direct evidence of strong destructive earth-
quake 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 The-
bes. 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 3

A N

5 Fig. 9 - Tr.2 B
5
Fig. 7; 8 - Tr.1
4 4 3
2

3 15
0m 1

Pit 1
Fig. 10; 11
2

Tr.3

0 100 m

Figure 2. (A) Satellite image of the temple of Amenhotep III. (B) Reconstruction of the temple of Amenho-
tep 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 py-
lon, 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 sug-
gestion 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 con-
tained in many seismological, geological, and tourist publica-
tions. 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, Maa-
moun et al. (1984) did not identify any earthquake with a magni-
tude 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 Kar-
nak temples to some historical earthquakes. Based on the archae-
ological 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 caus-
ing 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

4 Karakhanyan et al.
obelisk standing between pylon III and IV, and tilted it addition-
ally. 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 Seis-
mic 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 north-
northwest 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 deco-
rated the funerary temple of Amenhotep III in Thebes, the capital
of Egypt in the New Kingdom. Erected in the fourteenth cen-
tury B.C., the colossi depict pharaoh Amenhotep III of the Eigh-
teenth 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 Peri-
style 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.). Stat-
ues, 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 “dis-
covered” this site as a rich source of museum-rank antiquities.
spe471-17   page 4
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 Amen-
hotep 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 Peri-
style 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 ground-
water levels have led to active agricultural encroachment. This
has led to an increase in soil salinity, and hence to intense weath-
ering 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 veg-
etation; the groundwater level has been lowered in the peristyle
court and kept stable. Excavations have uncovered unique stat-
ues, 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 rep-
resenting 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 NORTHERN COLOSSUS

S A B N

R1

2.5oS

14.76 m
13.97 m

1.5oS
1 oN
2 1
4 3

2.5oS
1.5oS
1o N

E C D W

R1

RA

F2 F3

3
0-1oW 1
1.5-2oE

f1 1 oW 1.5-2oW F1 RP
5m f2
6.20 m
10.40 m 10.55 m

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 north-
ern 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

6.98 m concrete

19 cm 74 cm
4m
5.15 m 5 3
2 1 2
4
1
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 sec-
tion of the northern colossus socle restored with quartzite blocks from the Aswan quarry, 3—the rear section of the south-
ern 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 Uni-
versity, the monolithic portion of the northern Memnon colos-
sus 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 describ-
ing 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 hol-
lows 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). Verti-
cal 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). Cop-
per 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. Com-
pared 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 colos-
sus 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

A B

5 4 1

20 cm 20 cm 5

C
Figure 5. Hollows remaining from the anchor
5 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
1 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
4 2
in the course of stones.

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 epi-
sodes 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 memo-
rial 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 trans-
portation of the statues. Such defects would not be allowed for
the central statues of a living pharaoh, suggesting that most prob-
ably 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 typi-
cal 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.

8 Karakhanyan et al.
Analysis of Damage on the Colossi
The most severely damaged is the northern Memnon colos-
sus. 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 com-
posite 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 sec-
tions 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 res-
toration, 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)
spe471-17   page 8
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 north-
ern 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 large-
scale 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 resto-
ration 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 destruc-
tion 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 colos-
sus. 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 inva-
sion of the Napoleon’s army. In contrast, it would be more dif-
ficult 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.

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt
When an earthquake hits large-block monolithic monu-
ments, 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 sec-
tions of the thrones of the colossal statues and their socles in a
seismic event is illustrated in Figures 6A and 6B. The through-
going 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 later-
ally. 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 inclina-
tion 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 south-
ern 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 great-
est stress and deformation. The analysis of Casciati and Borja
A B
S
C soil spreading, cracking of the socle and
spe471-17   page 9
9
(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 through-
going 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, pos-
sibly 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.
Figure 6. Simplified model of possible
destruction of the northern (Memnon)
colossus from an earthquake. (A) Ini-
tial shaking impact stage. (B–C) Final
stages of formation of the zone of lateral
of the rear part of the statue, failure, and
destruction of the rear part of the statue.

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 Mem-
non 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 liquefac-
tion, the substrata at the temple site are liquefiable.
Trench 1 in Front of the Main Peristyle Court
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
7 cm
SE Trench 1-1, southern wall
17 cm
a
b mortar with debris, 5—dense clay
9 10
5 7
c 4
3 d 7 6 8
1 19
2 3/8
spe471-17   page 10
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 exten-
sion 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 iden-
tified 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 evi-
dence for paleoliquefaction (Fig. 8). Similar to the southern wall,
it exposes NW-inclined dikes of fine sand. A small mushroom-
shaped dike that originates in the fine sand layer d appears to
terminate in the loam layer c. A sandstone block apparently lim-
ited further spreading of the dike upward (B in Fig. 8). The layer
NW
20 cm
Figure 7. Trench 1 near the stele, the
southern wall (1.1). 1—modern soil,
2—cracked stone blocks of the plat-
1 form on which the stele was installed
2 (layer a), 3—interlayers of soil enriched
3 with silt between the blocks, 4—lime
4 (layer b), 6—sand dikes and sills (lay-
er c), 7—leveled layer of lime mortar
5
(layer d), 8—14C sampling locations,
6 9—ceramics sampling locations.
8
9 1m

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 cor-
ner 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 under-
lying 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 water-
saturated clayey sand and sand. The upper boundary of layer c dis-
plays convolute bedding (Fig. 9). Layer c contains vertical sand
NW Trench 1, northern wall
A
13
12
11
B ments of the seasonal floods of the Nile),
0.5 m a 13
b and sills (d), 6—14C sampling locations,
1
a c
2
3 b
c
4 d
5 d
6 0.5 m
7
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 dis-
placed 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 sam-
ples 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.).
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
SE
10 cm
C
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, sedi-
3—dense clay, presumably correspond-
ing to the floor of some structure (b),
4—dense loam (layer c), 5—sand dikes
7—ceramics sampling locations.
12
C
11

12 Karakhanyan et al.
NW A
Trench-2
D SE
C a
b 5—14C sampling locations; 6—ceramics
7 17
Convoluted level F c1
F Convoluted level
c 16
5 c
d
15 1 2
5
1 2 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 ceram-
ics 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 con-
straints 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 sur-
face 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
spe471-17   page 12
B
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
18 Nile), 2—destruction layer (b) com-
posed of temple structure debris, 3—
dense loam (layer c1), 4—loam contain-
ing up to 50%–60% of sand (layer c),
sampling locations.
6
1m
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 Ser-
vice, 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). There-
fore, 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 iden-
tified 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

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt 13

A
a Trench-3

a
NE B SW
b
A c
a
d

74 m
b
2 8 c
7
6 c
73 m
5 1
c1 d c1 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 Figure 11. Archaeological mapping of

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

0 2m

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
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 verti-
cal wall of this 4–5-m-high man-made hollow (Fig. 12A). The
 spe471-17   page 14

14 Karakhanyan et al.

B Nile River
A

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 contain-
ing 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 frac-
tures 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 demonstra-
tion of typical lateral spreading (Fig. 12C) commonly caused by
liquefaction during strong shaking (Youd, 1984). Accordingly,
liquefaction and deformation of the underlying layer can gen-
erate 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 dif-
ferent 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

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 foun-
dations 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 sug-
gest that the crater-like hollows could correspond to original sand
blows generated by earthquakes as a consequence of liquefac-
tion 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 every-
where 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 stat-
ues at the second pylon of the Amenhotep III temple are simi-
lar. In many cases, we observed that the features of liquefaction
and spreading were located in areas 50–60 m higher by eleva-
tion than the highest recorded boundary of seasonal floods of the
Nile River, and therefore could not be affected even by the high-
est 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 evi-
dence 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-
spe471-17   page 15
15
ters, dikes, sills, and spreading) in the context of seismic damage
of the temples, lack of settings suitable for aseismic liquefac-
tion, 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 lay-
ers deformed by soil liquefaction. This layer consists of sand-
stone 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 destruc-
tion layer might correspond to a colluvium formed as a conse-
quence 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 destruc-
tion layer b, is cut by fractures. The lower boundary of destruc-
tion 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 exten-
sion. 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 fol-
lowing 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 sur-
face. 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 paral-
lel 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 bound-
ary 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 D2

c
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 17

filled with material of this erosion. The aggregate of these find-
ings 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 consider-
able. 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 post-
quem 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 destruc-
tion 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 destruc-
tion 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 earth-
quake 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 esti-
mates, ages of ceramics, and the dates of construction of the dam-
aged 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 start-
ing 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 sec-
ond pylon is more than 8 m long. Craters that were presum-
ably 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 destruc-
tion 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 accord-
ing to Cobbold et al. (2008) expand the affected area to 5 km2,

TABLE 1. EARTHQUAKE DATES INFERRED FROM THE PALEOSEISMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Trench 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 1211 –830 746–688 766–396 Between 1088 and 688 Between 1211 and 396
Sample 12 Sample 12 Sample 13 Sample 13
§ §
2 1458–1370 1530–1252 1130–972 1266–896 Between 1458 and 972 Between 1530 and 896
Sample 17 Sample 17 Sample 18 Sample18
† § †
1267–1048 1386–976 1208–977 1306–901 Between 1267 and 977 Between 1386 and 901
3 Sample 7 Sample 7 Sample 8 Sample 8
§
Pit 1 1290–1226* 1392–995 N.D. N.D. After 1270 After 1392
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.

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 (Interna-
tional 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 var-
ious relations linking liquefaction intensity, causative earthquake
magnitude, and epicentral distance.
The minimum magnitude sufficient to generate multiple liq-
uefaction 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 liq-
uefaction 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, respec-
tively. The zone of the Red Sea opening represents the litho-
spheric 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). How-
ever, considering how far Luxor is from the Red Sea, the earth-
quake 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 seismo-
genic 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 rang-
ing from 4 to 5 occurred in 1998, 1999, and 2003 to the north-
northwest of Luxor, between Sohag and Assiut. However, if this
was the epicentral area of the earthquake responsible for liq-
uefaction 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 Alexan-
dria to Abu Simbel. Destruction of such proportion should have
been reflected in ancient structures and left evidence in histori-
cal 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 earth-
quake 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.
spe471-17   page 18
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 mod-
ern 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 West-
ern Desert and the Nile Valley. The frontal side of the massif is
dissected by many wadi, among which are the famous Kings Val-
ley 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 Pleisto-
cene 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 genera-
tion 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) sug-
gested 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 cor-
respond 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

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt 19

a N
5
6

7 8
QV SMP
9
13 10 4
12 3
11
2

0 500 m

b 1
1 2 3 4

Figure 14. Faults on the west bank of the Nile opposite to Luxor. 1—listric faults, 2—scarps associated with the left-
lateral 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 Fig-
ure 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 sur-
veys in search for evidence of any active faults on the west bank
of the Nile opposite to Luxor. Despite commonly horizontal bed-
ding 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 dis-
tance 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 geom-
etry. 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 sur-
faces, the southeastern wings of which were displaced by nor-
mal 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 Val-
ley 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 The-
ban 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 struc-
ture 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

20 Karakhanyan et al.
N
NW
10
9 8 1
3
4 2
6 5
7
11
A
B C
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 Meret-
seger 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 ceil-
ing 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 dip-
ping 70°–80° to the west (f2 in Fig. 16). Our preliminary exami-
nation 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
spe471-17   page 20
SE
20 cm
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 west-
ern 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 strike-
slip 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 base-
ment faults can develop under intense horizontal stresses associ-
ated 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 oblique-
slip 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 base-
ment fault motion (Fig. 18) and could have generated the earth-
quake 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.

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.
A The archaeoseismological investigation of the Amenhotep
f2
b
c a
b B
c a
1m
Figure 17. (A) Entrance to the southern room in the sanctuary dedicat-
ed to the goddess Meretseger and to the god Ptah. (B) Detail of the en-
trance 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 devel-
oped in the rear of the tilted beds. Apparently, the high-dipping
setting has concealed any surface deformations related to activ-
spe471-17   page 21
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 base-
ment 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 base-
ment 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 exten-
sion of the Er Rizecat–Qena fault, Mmax estimates would be
much higher.
CONCLUSION
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 possi-
ble to refer this damage to human aggression or any natural phe-
nomenon 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 inter-
nal age conflicts and showed good convergence of dates derived
from different methods. This use of the historical, paleoseismo-
logical, 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 earth-
quake in 27 B.C. Moreover, the two episodes of restoration of the
northern Memnon Colossus, one related to the Pharaonic period

22 Karakhanyan et al.
A
NW
b Te
QV
Fig. 15
Te
B QV—Valley of Queens. (B) Modeling
Es + 1
Tr 2 Te
3 Es
4 Tr
Basement 5
faults
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 destruc-
tion 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 sanc-
tuary 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
spe471-17   page 22
a Figure 18. (A) Schematic section along
line a–b shown in Figure 14, 1—Qua-
ternary alluvium, 2—Thebes Formation
(Te), 3—Esna Formation (Es), 4—lis-
tric sliding; Tr—Tarawan Formation,
of motion along an oblique-slip fault ac-
Putty ridge
cording to Naylor et al. (1994).
0 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 base-
ment 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 fur-
ther 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 Ara-
kelyan, and Arshaluis Mkrtchyan for their support in the prepa-
ration 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

Archaeoseismological studies at the temple of Amenhotep III, Luxor, Egypt 23

TABLE A1. RESULTS OF RADIOCARBON AGE ESTIMATION FOR TRENCH LAYERS

Sample Site Unit Material Calibrated age (B.C.) Comments
number 1σ 2σ
9 B Silty clay 1442–1266 1517–1188 Ante-quem
Trench 1, date
10 southern B Silty clay 1430–1260 1500–1122 Ante-quem
wall date
19 D Charcoal at the silty clay level with 1450–1269 1524–1188 Ante-quem
abundant ceramics date
11 C Silty clay 1497–1370 1562–1251 Ante-quem
date
Trench 1,
northern

12 C Silty clay 1088–905 1211–830 Ante-quem

date
wall

13 C Silty clay 746–688 766–396 Post-quem

date
1 D Charcoal, in the clayey level with 2040–1890 2144–1866 Ante-quem
abundant ceramics date
2 D Charcoal, clayey level with abundant 2139–1650 2231–1882 Ante-quem
ceramics date
15 D Clayey level with abundant ceramics 2151–2011 2287–1901 Ante-quem
date
16 C Silty clay 1688–1530 1771–1453 Ante-quem
date
Trench 2

1
17 C Soil, upper part of the silty clay level 1458–1370 1530–1252 Ante-quem
with abundant ceramics date
18 A Cl a y 1130–972 1266–896 Post-quem
date
1
04 C Silty clay 1408–1208 1452–1048 Ante-quem
date
1
05 C Silty clay 1416–1261 1455–1128 Ante-quem
date
06 C Silty clay 1212–1013 1310–924 Post-quem
date
Trench 3

07 C Silty clay 1267–1048 1386–976 Ante-quem

date
08 C Soil from the destruction la yer 1208–977 1306–901 Post-quem
date
03 Under the northern colossus of the Clay under the wedge of altered 1270–1054 1392–995 Ante-quem
second pylon quartzite date
Pit

REFERENCES CITED
Abdel-Monem, S.M., Sakr, K., Hassoup, A., Mahmoud, S., Tealeb, A., Al-
Ibiary, 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, Insti-
tut 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: Archaeom-
etry 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.
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 Har-
ing, 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

24 Karakhanyan et al.
Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, Theban Tombs Publication Proj-
ect, 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)021<0873:SBWE>2.3
.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 supple-
ment, 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: Rot-
terdam, 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)024<0171:SBIBTM>2.3.CO;2.
Maamoun, M., Megahed, A., and Allam, A., 1984, Seismicity of Egypt: Bulle-
tin 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., Mohammad-
ioun, 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 earth-
quake 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 Investiga-
tion: 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 Sedi-
mentary 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 earth-
quake: Field observations and preliminary microzonation map based on
liquefaction potential index for the town of Lefkada: Engineering Geol-
ogy, 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 trans-
lation, vol. 1, commented by J.G. Frazer, 6 vols.): London, New York,
561 p.
Pawlikowski, M., 1987, Ekspertyza w sprawie zagrozeniq swiatyn w Doli-
nie 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
View publication stats
spe471-17   page 24
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 Bauforsc-
hung 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-naturwissen-
schaftlichen: 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 Tem-
ple of Amenophis III at Thebes: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäolo-
gischen 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 Mod-
elisation 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 Muse-
ums: Cairo, American University in Cairo Press, 563 p.
Wilkinson, I.G., 1835, Topography of Thebes and General View of Egypt: Lon-
don, 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, Sur-
face and sub-surface tectonic pattern of Sohag region, Middle Egypt: Bul-
letin 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-Med-
iterranean Seismological Centre, v. 20, p. 19–23.
Missing Manuscript Date
Printed in the USA