| Text (with hotlink) | Original Language | Biographical Info | Religion | Date of Composition | Location Composed | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction | ||||||
| Annales by Marcellinus Comes | Latin |
|
Orthodox (Byzantium) | ca. 534 CE | Constantinople | Marcellinus reports that many Palestinian cities were ruined by an earthquake. He dates the earthquake to the same Olympiad year that Valentinian was born. Valentinian was born on July 9, 419 AD and since the Olympiad year starts on roughly July 20 or August 20, this would date this earthquake to between July/August 418 and July/August 419. Marcellinus further places the earthquake under the heading of Monaxius and Plinta who ruled the Eastern Roman Empire in consulship in 419 AD. This further constrains the date of the earthquake to 1 January 419 to July or August 419. |
| Sermon XIX by Augustine of Hippo | Latin |
|
Orthodox (Byzantium) | ca. 419 CE | Hippo Regius in what is now Annaba, Algeria | Augustine of Hippo reported in a sermon that great earthquakes are reported from the Eastwhere some great cities suddenly collapsed in ruinsand Jews, Pagans and Catechumens in Jerusalem were terrified, and all were baptised. |
| Chronicon by Idatius (aka Hydatius) | Latin |
|
Orthodox (Byzantium) | ca. 469 CE | Aquae Flaviae in Gallaecia (now Portugal) | Idatius reported that the holy places in Jerusalem and other areas were shaken by a terrible earthquake.Idatius states that Eulalius was bishop of Rome when the this earthquake struck. This constrains the date of the earthquake to 27 December 418 - 3 April 419 when Eulalius was the antipope in Rome. Since Marcellinus Comes dates the earthquake to the consulships of Monaxius and Plinta which was in 419 CE, this earthquake is further constrained to approximately the first quarter of 419 CE - 1 January 419 to 3 April 419. |
| Consularia Constantinopolitana | Latin |
|
Orthodox (Byzantium) | a complex document of differing dates and hands(Burgess, 1993:175) |
Constantinople | Consularia Constantinopolitana is essentially a list of consuls (leaders) which may show that Monaxius and Plinta ruled the Eastern Roman Empire in 419 CE and mentions a letter from Jerusalem speaking of signs and terror from God. |
| Philostorgius | Greek |
|
Anomoean Arian Christian (a heretical sect) | 425-433 CE | Constantinople | Background info - Philostorgius described the same 19 July 418 CE eclipse that was described by Idatius. After the eclipse, Philostorgius described a cone-shaped light which appeared in the sky which, according to Philostorgius,
some erroneously mislabeled as a comet. The cone shaped apparition appeared in the sky for 4 months - first appearing in mid summer and lasting until almost the end of autumn. In the following year, Philostorgius reports that earthquakes struck accompanied by a fire that burst down from the sky(a meteorite ?). Neither the location of the earthquakes or the presumed meteorite was specified although there appears to be mention that the "meteorite" fell into the sea with the assistance of a strong wind. imcee reports a total solar eclipse on 20 July 418 CE using the Gregorian Calendar while NASA reports the same total solar eclipse on 19 July 419 CE in the Julian calendar. The map of this eclipse from imcee indicates it would have been experienced in the Iberian Peninsula and Anatolia (i.e. in Constantinople). Grumel (1958:470) lists a comet on 15 September 418 CE (lasting 7 months ?) while citing Williams (1871:31), Pingre (1783:309, 599), and Annales by Marcellinus Comes (see entry for 1 Sept. 417 - 31 Aug. 419 in Croke, 1995:12). |
| Text (with hotlink) | Original Language | Biographical Info | Religion | Date of Composition | Location Composed | Notes |
| Location (with hotlink) | Status | Intensity | Notes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khirbet Shema | possible to unlikely | Phase 4 earthquake - Late Roman/Early Byzantine -
Although excavators Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange (1976) identified two earthquake events (
Eusebius' Martyr Quake of ~306 CE and
Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE) which destroyed a Synagogue I and then a Synagogue II at
Khirbet Shema, subsequent authors (
e.g. Russell, 1980 and
Magness, 1997) re-examined their chronology and redated the earthquake evidence.
Russell (1980) redated the two earthquake events to the northern Cyril Quake
of 363 CE and the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE while Magness (1997)
concluded that there was no solid evidence for the existence of a Synagogue I on the site and evidence for an earthquake event in ~306 CE was lacking. She posited that Synagogue II was
constructed in the late 4th to early 5th century CE and concluded that there was no solid evidence for the 419 CE (or 363 CE) earthquake as well. In Magness (1997) interpretation of the
evidence, she suggested that the site had been abandoned when an earthquake brought down Synagogue II sometime before the 8th century CE. Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange (1976) archeoseismic evidence for the 2nd earthquake, the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE, appears to be shaky. It is based on a lacuna of coin evidence starting in 408 CE and lasting for the last three quarters of the 5th century CE. They suggest this indicates abandonment of the site during this time period and in turn suggest that abandonment was likely due to the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE. Magness (1997: 217-218) provided a number of reasons why she classifies this as a dangerous argument from silence. |
|||||||
| Khorazin | possible | 419 CE Earthquake - Potentially debated Chronology -
Russell (1985) relates that it has been suggested that the early 5th century destruction evidence at Khorazin relates to this earthquake (Yeivin, 1973: 157 - in hebrew). Jones (2021) reports that Magness has disputed archaeological evidence for this earthquake at Khorazin and other sites in the Galilee (1997: 217-18; 2005: 8-10; 2007: 271-72; 2012: 113-14). |
|||||||
| Banias | possible | ≥ 7 | Phase IV Destruction Layer - 5th century CE -
Wilson (2004:110)
reports that the "Byzantine Street" had fallen victim to a huge fire, and their floors, once a thick layer of ash had been removed, yielded large numbers of crushed storage jars, jugs, bowls, vessels of glass, tools (including a set of scales) and many coinsadding that all of these were dated to the fourth and fifth centuries. Wilson (2004:110) noted that it was not clear whether the destruction was the result of one of the great earthquakes of the period, or some other local disaster. |
||||||
| Aphek/Antipatris | possible | ≥ 7 | Byzantine Earthquake - 4th-5th century CE - Questions on Chronology -
Karcz and Kafri (1978: 244-245) reported that tilted and distorted walls and subsiding arches were encountered in the excavations of the Byzantine town of Antipatris (Aphek) which led Kochavi (1976) and Kochavi (personal communication to Karcz) to attribute the end and decay of the town to the earthquake of 419 AD. In his preliminary report on excavations Kochavi (1975) reported that very little was uncovered in the Early Byzantine Period and suggested that Byzantine Antipatris, as a city of any importance, probably came to its end around the beginning of the 5th century B.C.E. while Kochavi (1981) reports that the entire city of Antipatris was destroyed by an earthquake in 419 CE. Golan (2008) does not present any earthquake evidence but mentions that Kochavi thought that the city was destroyed by the Cyril Quake of 363 CE. The fact that most of the coins dated to the second half of the fourth century CE suggests that the cardo may have been abandoned at the beginning of the Byzantine period, which seems to corroborate the excavators’ conclusions (Kochavi 1989) that assumed the city was destroyed in the year 363 CE.The latest coins reported by Kochavi (1975), apparently come from the Early Byzantine level, dated to Constantine the Great (308-337 C.E.), Constantius II (337-361 C.E.), and Arcadius (395-408 C.E.). Jones (2021) added Caution must be exercised in interpreting the numismatic data, however, as the ceramic fords included PRS 3 forms dating to the mid-5th-6th century (Golan 2008: fig. 5.5-6). More troubling is the apparent presence of `Mefjar ware' (i.e. Islamic Cream Ware), which dates no earlier than the late 7th century (see Walmsley 2001), in the `earthquake stratum' (Neidinger 1982: 167). This may indicate multiple destructions, but without more complete publication of the excavations, this is difficult to evaluate. It is, however, worth noting the presence of a bishop of Antipatris at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Dauphin 2000; Frankel and Kochavi 2000: 23, 31). This may be explained, as Fischer (1989: 1806) suggests, by assuming that the role of Antipatris `was filled with a great number of smaller settlements' like Khirbat Dhikrin (Zikrin) after the 418/419 earthquake, but it is equally likely that Antipatris was simply not abandoned in the early 5th century. |
||||||
| Tiberias - Introduction | n/a | n/a | n/a | ||||||
| Tiberias - Hammath Tiberias | possible | Stratum IIA Earthquake (?) - 5th century CE or later - Magness (2005)
reports that in his excavation reports, Moshe Dothan interprets the evidence to indicate that the synagogue of Stratum IIA was destroyed in
the 419 CE Monaxius and Plinta Quake
however Magness (2005) dates
for Stratum IIA are that it was built in the late 4th to early 5th centuries CE and occupied until the 3rd quarter of 5th century or later. |
|||||||
| Khirbet Wadi Hamam | possible | 419 CE Earthquake - NEEDS INVESTIGATION - Jones (2021) reports that evidence for the Monaxius and Plinta Earthquake of 419 CE has been reported at Khirbet Wadi Hamam by Leibner and Arubas (2018: 97). | |||||||
| En Hazeva | possible | ≥ 8 | Late Roman or Byzantine Earthquake - 324 to early 6th century CE -
Although Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
attributed seismic damage dated to between 324 CE and the 6th century CE to the southern
Cyril Quake of 363 CE, their bracketed dates entertain the possibility
that the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE is also
responsible for the observed seismic damage. Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
report that coins below collapsed arches in Room 45 provide an apparent terminus post quem of 324 CE while
coins above an associated floor date from the first half of the 4th century to the early 6th century CE. Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) identified archaeoseismic evidence in the Roman Camp which they associated with one (or both) of the 363 CE Cyril Quakes. Erickson-Gini (2010:97) noted that it was observed that the [Roman] camp was nearly demolished by the earthquake in 363and, according to Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019), this earthquake damaged the Roman Camp, the Fort and the Bathhouse. The camp was subsequently reconstructed and remained in use until the sometime in the sixth century CE. In Room 45, Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) found collapsed arches and a presumably collapsed wall (W785). Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) reported additional archaeoseismic evidence in Room 53 (aka the underground Treasury Vault) where, according to 1994–1995 field notes by Area E supervisor Y. Kalman, the room (53) was filled with collapsed debris, stone slabs that were used for roofing, arch stones and other building stones.Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) suggested that the Room 53 structure probably collapsed in the 363 CE earthquake. Coins below the collapsed arches in Room 45 provided a terminus post quem of 324 CE while coins above an associated floor dated from the late 3rd or early 4th century to the early 6th century CE. Erickson-Gini (2010:97-99) noted that chronological reconstruction at En Haseva was adversely affected by secondary deposition where in the case of the cavalry [aka Roman] camp, a large amount of soil containing earlier material was used in its reconstruction after the 363 earthquake. She added that the majority of locifrom the site contain finds from more than one occupational periodwith some of the only exceptions finds of in situ pottery from the destruction layer of 363 CE in the fortwhich was sealed and covered by the next occupational phase, post-dating the earthquake. Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) also noted possible post 363 CE rebuilding evidence where wall W587 (an extension of wall W785) was constructed, presumably, after the 363 CE earthquake. This, according to Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019), indicated that the original gatehouse was blocked, probably after it was damaged in the earthquake, and the entrance to the camp was removed to a different location. Erickson-Gini (2010:129) indicated that the Cavalry (aka Roman) Camp was more badly damaged than the Roman fort due to weaker foundations. The walls in the Cavalry (aka Roman) Camp were constructed on shallow foundations in soilwhile the Roman Fort was founded on the walls of earlier buildings on the tell. |
||||||
| Avdat/Oboda | possible | ≥ 8 | The "Previous" Earthquake - 5th century CE -
Erickson-Gini (2014) described an early
5th century earthquake at Avdat/Oboda:
A massive earthquake took place in the early 5th century CE, substantial evidence of which was uncovered in the late Roman and early Byzantine residential quarter (Erickson-Gini 2010a: 91-93). All of the structures east of the town wall were abandoned and used as a source of building stone for the late Byzantine town. Following this earthquake, massive revetment walls were constructed along the southern wall of the acropolis in order to shore up the heavily damaged walls. In contrast, the late Byzantine citadel adjoining the temenos area of the acropolis has no revetment walls, certainly due to its construction following the earthquake. The two churches inside the temenos area were built using numerous early Roman ashlars and architectural elements originally from the Obodas Temple damaged in the earthquake.Tali Erickson-Gini in Stern et al (2008) noted that numismatic and ceramic evidence uncovered in this third phase indicate that the dwellings [of the late Roman and early Byzantine residential quarter] were destroyed in a violent earthquake several decades after that of 363 CEadding that following this second, local earthquake, the area was abandoned and many of the building stones were robbed. In Area A of the Roman/Byzantine Quarter, Erickson-Gini (2022) found floor slabs, apparently from an upper floor, and archers from an earlier collapsewhich maybe remains from an early 5th century CEcollapse. They also found an earlier version of Wall 1 which may be the remains of a stone course that had collapsed from original W1 in the early fifth century CEand which, according to Erickson-Gini (2022), corresponds to a blockage in the northern wall (W2; Fig. 6) in the early fifth century CE, when the site was damaged by a local earthquake, evidence of which was discovered by the author in the Roman/Byzantine Quarter nearby (Erickson-Gini 2010:91– 95; 2014:100).Erickson-Gini (2022) also noted that in the Dipinti cave on the southern slope of the Acropolis in Area D, a niche in the wall appears to have originally been a window that was blocked on the eastern side of the back of the Dipinti Wall when it was reinforced, possibly following damage by the earthquake in the early fifth century CE (see Erickson-Gini 2010:90–94). Zion et al (2022:30) reports that the quarters for the soldiers of the Roman army camp, located east of and adjacent to the Acropolis, were destroyed in an early 5th century CE earthquake. An early 5th century earthquake suggests the 419 CE Monaxius and Plinta Quake which may be corroborated by archaeoseismic evidence in Yotvata. Negev (1989) provided a wider range of dates for this earthquake which entertains the possibility that this archaeoseismic evidence was caused by the hypothesized Negev Quake which, if real, is dated to around 500 CE. A decisive factor in determining this phase is the dating of a series of earthquakes, one or more of which shattered numerous buildings in some of the towns of the central Negev. Although literary evidence is scarce, there is ample archaeological evidence that testifies to these disasters. At Oboda the entire length of the old southern Nabatean retaining wall was thrust outwards, and for this reason it had to be supported by a heavy, slanting supporting wall. Similarly much damage was caused to a massive tower of the Nabatean period, identified in July 1989 as the temple of Obodas (?), which in the Late Roman - early Byzantine period was incorporated in the citadel occupying the eastern half of the acropolis hill. Most of the damage was caused to the western and southern walls of the temple, and for this reason these too had to be supported by still heavier stone taluses, blocking the original entrance to the temple on the southern wall. It is against this talus that the South Church was built. Similar damage was also caused to some of the nearby buildings in the so-called Roman Quarter south of the temple. We may thus place the date of the earthquake between the end of the third century A.D., when the latest building in this quarter was constructed, and A.D. 541, when the Martyrium of St. Theodore was already being used as a burial ground. |
||||||
| Mampsis | possible | >≥ 8 |
Mampsis may suffer from a problematic and some times debated chronology [e.g., Magness (2003) vs.
Negev (1974:412, 1988)] and I will need to consult an expert or read
more to understand the error bars on the two earthquakes observed. Early Researcher Negev (1974) dated the 'first' earthquake observed by
Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003) to late 3rd/early 4th century via coins and church architectural styles however he dated construction of the East Church,
where some archaeoseismic evidence for the 'first' earthquake was found, to the 2nd half of the 4th century CE - which seems like a contradiction.
Although neither of these dates allows for seismic damage due to the 419 CE Monaxius and Plinta Quake,
archaeoseismic chronology in the Negev (and by Negev) has a history of changes so I list two candidates below.
|
||||||
| Haluza | possible | ≥ 8 | 1st Earthquake - late 3rd - mid 6th century CE - perhaps around 500 CE -
Korjenkov and and Mazor (2005) surmised that the first earthquake struck in the Byzantine period between the end of the 3rd and the mid-6th centuries A.D.. This was based on dates provided by Negev (1989). The Intensity estimate presented here is based on Seismic Effects categorized as Earthquake Damage Restorations by Korjenkov and and Mazor (2005) |
||||||
| Yotvata | possible to probable | ≥ 8 | Post Roman Legion Abandonment Earthquake - 5th century CE -
Davies et al (2015) dated a seismic destruction layer at
at a Roman Fort in Yotvata to soon after the Fort was systematically abandoned in the early 5th century. An ephemeral Byzantine period occupation was established on top of the collapse, without any attempt at leveling.They noted that although the ensuing ephemeral Byzantine period occupation was undated due to a lack of recovered pottery, significant sediment accumulated between the Byzantine layer and the well dated Early Islamic layer suggesting that these two layers are a century or two apart. |
||||||
| Petra - Introduction | n/a | n/a | n/a | ||||||
| Petra - Wadi Sabra Theater | possible | ≥ 8 | Phase 4 earthquake - Late Roman/Early Byzantine -
Tholbecq et al (2019) uncovered a Phase 4 destruction layer. Phase 4 occurs at a date still undetermined (Late Roman period or Byzantine but not later).They added We do not know when the destruction of the northern masonry of the orchestra occurred, at the level of the old corridor, rebuilt using the stone seats during the previous phase. However, this destruction is directly posed, both in hole 2 and in hole 7, on the embankments of the 3rd-4th centuries CE; we can therefore deduce that this event (earthquake?) occurs shortly after the late Roman period, or even during this period. The monument will no longer be occupied after this phase, being marked only by natural horizons of aeolian and alluvial sediments. |
||||||
| Petra - Jabal Khubthah | possible | ≥ 8 | End of Phase 3 Earthquake - 5th or 6th centuries CE - The End of Phase 3 Earthquake was dated to the 5th or 6th centuries CE. Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) encountered difficulties in dating this presumed seismic destruction and suggested that the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE or a later earthquake was responsible. | ||||||
| Petra - ez Zantur | possible | ≥ 8 | 5th-6th Century CE Earthquake - Debated Chronology - Excavators dated a seismic destruction to the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE. Jones (2021) argues that this date is likely too early and that the late 6th century CE Inscription at Areopolis Quake is a plausible candidate. | ||||||
| Petra - Urn Tomb | possible | 5th-6th Century CE Earthquake - Debated Chronology -
Jones (2021) argues that al-Zantur I Spatromisch II
ceramics, rather than dating from 363 CE - 419 CE, should date to at least a century later. If true, this would negate archaeoseismic
evidence for an earthquake reported in 419 CE
(i.e. the Monaxius and Plinta Quake)
at ez-Zantur and other sites in Petra such as in a structure outside the Urn Tomb,
and in Structure I of the NEPP Project.
Jones (2021) suggests instead that the
causitive earthquake was more likely the late 6th century CE
Inscription At Areopolis Quake.
Jones (2021) provides a
discussion below:
Within Petra, the 418/419 earthquake has been suggested as the cause for the destruction of three structures: |
|||||||
| Petra - NEPP site | possible | 5th-6th Century CE Earthquake - Debated Chronology -
Fiema and Schmid (2014:429-430)
suggest that Structure 1 in the NEPP area was
destroyed by the 363 earthquake, but later restored although in much altered form and appearancewith final destruction and abandonment taking place afterwards, perhaps sometime in the early 5th century.They suggest final destruction and abandonment may have been due to the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE. Jones (2021) argues that al-Zantur I Spatromisch II ceramics, rather than dating from 363 CE - 419 CE, should date to at least a century later. If true, this would negate archaeoseismic evidence for an earthquake reported in 419 CE (i.e. the Monaxius and Plinta Quake) at ez-Zantur and other sites in Petra such as in a structure outside the Urn Tomb, and in Structure I of the NEPP Project. Jones (2021) suggests instead that the causitive earthquake was more likely the late 6th century CE Inscription At Areopolis Quake. Jones (2021) provides a discussion below: Within Petra, the 418/419 earthquake has been suggested as the cause for the destruction of three structures: |
|||||||
| Khirbet Tannur | possible | ≥ 8 | End of Period III Earthquake - 3rd-4th centuries CE - McKenzie et al (2013) suggested that the End of Period III seismic damage (3rd -4th centuries CE) was caused by the southern Cyril Quake but the Monaxius and Plinta Quake is also a possible candidate. | ||||||
| Location (with hotlink) | Status | Intensity | Notes |
| Location (with hotlink) | Status | Intensity | Notes | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| al-Harif Syria | possible | ≥ 7 (based on 4.2 m of slip) |
Sbeinati et. al. (2010) report a seismic event X which they dated to 335 AD ± 175 years at a displaced aqueduct at al-Harif, Syria (close to Masyaf, Syria). | |||||||||||||||
| Bet Zayda | no evidence | ≥ 7 | Wechsler at al. (2014) did not see any evidence for this earthquake in paleoseismic trenches just north of the Sea of Galilee (aka Lake Kinneret). | |||||||||||||||
| Dead Sea - Seismite Types | n/a | n/a | ||||||||||||||||
| Dead Sea - ICDP Core 5017-1 | possible | 6 | Lu et al (2020) associated a turbidite in the core to the Monaxius and Plinta Quake. CalBP is reported as 1513 +/47. This works out to a date of 437 CE with a 1σ bound of 390-484 CE. Ages come from Kitagawa et al (2017). The deposit is described as a 2.7 cm. thick turbidite (MMD). Lu et al (2020) estimated local seismic intensity of VI which they converted to Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.09 g. Dr. Yin Lu relates that "this estimate was based on previous studies of turbidites around the world (thickness vs. MMI)" ( Moernaut et al (2014). The turbidite was identified in the depocenter composite core 5017-1 (Holes A-H). | |||||||||||||||
| Dead Sea - En Feshka | possible | 7.9-8.8 |
Kagan et. al. (2011) identified
two seismites at En Feshka which might match with the
Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE.
|
|||||||||||||||
| Dead Sea - En Gedi | possible | 5.6-7 | Migowski et. al. (2004)
assigned a 419 CE date to 0.5 cm. thick seismite at a depth of 237 cm (2.37 m).
Williams et. al.(2012) varve counted part of the same
1997 GFZ/GSI core that Migowski et. al. (2004)
worked on and produced an estimate of varve count uncertainty based on distance from a well dated "anchor" earthquakes
which in this case are the Josephus Quake
of 31 BC and the Sabbatical Year Quake of 747/749 CE. These anchor quakes are
between 329 and 394 years away from the Cyril Quake of 363 CE and/or the
Monaxius and Plinta Quake
of 419 CE. Assuming a worst case scenario of 394 years, the 8% varve count error estimated by Williams et al (2012)
constrains Migowski et. al.'s (2004) 419 CE to +/-32 years - i.e. between 387 and 451 CE. Two conclusions can be drawn.
|
|||||||||||||||
| Dead Sea - Nahal Ze 'elim | possible | 8.0-8.9 (ZA-1) 8.1-8.9 (ZA-2) |
There has been an ongoing debate since the start of the millennium whether a seismite in Nahal Ze 'elim should be assigned to the southern
Cyril Quake
of 363 CE or to the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE. Ken-Tor et al. (2001a) assigned a 4 cm. thick Type 4 seismite dated to 358-580 CE (± 2σ) and labeled as Event D in Nahal Ze 'elim (ZA-1) to the 363 CE Cyril Quake Seismite as did Williams (2004). Neither Ken-Tor et al. (2001a) nor Williams (2004) were aware at the time that the Cyril Quake was a result of two earthquakes with northern and southern epicenters; just that the damage reports were so widespread that it was doubtful that one earthquake could have produced so much destruction. Considering the possibility that textual reports overstated the damage, this cast significant uncertainty in determining which date to assign to the seismite. Williams (2004) estimated that that the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE was unlikely to produce sufficient shaking to form a seismite in Nahal Ze 'elim which is why he rejected that earthquake for Event D. At the time, he was relying on Russell (1980) whose article suggested an epicenter north of the Sea of Galilee. This may not have been a good assumption. He also noted that at the time three authors (Abou Karaki, 1987, Ben-Menahem et. al, 1981, and Galli and Galadini, 2001) had placed the epicenter of the 363 CE Cyril Quake to the south in the Araba. Other authors had estimated that the epicenter was in the north due to the many northern cities listed in Cyril's letter (Brock, 1977). At ZA-2, Kagan et. al. (2011) assigned a 5 cm. thick intraclast breccia at a depth of 342 cm (Modeled Age ±1σ - 453 CE ± 67, ±2σ - 456 CE ± 86). to the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE. this appears to be the same seismite Ken-Tor (2001a) labeled as Event D at ZA-1. Kagan et al (2011) likely assigned a 419 CE date because it better fits with the modeled ages. Bookman (nee Ken-Tor) co-authored a paper in 2010 ( Leroy et. al., 2010) which maintained a 363 CE date for Event D. Because Migowski et. al. (2004) had used varve counting in the En Gedi core to assign a seismite to the 419 CE earthquake rather than the 363 CE Cyril Quake, there was doubt whether the 363 CE Cyril Quake had created seismites in the Southern Dead Sea. Because the southern Cyril Quake produced fatalities in nearby Ghor-es-Safi, Jordan (see Archeoseismic evidence for the Cyril Quake), it seems likely that the southern Cyril Quake produced a seismite in Nahal Ze 'elim however there is a significantly better radiocarbon match with the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE and thus the correct Quake assignment remains unresolved. |
|||||||||||||||
| Araba - Introduction | n/a | n/a | n/a | |||||||||||||||
| Araba - Taybeh Trench | possible | ≥ 7 | LeFevre et al. (2018) might have seen evidence for this earthquake in the Taybeh Trench (Event E3 - Modeled Age 551 AD ± 264). | |||||||||||||||
| Araba - Qatar Trench | possible | ≥ 7 | Klinger et. al. (2015) identified a seismic event (E6) in a trench near Qatar, Jordan in the Arava which they modeled between 9 BCE and 492 CE. The large spread in age caused them to consider two possible earthquakes as the cause; the Incense Road Quake between 110 CE and 114 CE and the southern Cyril Earthquake of 363 CE. They preferred the Cyril Earthquake of 363 CE based on weighing other evidence not related to their paleoseismic study and noted that further investigation was required. Although they did not consider the Monaxius and Plinta Earthquake of 419 CE as a possibility, it fits within their modeled ages. | |||||||||||||||
| Location (with hotlink) | Status | Intensity | Notes |
