Replies

The whole city was built out on the beach, for all practical purposes; the underlying strata just slid the whole works into the drink, as if it were on a tobaggan.

Seven Wonders of the Ancient World
The Lighthouse (Pharos) of Alexandria
Alaa K. Ashmawy
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/Wonders/pharos.html

In AD 956, an earthquake shook Alexandria, and caused little damage to the Lighthouse. It was later in 1303 and in 1323 that two stronger earthquakes left a significant impression on the structure. When the famous Arab traveler Ibn Battuta visited Alexandria in 1349, he could not enter the ruinous monument or even climb to its doorway... In 1166, an Arab traveler, Abou-Haggag Al-Andaloussi visited the Lighthouse. He documented a wealth of information and gave an accurate description of the structure which helped modern archeologists reconstruct the monument. It was composed of three stages: The lowest square, 55.9 m (183.4 ft) high with a cylindrical core; the middle octagonal with a side length of 18.30 m (60.0 ft) and a height of 27.45 m (90.1 ft); and the third circular 7.30 m (24.0 ft) high. The total height of the building including the foundation base was about 117 m (384 ft), equivalent to a 40-story modern building. The internal core was used as a shaft to lift the fuel needed for the fire. At the top stage, the mirror reflected sunlight during the day while fire was used during the night. In ancient times, a statue of Poseidon adorned the summit of the building.

The whole city was built out on the beach, for all practical purposes; the underlying strata just slid the whole works into the drink, as if it were on a tobaggan.

Yeah, and earthquake, even a small one, could have turned the substrate into mush. Also, it seems I may have misread this part of the article:

"This city is absolutely untouched," Goddio said. "Everything is in its original position."

I read that to mean the site was essentially buried intact, but it doesn't necessarily say that. The author probably means the site has been undisturbed since its burial at sea ;^)

Still in all, he implies(I think) the site was covered fairly quickly by sediment, which still seems odd. I mean we're talking a combination of a flood and earthquake at roughly the same time. Or at the very least a flood following on the heels of an earthquake???

I dunno. I get frustrated with this "stuff". Seems every piece I read just raises more questions than answers.

FGS