Amos Quakes

See gearth for more textual references

ck ambraseys methodological and 2009 for refs

Am09 - [7] ‘. . . the posts of the temple moved when the Lord spoke . . .’ (2 Chron., XXVI. 16–17; 2 Kings XV.1–7).



Am09 - There remains the question of whether there is any evidence today for active faulting in the immediate vicinity of Old Jerusalem that can be associated with the ground deformations mentioned by Zechariah, Josephus and Nathan. Old aerial photographs of the chalky geological formations of the region show only landslides on steep slopes, but no through-going faults. A relatively large slide can be recognised on the Mount of Olives, which is located on the slope which faces west towards the Old City, the scarp of which can be seen halfway up the Mount of Olives. However, according to the Geological Survey of Israel, it is probably much more ancient than Biblical times (Wachs and Lewitte 1984; Frydman 1997). The multitude of short scarps shown on relatively recent geological maps of Jerusalem all terminate at the Kidron Valley (Gil 1996). The exception is a short northeast– southwest-running fault trace, which is shown on the Geotechnical Map of Jerusalem (Israeli 1977), which the Atlas of Israel labels Zechariah 14:4, earthquake fault. This feature extends from a point a few hundred metres south of the Jerusalem Railway Station to the west, running for more than three kilometres, to just north of al-Ayzariyah to the east, striking about N–70◦ E (Atlas of Israel 1985). The reason why this feature has been associated with Zechariah’s earthquake is not given.

Am09 - Amos’ earthquake may be dated vaguely from the line of Jewish kings chronicled in the Old Testament, which provides us with 756 or 759 BC as a terminus ante quem (Soggin 1970, 120), or perhaps earlier. Courville dates this earthquake to 751–750 BC, on the basis of the Jewish legend reported by Josephus in which the prophet Zechariah is quoted as a source indicating the severity of the earthquake. This, however, would be the correct date only if the earthquake could be associated with the judgement on Uzziah, that is, only if Josephus’ account that the earthquake occurred at the same time as Uzziah was stricken with leprosy could be proven to be true [6]. While the Zechariah quotation is suggestive, it does not specifically associate the earthquake with God’s judgement on the king, and we cannot follow either Josephus’ or Courville’s attempts at a correlation without further evidence (Courville 1971, ii, 122). For instance, Courville goes on to correlate Uzziah’s earthquake with other catastrophic events, such as, for instance, the eruption of Thera. He can do this only because he brings the Late Bronze age down to the time of Uzziah, a view that must be rejected (Crisler 2004). If Courville’s view is adopted, however, the placement of Uzziah’s earthquake at the end of Samaria II can be correlated with a wave of destructions at this stratigraphic level, destruction that is said to have affected the Holy Land and could also have been due to the invasion by the Egyptians.

Am09 - This earthquake happened probably somewhere E of Jerusalem, most likely along the Jericho fault. Apparently, the offset of the rocks across it was great enough to reveal the northward slip of the eastern side relative to the southward slip of the western side. This motion is remarkably similar to the motion observed in the 1927 Jericho earthquake, and is, of course, consistent with the N–S movement of the plates in this area’ (Nur and Ron 1996, 81). need to find Nur and Ron

ANTONOPOULOS (1979) lists a tsunami hitting Coasts of Lebanon. Sur (Tyre) with m = VI

Sources are

AMBRASEYS N., 1962 - Data for the investigation of the seismic seawaves in the Eastern Mediterranean. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., , 52, No. 4, pp. 895-913, October.

SIEBERG A., 1932 - Untersuchungen Aber Erdbeben und Bruchschollenban im Astlichen Mittelmeergebiet. Denkschriften der Medizinish-Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Jena, vol. 2, Jena.

additional archeoseismic evidence found in Tell es-Safi (Gath) by Aren Maeir. Web page for excavation project here. Academia.edu site for Aren Maeirhere.

Uziel, J., and Ortal, Chalaf (2021). "Archaeological Evidence of an Earthquake in the Capital of Judah." City of David Studies of Ancient Jerusalem.

Ain Ummal-Davaj possibly Bir Eyuh, En-Rogel

759 BC ? - Ambraseys (2009)

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353104901

759 BC ? - Ambraseys (2009)

Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93), a book written about six centuries later, refers to an earthquake that happened in the last months of King Uzziah's life, which caused a crack in the Temple at Jerusalem. Josephus adds that at a place called Enrogel, outside the city, half of the mountain in the west broke off from the rest and slid 800 m up to the mountain on the east, spoiling the king's gardens [6]. Assuming that the two authors refer to the same event, this passage in Josephus seems to suggest that in all probability Zechariah describes a landslide, perhaps triggered by an earthquake, rather than a graben formed by normal faulting.

There is a further reference to these events in Uzziah's days by Nathan ha-Bavli, who was writing in the middle of the second century AD. He does not mention the earthquake, but he says that at the time of the desecration of the temple by Uzziah the temple split open and the fissure extended for twelve 'miles' in each direction [6a].

The location of Azal is not certain, but the name may denote some place near the western extremity of the valley near Jerusalem or a hamlet on the outskirts of Jerusalem. As for the location of En-rogel, it has been suggested that it is the fountain of the Virgin, the modern Ain Umm al-Daraj. Others identify it with Bir Eyub, to the south of the Pool of Siloam, and below the junction of the valleys of Kidron and Hinnom, which seems to be a more probable location, but again this is not certain.

Fantalkin, A. and Finkelstein, I. 2006. The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th-Century BCE Earthquake: More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I– IIA. Tel Aviv 33:18–42.

Nahal Azal ? 759 BC Landslide ? Ambraseys (2009)

Executive Summary

Some have interpreted a landslide description from the Biblical accounts regarding the Amos Quake. Ambraseys (2009) discusses this possibility below; suggesting a landslide probably did not occur,

759 BC ? - Ambraseys (2009)

About three centuries later, early in the sixth century BC, Zechariah (c. 520 BC) mentions an earthquake in Judaea, again in the days of King Uzziah and probably the same event as that mentioned by Isaiah, which he says affected Jerusalem and caused the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, to split and form a valley [3]. The interpretation of this passage in Zechariah (14, 4-5), which seems to be a later fifth- or fourth-century-BC insertion, is not clear. Other versions of the same passage say that the Mount of Olives will split in two and create a valley that will reach Azel. This valley will run from east to west with half of the Mount of Olives moving to the north, away from the position it occupied, while the other half will move to the south. The valley will stop where the mountains will touch each other [3.1, 3-7].

A somewhat different reading is to be found in the Masoretic version, where, following the mention of the splitting of the Mount of Olives, it says that the valley shall reach unto Azal, as compared with the Revised Standard Version, which says instead that the valley shall be stopped up, for the valley shall touch the side of it (the mountain) [4, 5]. The source of this difference lies perhaps in the confused reading of the Hebrew words for `shall be stopped up' (ve-nistam), and 'you shall flee' (venastem). The consonants are identical, but when the diacritical points were added to the Hebrew Bible to facilitate reading, the text was apparently misunderstood and the meaning changed (see the editor's note in Wachs and Lewitte 1984). Upon adopting the latter reading as more plausible in relation to the natural phenomenon described, it is obvious that there is no other explanation than a large landslide, which may, or might not, have been triggered by this or by another earthquake. Also, Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93), a book written about six centuries later, refers to an earthquake that happened in the last months of King Uzziah's life, which caused a crack in the Temple at Jerusalem. Josephus adds that at a place called Enrogel, outside the city, half of the mountain in the west broke off from the rest and slid 800 m up to the mountain on the east, spoiling the king's gardens [6]. Assuming that the two authors refer to the same event, this passage in Josephus seems to suggest that in all probability Zechariah describes a landslide, perhaps triggered by an earthquake, rather than a graben formed by normal faulting.

There is a further reference to these events in Uzziah's days by Nathan ha-Bavli, who was writing in the middle of the second century AD. He does not mention the earthquake, but he says that at the time of the desecration of the temple by Uzziah the temple split open and the fissure extended for twelve 'miles' in each direction [6a].

The location of Azal is not certain, but the name may denote some place near the western extremity of the valley near Jerusalem or a hamlet on the outskirts of Jerusalem. As for the location of En-rogel, it has been suggested that it is the fountain of the Virgin, the modern Ain Umm al-Daraj. Others identify it with Bir Eyub, to the south of the Pool of Siloam, and below the junction of the valleys of Kidron and Hinnom, which seems to be a more probable location, but again this is not certain.

There remains the question of whether there is any evidence today for active faulting in the immediate vicinity of Old Jerusalem that can be associated with the ground deformations mentioned by Zechariah, Josephus and Nathan. Old aerial photographs of the chalky geological formations of the region show only landslides on steep slopes, but no through-going faults. A relatively large slide can be recognised on the Mount of Olives, which is located on the slope which faces west towards the Old City, the scarp of which can be seen halfway up the Mount of Olives. However, according to the Geological Survey of Israel, it is probably much more ancient than Biblical times (Wachs and Lewitte 1984; Frydman 1997). The multitude of short scarps shown on relatively recent geological maps of Jerusalem all teiminate at the Kidron Valley (Gil 1996). The exception is a short northeastsouthwest- running fault trace, which is shown on the Geotechnical Map of Jerusalem (Israeli 1977), which the Atlas of Israel labels Zechariah 14:4, earthquake fault. This feature extends from a point a few hundred metres south of the Jerusalem Railway Station to the west, running for more than three kilometres, to just north of al- Ayzariyah to the east, striking about N-70° E (Atlas of Israel1985). The reason why this feature has been associated with Zechariah's earthquake is not given. There is no direct or indirect evidence that Jerusalem was damaged, and it is interesting that the details in Josephus concerning the effects of the earthquake on the temple are not supported by earlier sources, which remain silent about damage anywhere in Judaea and Israel [7].

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353105114

Bethel

Approximate Location - Literary Evidence Only - Austin, S. A., et al. (2000)

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000)

At Bethel, Amos indicated severe damage to altars, houses, and the temple (Amos 3:14,15; 9:1). However, excavators have not located Bethel’s temple at Beitin, and they provide only a general description of damage (Kelso, 1968, p. 37, 52). This Iron Age II damage is neither precisely dated to Jeroboam II’s time, nor has it been assigned to just one earthquake.

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353102545

References

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

Gezer

aka Tel Gezer - Approximate Location - Austin et. al. (2000), Ambraseys (2009)

759 BC - Austin et. al. (2000)

Gezer was a strategic and well-fortified city in the Shephelah of Judah adjacent to the coastal plain some 30 km west northwest of Jerusalem (Fig. 1). Excavations of Iron Age construction at Gezer reveal extraordinary damage to a large section of the “Outer Wall” (Field XI) on the north side of the city. Figure 4 (center of photo) shows three courses of well-drafted ashlars that are cracked through from top to bottom, with the stones of each higher course being displaced an increasing amount northward. Figure 4 (foreground) shows a northward-leaning section of the wall with three courses of stones that have jumped up to 40 cm northward off their foundation course (Dever, 1992). The inner face of the uppermost courses of the wall fell southward into the city, further evidence for the suddenness of the wall’s collapse (Younker, 1991). Stratum VI at Gezer, which contains the earthquake debris, is terminated by the military destruction layer attributed by Dever (1993) to the city'€™s conquest by Tiglath- pileser III in his campaigns of 733-€“732 B.C. (see Fig. 3). The earthquake evidence at Gezer is dated stratigraphically to 760 B.C. ± 25 years, the year 760 being specified by Dever (1992).

Samaria was the capital of Israel at the time of the earthquake. According to Yadin et al. (1960, p. 36), traces of the middle-eighth-century earthquake were found at Samaria. However, no detailed excavation report has been published concerning this period. The biblical records indicate that Samaria received severe damage to palace-fortresses, walls, and houses (Amos 3:11; 4:3; 6:11). Pride in Israel’s royal citadel and fear of an Assyrian invasion would have been incentives for Samaria to upgrade quickly from the fallen mud brick to stronger hewn stone (Isaiah 9:9,10 [Heb. 9:8,9]).

At Bethel, Amos indicated severe damage to altars, houses, and the temple (Amos 3:14,15; 9:1). However, excavators have not located Bethel'€™s temple at Beitin, and they provide only a general description of damage (Kelso, 1968, p. 37, 52). This Iron Age II damage is neither precisely dated to Jeroboam II'€™s time, nor has it been assigned to just one earthquake.

FIG. 4. Earthquake damage at Gezer within the excavation of the Iron Age €œOuter Wall.€ View is toward the east looking down the line of the wall (Field XI, Area 20) at the northern edge of the mound. The foundation of the wall was constructed on bedrock within a trench against the Middle Bronze, steeply sloped earthen rampart (called a €œglacis€) at the extreme right. Foreground left shows three northward-tilted masonry courses which have jumped northward up to 40 cm off of their in situ bottom course. Large, well-drafted ashlars (an insert into the wall at the middle of photo) are not tilted, but have vertical cracks on three courses, and have moved northward slightly off foundation. Background middle shows further stretch of the €œOuter Wall,€ radically displaced northward from the line described by the lowest, in situ foundation blocks. Surface debris at background right includes the uppermost courses of the wall, which collapsed southward into the city. The substantial glacis in the foreground right appears to have buttressed the lower courses on the south side, so the lower portion of the wall deformed by tilting toward the north. Scale is indicated by the large, well-drafted ashlars that each have a height of about 0.5 m (photo courtesy of William G. Dever and Randy Younker).

FIG. 3. Time-stratigraphic correlation chart of Iron IIb excavations throughout an extensive region of Israel and Jordan. Datum for correlation is earthquake debris or rebuilding horizons assigned to a single, 750 B.C. seismic event. Locations of cities are shown in Figure 1. Strata names at each site are from primary archaeological reports.

Symbols:

P = pottery date
C-14 = radiocarbon date
T = dated text material
D = military destruction layer with historical date assigned
A = historically dated architectural style
E = earthquake destruction layer
E ? = probable earthquake destruction layer (significant rebuilding horizon without evidence of military conquest)

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

For Tel Gezer, 'evidence for the destruction, as other sites, can be attributed to the earthquake in Amos and Zacharia c. 760 BC' (Dever and Younker 1991, 286;Younker 1991; Dever 1992, 30).

[13] Tel Gezer
Estimated period of occurrence: 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

`According to Macalister, a number of ashlar towers had been inserted into the Late Bronze Age Outer Wall by Solomonic engineers. In order to test this claim it was decided to locate his "Tower VII" (situated immediately north of the "Egyptian Governor's Residency", according to Macalister's plan) and open two soundings€” one against each of the inner and outer faces of the "tower" €” in order to determine if indeed the "towers" were constructed in the manner and at the time Macalister claimed (see Plates 4, 6, and 19). After clearing off the top of the Outer Wall, however, it was discovered that Macalister's "Tower VII" was not a tower at all, but rather an offset that was similar to what he found further west in his trenches 22-29, a stretch of wall which he described as "rebuilt". Macalister had apparently found the same corner as our team and had simply drawn in the other three corners on his plan.

Excavation against the inner face of the "tower" reached bedrock in just over a meter (Plate 14). A foundation trench, which showed up clearly in the eastern balk, indicated that the offset was initially constructed in the 8th century B.C. Later, during the Hellenistic period, a second trench had been dug into the earlier one, suggesting that at least part of the wall was rebuilt during this period. Indeed, the ashlars in the upper two or three courses of the wall were poorly laid. They were uneven and not in the header— stretcher fashion. Thus they were probably reused from the earlier Iron Age construction.

The fact that the earliest architectural phase of the offset dated no earlier than the 8th century B.C. would seem to raise doubts about the claims of those who have argued for an earlier dating of the Outer Wall. However, excavation along the outer face of "Tower VII" revealed at least nine courses (ca. 5 m.) of excellent header—stretcher masonry. Although bedrock could not be reached in this sounding, the pottery from the lowest level of fills against the outer face consisted of red-slipped 10th century B.C. wares.

Above these 10th century fills (which were more than 2 m. thick) were at least two plastered surfaces which ran up against the wall face. The debris on these surfaces included fallen ashlar blocks in a bricky fill containing 8th century B.C. sherds. The debris layers may be evidence of both an earlier 8th century earthquake (see below) and a later 8th century B.C. Assyrian destruction (Plate 15). The latter was followed much later by a hasty repair and rebuild, probably during the Maccabean period (2nd century B.C.). Thus, based on the results of the excavation along the outer face of "Tower VII", it appears that the Outer Wall was originally constructed at least by the 10th century B.C., and probably earlier. The discoveries in Square 22 to the east (see below) even suggest the possibility of an initial construction in the LB II. Engineers of the Iron 11 and Hellenistic periods apparently found it necessary to repair isolated sections of the inner face (which rested on the top of an escarpment), thus leading to the discrepancy between the dates for the construction of the inner and outer faces of the Outer Wall.

Macalister's Tower VI

In the hope of finding a genuine Solomonic tower inserted into a Late Bronze Age wall, it was decided to move east and attempt to locate Macalister's "Tower VI". According to Macalister's top plan, Tower VI was located between 25 m. and 30 m. east of Tower VII (Plate 19). Using the bulldozer to clear away Macalister dump and post-Macalister debris accumulation (which included some 1947 Jordanian army trenches), it was not long before an ashlar block of what appeared to be the southwest corner of Macalister's Outer Wall Tower VI was uncovered. Unfortunately, excavations indicated that this "tower" was also only an offset (Plate 16). However, the pottery from the foundation trench indicated that the earliest phase of this stretch of the Outer Wall was founded probably during the 10th century B.C. Two additional pieces of evidence also support a 10th century B.C. dating. First, a stone of the lowest course of the inner face of the Outer Wall is roughly bossed in a fashion typical of foundation ashlars of the 10th century. Second, this lowest course is clearly cut by the later "tower" or offset, indicating that this stretch of the wall preceded the construction of the "tower". Since in the "inserted tower" dated to the 9th to th century B.C. (seebelow), the wall must be dated earlier. While this second line of evidence is not sufficient by itself to provide a 10th century date, the bossed ashlar and the 10th century trench combine to make a 10th century B.C. date for this section of the wall most probable.

Sometime during the 9th/8th century B.C. the upper courses of the Outer Wall were remodelled with large ashlars to create an offset. The ashlar offset was "inserted" more than a meter into the10th century B.C. wall line. The 9`h /8`h /o century ashlar inserts and wall appear to have been destroyed sometime during the 8th century B.C. Several lines of evidence suggest that the agent of destruction was an earthquake. For one thing, several sections of the Outer Wall had been clearly displaced from their foundations by as much as 10 to 40 cm. Furthermore, these wall sections were all severely tilted outward toward the north. That this tilting was not due to slow subsidence over a long period of time was evident from the fact that intact sections of upper courses of the inner face of the wall had fallen backwards into the city. Only a very rapid outward tilting of the wall, such as that caused by an earthquake, could cause these upper stones to roll off backwards, away from the tilt. If the wall's outward tilt had occurred slowly, the stones on the top of the wall should have fallen off toward the downward-sloping outer face of the wall.

The southwest corner of the ashlar insert had been similarly displaced from its foundational cornerstone, although to a lesser degree because of the greater stability of the ashlar construction. However, even the cornerstone had been split longitudinally because of the great pressure created by the lateral movement of the upper courses. This same tremendous pressure also created fissures in the ashlar stones that penetrated through several courses. The reason the foundation stones were not themselves dislodged to any significant degree is probably due to the fact that they were set into levelled out depressions cut directly into the bedrock.

.Evidence for an 8th century B.C. earthquake has been discovered at several other sites, such as Hazor. It is not impossible that the wall was destroyed by the wellknown earthquake of Amos 1 and Zech 14:5 (ca. 760 B. C.)' (Younker 1991).

`Here, too, the "tower" we expected to find (Macalister's "tower VI") turned out to be simply an offset portion of ashlar masonry (Fig. 1). This later wall, dated by eighthcentury B.C.E. sherds in the secondary back-filled trench, was probably destroyed by the well-known earthquake of Amos 1 and Zech. 14:5, c. 760 B.C. E. Not only was the ashlar "tower" cracked from top to bottom and the adjoining boulders violently thrown off their foundations, but a long stretch of the wall to the east was tilted sharply outward in one piece (Fig. 2). Preliminary research indicated that the Gezer—Ramla region has been subject to repeated earthquake damage in historical timesi an earthquake hypothesis, therefore, seems plausible' (Dever and Younker 1991, 286).

`While the two Iron Age phases in the "Outer Wall" were so crystal clear in the sections that they constituted a "textbook" example of stratigraphy, of more interest was the evidence they preserved of an earthquake destruction of the second, 9th/8th century BCE phase. The evidence was twofold. (1) First, all three courses of the large rectangular blocks just at the "tower" offset were cracked clear through, from top to bottom, the heavy stones still approximately in place but with a large open gap running from top to bottom (Ill. 3). (2) Second, immediately to the west of the "tower" offset, the foundation course (here of marginally drafted ashlars) was still in situ; but the upper two courses of rougher boulders were found radically displaced upward and outward, but still lying in a row — as though they had violently "jumped" off their foundations (Ill. 4).

Now it seems evident that such severe damage cannot have resulted simply from the usual siege tactics carried out at ancient walled Palestinian towns. There was none of the typical evidence of burning: no calcinated stones; no trace of undermining and collapse; no evidence of battering or forcing of the wall inward. On the contrary, the wall had fallen suddenly outward, "split apart" violently. For some time I resisted the suggestions of various staff members that perhaps an earthquake was the best explanation. And certainly I €” not identifying with traditional "biblical archaeology" — did not have the earthquake of Amos or Zachariah in mind, despite the 9th/8th century BCE date for the wall that we had posited on quite independent archaeological grounds. Nor at the moment did I recall Yadin's earthquake hypothesis at Hazor. Yet, in the end, the evidence seemed overwhelming. Several of our group from California, including Associate Director Randy Younker, had personally seen just such earthquake damage, even to the fact that random areas of the wall had been affected, and this seemed to provide the confirmation that we needed.

A final probe still farther east, in Area 20, yielded further evidence. Here we cleared a stretch of the same wall for some 15 m. At first, our efforts to trace the wall eastward failed. Because we were following the projected tine from the "tower" offset on a straight course and had found no stones, we supposed that the top course was robbed out. To our surprise, we later discovered what was clearly the line of the top course curving radically, a long section bowed outward yet still intact. Furthermore, the tops of the whole line of stones were tilted outward at an angle of ca. 10-15 degrees (Ill. 4). One could, I suppose, argue that here we are dealing simply with subsidence, perhaps because the bedrock dipped downward at this point (as indeed it did). A more reasonable explanation, however, would seem to be an earthquake that displaced the whole section bodily, especially as the foundations were already weak. Certainly a battering ram, or the work of sappers, could not have produced such a peculiar phenomenon as this whole stretch of wall tipped outward. It does indeed resemble rather closely one of Schaeffer's toppled walls at Ugarit' (Dever 1992, 30).

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=343100790

Iraq al Amir

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

(Butler 1907, 13 = 760?)

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353101291

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesKeyword.php

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Khirbet al Asiq

aka En Gev - Location guessed - Ambraseys (2009)

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

[20] Khirbet al Asiq (En Gev) (Dever 1992, 34 n. 10 = n.d.).

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353101291

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesKeyword.php

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353202562

En Gev is shown as being under water

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353202763

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Khirbet Magari

approx. location, Karcz, Kafri, and Meshel (1977)

approximate location based on map of Karcz, Kafri, and Meshel (1977)

7th - 8th century BC - Karcz, Kafri, and Meshel (1977)

Violent destruction, collapse

References

11 Encyclopaedia of Archeological Excavations in Eretz Israel, Hebrew edn, 2 vol (Massada, Jerusalem, 1970).
12 Encyclopaedia of Archeological Excavations in Eretz Israel, English edn (updated), vol 1 and 2 (from 4) (Massada, Jersualem, 1975).

References

Karcz, I., et al. (1977). "Archaeological evidence for Subrecent seismic activity along the Dead Sea-Jordan Rift." Nature 269(5625): 234-235.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242863909_Archaeological_evidence_for_Subrecent_seismic_activity_along_the_Dead_Sea-Jordan_Rift
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v269/n5625/abs/269234a0.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/269234a0
https://www.academia.edu/4321286/Archaeological_evidence_for_Subrecent_seismic_activity_along_the_Dead_Sea-Jordan_Rift

Samaria

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000)

759 BC Austin, S. A., et al. (2000)

Samaria was the capital of Israel at the time of the earthquake. According to Yadin et al. (1960, p. 36), traces of the middle-eighth-century earthquake were found at Samaria. However, no detailed excavation report has been published concerning this period. The biblical records indicate that Samaria received severe damage to palace-fortresses, walls, and houses (Amos 3:11; 4:3; 6:11). Pride in Israel’s royal citadel and fear of an Assyrian invasion would have been incentives for Samaria to upgrade quickly from the fallen mud brick to stronger hewn stone (Isaiah 9:9,10 [Heb. 9:8,9]).

Location Info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria_%28ancient_city%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353205053

References

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00206810009465104#

Tell Deir Alla

Ambraseys (2009), Austin et. al. (2000), Ferry et. al. (2011)





700–800 B.C. - possibly the Amos Earthquake - Ferry et. al. (2011)

Archeological Period - Eighth century B.C.
Date of Event (inferred) - 700–800 B.C.
Proposed Cause of Destruction - Earthquake, fire
Probability of an Earthquake - not reported
Site - Deir ’Alla

Description form Archeological Source

“Phase M was destroyed by earthquake and fire.” (Franken (1989) p.204)

759 BC - Austin et. al. (2000)

Deir €˜Alla was an Iron Age city located near the confluence of the Jabbok River with the Jordan River (Fig. 1). Architecture was primarily mud bricks on a foundation of Quaternary alluvium. Therefore, the constructions were very susceptible to earthquake damage. Cracked foundations and fallen walls characterize phase IX (also called phase M) at Deir €˜Alla (Ibrahim and van der Kooij, 1977– 1978, 1979). Walls constructed of mud bricks tended to fall in a southerly direction (Lemaire, 1985). The suddenness of the collapse is most vividly indicated by the extraordinary preservation of an ink-on-plaster inscription that was excavated from beneath the debris of one fallen wall. This famous inscription is called the €œBalaam Text€ and, ironically, foretells a cosmic disaster (Lemaire, 1985).

Deir €˜Alla phase IX (= phase M) is dated by radiocarbon and ceramic evidence (Fig. 3). Carbon date GrN-14260 on grain and leaf material beneath earthquake rubble gave 2630 ± 50 years B.P. (van der Kooij, 1993), which calibrates to 800 ± 50 B.C. (Stuiver and Becker, 1993). The €œBalaam Text shows signs of wear, indicating that it stood for many years before being buried by an earthquake. One paleographer dates the inscription to the middle of the eighth century, or even a decade or two earlier than that (Naveh, 1967). The pottery analysis suggests that phase IX ended ~770 B.C. (Ibrahim and van der Kooij, 1977–1978, 1991; Vilders, 1992). This is consistent with an earthquake dated at 770 B.C. ± 25 years.

FIG. 3. Time-stratigraphic correlation chart of Iron IIb excavations throughout an extensive region of Israel and Jordan. Datum for correlation is earthquake debris or rebuilding horizons assigned to a single, 750 B.C. seismic event. Locations of cities are shown in Figure 1. Strata names at each site are from primary archaeological reports.

Symbols:

P = pottery date
C-14 = radiocarbon date
T = dated text material
D = military destruction layer with historical date assigned
A = historically dated architectural style
E = earthquake destruction layer
E ? = probable earthquake destruction layer (significant rebuilding horizon without evidence of military conquest)

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

For Tell Deir Alla the excavators say that 'Indeed, the earthquake that destroyed level M/IX could well be the one mentioned in Amos, dated about 760 BC' (Dever 1992, 35, n. 10; Lemaire 1997, 139 = 750; Knauf 2002).

[17] Tell Deir Alla
Estimated period of occurrence: 800-750 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

`I have already mentioned that the site was shaken by earthquake round 1200 B.C. The destruction of the buildings of Phase M, the phase to which the Aramaic text belongs, was also caused by an earthquake. Deir Alla has suffered more earthquakes, not only during the time of habitation but also afterwards. These earthquakes and tremors caused vertical cracks which in the excavated area run mostly in east—west direction. When tracing the frequency of these cracks along a north—south line we find at least one every twenty cms. The tell is thus cut into vertical slices and these slices may have sunken for instance from a few cms. to several cms. and sometimes shifted sideways, whereas most of them apparently under the pressure from higher parts of the tell are inclined to lean out to the north. Expressed in geological terms we have found, be it in miniature size normal faults and even pivot faults. Cracks reaching the present surface must have been caused after the tell had reached that height and cannot therefore be dated to the stratigraphy ... Moreover, unless all the cracks that run through the deposits overlying Phase M and their exact position had been recorded, we would not be able to say whether any cracks seen in Phase L stop at the floor levels of Phase M. However we had several other indications. We have recorded cracks and shifts of material that run through the ruined buildings but stop at the point where erosion began to level off the debris. These were caused by a second shock which followed the first one after the buildings collapsed and the fire caused by the earthquake had burned itself out. I shall have to refer to the second shock in relation to the position of the text.

However, the first shock was also recorded. There is a long crack about 10 cms. wide running through the deposits of a little lane which formed during Phase M and is almost 60 cms. high. This crack is closed further to the east but here a horizontal shift could be seen because the crack runs lengthwise through the low stump of a mud brick wall. The clay mortar between the bricks on both sides of the crack does not fit together any longer. The horizontal shift was about 10 ems. Such cracks have not only been recorded on paper but also on "pull offs", a method used in agriculture to take a thin slice of earth to the laboratory (Franken 1965b), in order to keep an authentic record of the accumulation of deposits. The slice is thick enough to make samples from it for microscopic analysis. Incidentally horizontal shifts of more than 30 ems. were recorded. It was the second shock which brought the preserved fragments of the Aramaic text down from their support' (Franken 1976, 7-8).

`We have seen that Phase M consists of traces of a situation that must have existed one day in the past when an earthquake hit the site and traces of the impact of the first and the second earthquake shock. We must now consider the value of the interpretation of Phase M as a sanctuary. The earthquake has nothing to do with this interpretation, but had it not been for the earthquake the text might not have been preserved. Also thanks to the earthquake many objects were found which otherwise might have disappeared for ever. The plan of the buildings has to be partly hypothetically reconstructed since some walls were dislocated at floor level leaving barely any traces of where they stood before the destruction. Also a number of objects like the text were knocked about when the shocks hit the site. In contrast to two earlier earthquake phases we did not find human victims in the ruins. This may indicate that the disaster took place during daylight but it seems more likely that the destruction happened at night when there was nobody in these rooms. Somewhere there was a fire burning in a breadoven or otherwise, because the first shock was followed by a conflagration, wooden objects burned away like the looms, of which we found the clay weights in several rooms, and charred beams which may also partly have belonged to other wooden furniture. But what was left, the less perishable objects, was found and reconstructed as far as possible' (Franken 1976, 12).

'Pl. 16a shows the plan of four rooms. On this plan the entrance to room GG205 from the south is located between walls BB 320 and BB 427. When found this entrance was blocked by a wall fragment. The blockage may have been caused by the earthquake. In the corner formed by wall BB 320 and the blocked doorway eighteen burned clay loom weights were found lying on the floor. Eighty cms. north of the corner and lying against wall BB 320 inside room GG 205 three remarkable objects were found [in the debris on the floor: the inscribed stone, a goblet on a 18]

high foot with a spout (R. no. 1990) and an outsize loom weight (R. no. 2006). A large piece of charred wood lay beside these objects in front of the passage between rooms GG 205 and GG 102. The goblet (pl. 16b) was only slightly damaged near the rim; the stone and loom weight were com- plete . (Franken 1976, 15).

`This phase IX is the same as phase M in previous countings. Much of it had been excavated in 1967 in an area of c. 25 x 25 m NW of the trenches dug during the last three seasons. Much of the architecture had been revealed, and some of it has been published preliminarily in J. Hoftijzer, G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla, Leiden, 1976, (Pls. 16-19) and in A.D.A.J. op. cit. 1978, p. 64, fig. 6 (square B/C5). During this season excavations of phase M were done in one square only, namely in B/C6, to the E of B/C5, labeled EE 400 and EE 300 respectively in 1967. In 1967 it became clear that all the phase M architecture excavated had been destroyed by earthshock and fire. The room found in B/C6 was destroyed by fire too.

The walls are partly still standing up to 1.25 m high, and the room is found filled with burnt roof and wall debris. For a plan of the walls combined with those of B/C5 see plan drawing (fig. 5). The height of the debris (deposits 61 and 63) is shown on (Pl. XX, 2) where the floor is visible as well as the E most part of the burnt debris. Note also the lower course of mudbricks 57 going N-S at the top of the photograph. To the left is a doorway with a quern at the threshold. See also (Pl. XXI, 1) for a photograph of one stage in the removal of the debris inside the roorn. In the NW corner the floor of the room is visible. An especially interesting feature is the antler found as fallen almost directly on the floor of the room (Pl. XXI, 2). Some of the artifacts found may be mentioned here. Plates (XXVIII, 2- XXIX, 2) show some of the pottery found. A sealed jar handle (see Pl. XXX, 1). A shard with graffiti writing and drawing (PL XXX, 2). Phase IX probably has to be dated in the 8th century B.C. (PL XXXI)' (Ibrahim and Kooij 1979, 48-50).

`The empirical evidence at Deir Alla, dated to the mid-8th century BE, perhaps by the famous "Balaam Inscription", is stronger' (Dever 1992, 35 n. 10). `The details of their language [of the texts], restoration, script, reading, and interpretation are still under discussion; however, following a preliminary palaeographic dating to the Persian period, and then in the editio princeps to about 700 BCE (Hoftijzer and Kooij, 1976), most commentators now agree that the palaeography fits the dating of the archaeological context: about 800 BCE (Hoftijzer and Kooij, 1991) or the first half of the eighth century BCE. Indeed, the earthquake that destroyed level M/IX at Deir Alla could well be the one mentioned in Amos 1:1 (cf. Also 4:11, 6:8-11, 8:8, and 9:1; and Zee. 14:5), dated to about 760 BCE' (Lemaire 1997, 139).

1150–1100 B.C. - Ferry et. al. (2011)

Archeological Period - Early twelfth century B.C.
Date of Event (inferred) - 1150–1100 B.C.
Proposed Cause of Destruction - Earthquake
Probability of an Earthquake - not reported
Site - Deir ’Alla

Description form Archeological Source

“There is little doubt that the entire complex was destroyed early in the 12th c. BC and that an earthquake caused the destruction.” (Franken (1989) p.203)

1200–1100 B.C. - Ferry et. al. (2011)

Archeological Period - Late first Iron Age
Date of Event (inferred) - 1200–1100 B.C.
Proposed Cause of Destruction - Earthquake, fire
Probability of an Earthquake - not reported
Indication of Surface Rupture - Yes
Site - Deir ’Alla

Description form Archeological Source

“This period ended again with an earthquake and a victim was found completely squashed in a crack in the earth.” (Franken (1989) p.203)

Location Info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Alla

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353200267

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00206810009465104#

Ferry, M., et al. (2011). "Episodic Behavior of the Jordan Valley Section of the Dead Sea Fault Inferred from a 14-ka-Long Integrated Catalog of Large Earthquakes." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(1): 39-67.

http://www.bssaonline.org/content/101/1/39.abstract

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215605122_Episodic_behavior_of_the_Jordan_Valley_section_of_the_Dead_Sea_fault_from_a_14-kyr-long_integrated_catalogue_of_large_earthquakes

Franken, H. J. (1989). Deir' Alla (Tell) in Archaeology of Jordan, Vol. III.- II2. Field Reports, Surveys and Sites, D. Homès-Fredericq and J. Hennessy (eds), Peeters, Leuven, Belgium.

Steiner, M. L. (2019). "Iron Age Cultic Sites in Transjordan." Religions 10(3): 145. - see pages 3-4 brief discussion of arcaheoseismic evidence at Deir Alla

Tell el Hauma

aka Tel el Hama aka Hauma - Ambraseys (2009)

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

18]Tell al Hama(Mazar 1993, 208 -= ?).

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353100377

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Tel Mevorakh

Ambraseys (2009)

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

21] Tel Mevorakh (Mazar 1993, 298 = ?).

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=343200074

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Tel Michal

Ambraseys (2009)

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

[14] Tel Michal (Mazar 1993, 298 = ?).

Location Info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Michal

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Tel Qasile

Ambraseys (2009)

1100-1050 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

For Tell Qasile, which is included in the list of sites damaged by the earthquake of 760 BC, archaeological evidence suggests that the site was damaged during the period 1100-1050 BC (Dothan and Dunayevsky 1993; Mazar 1993, 298; Stern 1993).

[15] Tell Qasile
Estimated period of occurrence: Stratum XI of Tel Qasile belongs to the phase Iron Age IB (= first half of the eleventh century BC).

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

`Stratum XI was completely cleared in the southern part of the mound, where a large building, built mostly of kurkar stones, was found. The structure's plan was not fully traced. East of it was a large square, and nearby were two clay crucibles containing remains of smelted copper. In the northern sector of the mound, the buildings in this stratum were destroyed down to their foundations when the stratum X buildings were erected. The nature of the ruins indicates that the settlement was destroyed by an earthquake. The fortifications in Area B include a massive brick wall (c. 5 m thick) in stratum XI. No architectural continuity was noted between strata XII and XI. The latter was laid out on a different plan and a new wall was added. It was possible to distinguish clearly between the different Iron Age I strata (XII—X) at Tell Qasile; thus, separate and well-defined pottery assemblages could be established. Changes and developments can be traced in the ordinary local pottery, in which the Canaanite pottery tradition continues, as well as in the Philistine ware. The stratum XII Philistine pottery includes bowls, kraters, jugs with strainer spouts, and stirrup jars. The pottery contains several distinctive features that date it tb the early phase of its appearance in Israel: thick white slip and bichrome decoration on some of the vessels with narrow, close-set lines, similar to the Mycenaean "close style"; the bird motif is limited to stratum XII (only one example was found in stratum XI). The ceramic assemblage of stratum XI is similar to that of stratum XII. However, a change is discernible in the Philistine pottery: there is a deterioration in ornamentation, and monochrome decorations become more frequent. Other finds in this stratum include bronze arrowheads, a bone graver, spindle whorls, flint sickle blades, numerous loom weights, and various stone objects, such as grindstones and mortars. Iron objects were not found in Area A in strata XII and XI' (Dothan and Dunayevsky 1993).

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=343200210

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Tel Abu Hawam

Approximate Location - Not 759 BC but 1125-1050 BC instead- Ambraseys (2009)

Not 759 BC but 1125-1050 BC instead - Ambraseys (2009)

Tell Abu Hawam was damaged between 1125-1050 BC (Balensi 1980, 586;Warren and Hankey 1989, 161).

[23] Tell Abu Hawam

Estimated period of occurrence: 1126-1050 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

`Stratum IVA (dates) from c. 1125 to c. 1050 B.C. This city was violently destroyed, possibly by earthquake' (Warren and Hankey 1989, 161).

Location Info

Bat Galim in Haifa was built in the same spot as Tel Abu Hawam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Abu_Hawam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Galim

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Tell Arad

Ambraseys (2009)

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

An earthquake during the reign of Uzziah in 760 or 750 BC' (Herzog and Singer 2002, 96-98; Singer-Avitz 2002, 162)

[10] Tel Arad
Estimated period of occurrence: c. 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

`At Arad, a new fortress was erected that only partially used the previous casemate wall. A solid wall surrounded by a glacis protected the fortress of Stratum X A new imposing gate and an elaborate water system were constructed in this phase. As shown above, the temple, too, was first erected in this stratum. At Tel Beersheba, Strata V and IV cover the period equivalent to that of Stratum XI at Tel Arad .. . Tentatively this development might be associated with a severe earthquake dated to c. 760 BCE, based on biblical references (Dever 1992). A strong earthquake in the southern part of the Judean Kingdom might explain the total destruction of the upper parts of the fortification systems at Tel Arad XI and Beersheba IV and the need to rebuild them in Strata X and III, respectively.

The pottery assemblage of Stratum X at Tel Arad is remarkably different from that of Stratum XI and exhibits new forms that display similarity to the assemblages known from the destruction layers of the end of the 8th century (Aharoni and Aharoni 1970). The time span of the three strata was apparently fairly short. Attributing the destruction of the fortress of Stratum XI to the earthquake of ca. 760 BCE, the construction of the Stratum X fortress may be dated to 750 BCE. The circumstances of the destruction of the Stratum X fortress and its reconstruction in Stratum IX are unclear' (Herzog 2002, 97-98).

`As stated above, the material culture of Stratum XI resembles that of Lachish Level IV. The excavators attribute the destruction of Level IV at Lachish to an earthquake during the reign of Uzziah in 760 or 750 BCE, so that this date may mark the end of Stratum XI at Arad and the establishment of Stratum X. If we accept this view, then Stratum XI existed for a lengthy period, approximately 150 years' (Singer-Avitz 2002, 162).

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353102530

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Be'er Sheva'

Approximate Location - Austin et. al. (2000), Ambraseys (2009)

759 BC - Austin et. al. (2000)

Tel Sheva, identified by some as biblical Beersheva, shows signs of earthquake destruction in the Stratum III. This destruction was dated by the excavator to the middle of the eighth century B.C. (Aharoni, 1973, p. 107).

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

[9] Tel Beersheba (Tel Sheva)
Estimated period of occurrence: 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

. . and Beersheva depends largely upon the opinion of Aharoni, thus far unsupported by an adequate publication, see Y. Aharoni et al., Beer-Sheba I. Excavations at Tell Beer-Sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons (Tel Aviv 1973) 107.' (Dever 1992, 35* n. 10).

`At Tel Beersheba, Strata V and IV cover the period equivalent to that of Stratum XI at Tel Arad. The plan of Stratum III at Tel Beersheba is, again, drastically different from that of Stratum IV. The former solid city wall and city gate were completely razed, and a new fortification system was constructed. We subscribe to the "low chronology", these changes may not be attributed to Shishak's raid or to the division of the alleged United Monarchy. If so, what generated such a cultural shift? Since typological modification runs parallel to drastic changes in the design of settlements, as observed at Tel Beersheba and Lachish, they should be related to significant events. Tentatively this development might be associated with a severe earthquake dated to c. 760 BCE, based on biblical references (Dever 1992). A strong earthquake in the southern part of the Judean Kingdom might explain the total destruction of the upper parts of the fortification systems at Tel Arad XI and Beersheba IV and the need to rebuild them in Strata X and III, respectively' (Herzog 2002, 97-98).

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=343100771

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=343200103

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00206810009465104#

Yadin, Y. and S. Angress (1960). Hazor II: an account of the second season of excavations, 1956, Magnes Press, Hebrew University.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Hazor_II.html?id=C-EMAQAAMAAJ

Tell Erany

Approximate Location - Austin et. al. (2000)

759 BC - Austin et. al. (2000)

Excavations at Tel €˜Erany indicate a mid-eighth century earthquake in Stratum VI of the acropolis (Yeivin, 1979, p. 168). Unfortunately, a final report has not been published.

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=343100170

References

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00206810009465104#

Tell Hazor

Approximate Location - Austin et. al. (2000), Ambraseys (2009), Ben-Menahem (1991), Karcz, Kafri, and Meshel (1977), Danzig (2011)

759 BC - Austin et. al. (2000)

FIG. 2. Southward-leaning wall within Hazor Stratum VI (Area A, Locus 113). Many walls within Stratum VI that did not collapse show significant tilt southward. The rod was oriented to vertical using the plumb line. Thickness of the wall is ~1 m (from Yadin et al., 1960, plate IX).

Hazor, the largest Israelite city during the Iron Age, was located 14 km north of the Sea of Galilee (Fig. 1). Archaeological excavations at Hazor revealed graphic evidence of earthquake destruction within Stratum VI throughout Area A (Yadin et al., 1958, 1960, 1961). Walls tilted or fell in a southerly or easterly direction, roofs collapsed, and pillars inclined. The €œHouse of Makhbiram€ was excavated with collapsed walls (Yadin et. al., 1960, p. 19-29, 36). The building called €œYa€™el'€™s House€ was excavated, with objects of daily use found beneath the collapsed ceiling. Southward-leaning walls were common near the house (Fig. 2) and characterize the orientation of the collapse debris generally. Sixteen short pillars in the adjacent courtyard were each excavated in standing position but tilted significantly from vertical (Yadin, 1975, p. 152, 153). Renewed excavations within Hazor'€™s Stratum VI by Ammon Ben-Tor unearthed further evidence of seismic destruction (Dever, 1992). The stratigraphy of the late Iron Age in Israel is summarized in Figure 3. Hazor'€™s Stratum VI, which is terminated by debris from the severe earthquake, contains superior masonry buildings, providing evidence of prosperous economic conditions in the kingdom of Israel associated with Jeroboam II’s northward expansion of ~760 B.C. into Syria (2 Kings 14:25; Yadin, 1975; Finkelstein, 1999). Stratum V, which overlies Stratum VI, contains destruction debris and a charcoal horizon marking the end of Hazor as a fortified city upon the conquest of northern Israel by Tiglath-pileser III, the king of Assyria, in 732 B.C. (2 Kings 15:29; Yadin, 1975; Tadmor, 1994; Finkelstein, 1999). Thus, a strong argument can be made for dating Hazor'€™s earthquake to 760 B.C. ± 20 years, the year 760 being specified by Yadin (1975) and Finkelstein (1999) from their stratigraphic analysis of the destruction debris.

FIG. 3. Time-stratigraphic correlation chart of Iron IIb excavations throughout an extensive region of Israel and Jordan. Datum for correlation is earthquake debris or rebuilding horizons assigned to a single, 750 B.C. seismic event. Locations of cities are shown in Figure 1. Strata names at each site are from primary archaeological reports.

Symbols:

P = pottery date
C-14 = radiocarbon date
T = dated text material
D = military destruction layer with historical date assigned
A = historically dated architectural style
E = earthquake destruction layer
E ? = probable earthquake destruction layer (significant rebuilding horizon without evidence of military conquest)

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

for Tel Hazor 'The damage is likely to be due to the well-known earthquake mentioned by Amos' (Yadin 1972, 113, 181; Dever 1992, 28; Knauf 2002).

Tel Hazor

Estimated period of occurrence: 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

`Stratum VI was found to have been destroyed by a violent earthquake which could be associated with the one mentioned in Zechariah (14:5) and Amos (1:4) in the days of King Uzziah, c. 760 B.C.' (Yadin 1972, 11).

`Stratum VI, Area A, Building 2a. The house was severely damaged by an earthquake; all the walls and pillars were tilted southwards. In all the rooms, as well as in the western part of the court, huge blocks of ceiling plaster were found sealed off by the floors of Stratum V, which were built 1.5 m. above the floors of Stratum VI. The reason for this is that, although the walls of Stratum VI were still standing after the earthquake, they were so tilted that only their tops could be used, and even those only as a base for the new foundations. The earthquake which destroyed Stratum VI seems to be the one referred to in the Bible, which occurred during the reign of King Uzziah (c. 760 B.C.)' (Yadin 1972, 181).

`Area A, Stratum VI, Building 2a.

Due to the excellent construction of building 2a, we can trace in it the effects of the earthquake which destroyed Stratum VI better than anywhere else in the excavation area. Its strongly-built walls remained standing to a considerable height, but the earthquake is evidenced by their tilt southwards, particularly that of the three pillars (Pl. XXV, 2). In all the rooms and in the northern part of the courtyard, we came upon great quantities of debris comprising lumps of plaster from the collapsed ceilings (Pl. XXVII, 1, 4), resembling those that we found in storeroom 148 in 1956 (Hazor p. 23)' (Bent-Tor 1989, 41-44).

`A later, more modest effort to utilize seismic chronology was that of the late Yigael Yadin, who saw the destruction of Hazor VI (Area A) as dramatic evidence of the earthquake of ca. 760 BCE, citing the biblical texts mentioned above. Despite the clear evidence of several displaced walls and cracked surfaces at Hazor, Yadin's earthquake hypothesis does not seem to have attracted much attention. This was possibly because of the author's well known predilection towards using biblical texts to explain or corroborate archaeological phenomena — a style of "biblical archaeology" that Yadin popularized with enviable success, but one that left some of his professional colleagues skeptical. Nevertheless, when the Hazor excavations were resumed in 1990 under the direction of Amnon Ben-Tor, further evidence of a Stratum VI earthquake came to light, especially in a street and drain in Area A that seemed simply to have split down the centre — difficult to explain by any other hypothesis. And since Stratum VI dates to the early 8th century BCE on independent grounds (as one may maintain, with Yadin), the well known earthquake of ca. 760 BCE seems a likely candidate' (Dever 1992, 28).

`The destruction of Phase H5a [in Megiddo] should probably be attributed to the earthquake in the time of Jeroboam II, mentioned in Amos 1:1 and archtleologically also attested at Hazor and Tell Deir Alla. . (Knauf 2002).

759 BC - Ben-Menahem(1991)

Fig. 7: Tilting toward the south of a northern wall at Hazor, caused by the earthquake of 759 B.C.E. The direction of tilt of the shown wall and others in the same site reveal that the causative fault was to the NE of Hazor.



Fig. 8: Azimutal horizontal shear (SH) acceleration in the near field of the 111 = 7.3 earthquake of 759 B.C.E. Northern walls at Hazor tilted southward, while western walls tilted eastward [ Yadin et al., 1959], in accord with a left-hand strike slip fault, circa 20 km, NE of the city.

5.4.3. 759 B.C.E. Felt throughout Israel, Egypt and Mesopotamia, Af 1200 km. According to the Bible, Josephus, the Talmudic literature and the late archeological findings at Hazor and Sebastia, the epicenter seems to be east of Hazor, approximately at 33.0° 35.5° E.

Year of occurrence is likely to be 759 B.C.E., in which King Uziah abdicated the throne in favor of his son Yotam [Cassuto, 1976; Josephus; II Chr. 26]. The date of this earthquake is linked to the eclipse of the Sun on June 15, 763 B.C.E. (Julian Day 1,442,902.8392, or Monday, Sivan 30, 2998, of the Jewish Calendar [see Kudlek and Mickler, 1971; Chambers, 1904, Thompson, 1900; Oppolzer, 1887; Fotheringham, 1920]). The eclipse was partial in Jerusalem (maximal magnitude 0.91). Evidence for the proximity of the earthquake and the eclipse is found in Amos 8: 8-9; Zech. 14: 4-7, and Jer. 4: 24.

The location of the causative fault can be estimated from the oriented tilt of the walls in stratum 6 at Hazor (Figure 6), a detail of which is shown in Figure 7. According to the report of the excavating archeologists [Yadin et al., 1959], northern walls were tilted southward, while western walls tilted eastward. Figure 8 shows that these orientations are consistent with the effect of a near field horizontal shear acceleration coming to Hazor from the north east. This is consistent with modern ideas that structures in the near-field of a major earthquake are mostly affected by SH body waves and the fundamental Love mode.

Day of occurrence, according to II Chron.26 and Josephus, is likely to be on the eve of the Tabernacle holiday, 14 Tishrei, 3003, which is October 759 B.C.E. There was great destruction in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Intensity at Jerusalem (A = 135 km) estimated as MM 8; Io = 11; big earth slips in the Kidron Valley, destruction of Razor, Sebastia (Mic. 1: 6) and the ancient city of Kinnereth (9 km north of Tiberias). A tsunami in the Sea of Galilee is hinted in Amos 5: 8; 9: 5-6.

8th century BC - Karcz, Kafri, and Meshel (1977)

Tilted, columns, walls, and buildings.

References

11 Encyclopaedia of Archeological Excavations in Eretz Israel, Hebrew edn, 2 vol (Massada, Jerusalem, 1970).
12 Encyclopaedia of Archeological Excavations in Eretz Israel, English edn (updated), vol 1 and 2 (from 4) (Massada, Jersualem, 1975).

Danzig (2011)

Regarding the earthquake referenced in Amos, strata identified as belonging to Iron Age IIB in the 8th century BCE, at sites as far flung as Hazor and Meggido in the north, Gezer and Lachish in the middle, and Beersheba and Tell Deir Alla in the south, have been proposed as containing damage from this earthquake (see Table 2 for a list). Some archaeological arrangements that have been suggested as possibly indicative of earthquake damage related to the earthquake in Amos are: site abandonment; building restorations; destruction layers; destroyed buildings; and deformation of buildings or city walls, including fallen, tilted, or displaced walls, displaced blocks, or cracks in wall stones, especially vertically and in a series of contiguous stones. Since many of these things can happen in connection with normal geological processes over longer stretches of time, scholars have sought criteria for better identification of finds. Most important other than identifying possible reasons for the unusual geometry of finds are stratigraphic considerations. Also, one must keep in mind that in areas where earthquakes are common, damage often occurs as an accrual of smaller structural problems from several earthquakes over longer spans of time, rather than of major collapse at one time.

Yigael Yadin was the first to attempt to ascribe an archaeological arrangement to the earthquake mentioned in the Book of Amos. Yadin excavated for four seasons in 1955-58, working in several different areas on Tell Hazor, as well as one season in 1968. He claimed to have found evidence for earthquake-related ruins at Hazor in his Stratum VI, which he dated to the 8th century B.C.E., to the time of Jeroboam II, and connected it to the earthquake mentioned in Amos. Aside from the excavation reports, Yadin describes and interprets his excavations in two later works, Hazor: Head of All Those Kingdoms, the 1972 publication of the Schweich Lectures he gave in 1970, and Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, 1975. Further excavations, directed by Amon Ben-Tor, began in 1990 and are ongoing, but only partially published.

Yadin reported observations of several leaning walls, some partially collapsed walls, and fallen ceiling materials as proof of his interpretation of earthquake damage. All of this damage was found in levels he ascribed to Stratum VI in Area A, on the middle of the upper citadel area of the tell (see Figure 3). Yadin described this area in Stratum VI as mostly shops and workshops. Another building with purported earthquake damage is Building 2a (see Figure 4). Yadin claims, based on his observations, that “[t]he house was severely damaged by an earthquake.”

Yadin also noted “that floors of many of the houses were covered by fragments of the ceilings that had fallen suddenly,” which he claims is an “unusual phenomenon in archaeological excavations.” In room 148, built in a room of an older casemate wall, they found “great blocks of fallen bricks,” which Yadin surmised were found from the earlier city wall and reused, “from beneath which were visible fragments of many vessels” from walls built above the remaining height of the casemate walls. “The rest of the room was full of jars and other vessels, standing side by side and smashed to bits by the fallen roof,” a hypothesis that Yadin supports by explaining that “[they] managed to restore most of them, which shows that the roof fell in suddenly.” In Building 2a, “all the floors were littered with hundreds of pieces of ceiling plaster,” including a large chunk in room 82a. Shulamit Geva, in an analysis of the site based solely on Yadin’s published reports, lists items buried in several rooms. She ascribes their buried position to the earthquake, and it seems that she means they were located so due to fallen ceilings. Yadin went so far with his emphatic descriptions of purported earthquake damage in his popular book as to imagine that “[t]here was evidence that the ‘last supper’ of the residents, eaten just before the quake, consisted, among other things, of olives, if the many olive stones found on the floor are any indication.” The implication is that those olive remains were a meal left abandoned and caught under the rubble of the fallen ceilings.

In summary of his findings, Yadin states, “In the 1956 season we were able to establish that Stratum VI was destroyed by an earthquake.” Yadin supports his interpretation with anonymous, undocumented expert assessment, writing, “Geologists from the Hebrew University, to whom we showed these phenomena when they visited the site, confirmed our supposition that Hazor had been some distance from the epicenter of the earthquake. Yadin seems to understand the earthquake as the main factor in the transition between Strata VI-V: “The destruction wrought by the earthquake was quickly repaired and the next city represented by Stratum V is very similar indeed in character to that of Stratum VI,” and “Stratum V […] was rebuilt immediately following the destruction of City VI by the earthquake.” Yadin mentions his broad conclusions regarding his feeling of having found significant evidence for an earthquake several times. He claims that “[t]he earthquake which destroyed Stratum VI seems to be the one referred to in the Bible, which occurred during the reign of King Uzziah (c. 760 B.C.).” In fact, he uses this as a chronological anchor point in order to date Stratum V to between the earthquake and the destruction by Tiglat-pileser in 732 B.C.E. and in aid of dating the destruction of Stratum VII to the Aramean attack at the end of the 9th century B.C.E. and thereby dating the well-appointed Stratum VIII to the time of Ahab in the early-middle of that century.

There are several problems with Yadin’s conclusion that an earthquake is evidenced by finds in Stratum VI at Tell Hazor and that that earthquake is to be identified with the one described in the Book of Amos, in the mid-8th century B.C.E. Some pieces of Yadin’s evidence for an earthquake are not convincing and his stratigraphic conclusions in Area A, where all of the purported earthquake evidence was found, have been challenged by Ben-Tor’s excavations. The items of evidence Yadin found are mainly of two types: leaning or fallen walls or pillars and fallen ceiling pieces. In total, Yadin describes 7 leaning or partially fallen walls, 3 leaning columns, collapsed plaster ceilings in 2 buildings, and broken pottery under some of those ceilings.

Regarding the first group of evidence of walls and pillars, Yadin thought that the reason why no other walls had fallen or were leaning was that these were of the thinner walls. To some degree, these walls are thinner, but not very significantly. I would also add that one of the walls that partially collapsed, the west wall of room 113, was freestanding on one end, making it highly susceptible to tilt from any sort of uneven load. Plus, the description of whole courses of stones falling together is unintelligible in light of the construction of these walls, made out of unfinished and partially finished stones of various sizes, held together with mortar. These are not walls of ashlar masonry which could actually be said to fall in rows. In addition the evidence of walls or pillars falling in the same direction is not necessarily indicative of an earthquakes directional force. All of this evidence was found only in Area A, which is at the eastern end of the upper city.

In terms of the direction of the walls and pillars tilt or collapse, all of the walls were to the east or southeast, toward the downward slope of that part of the tell. Yadin seems to have thought it was the eastern end of the previous levels in the upper city, which would have been constituted of only the upper city’s western half. As noted by Ambraseys, it is most common for walls to fall in the direction of downward sloping, which is outwards at a major slope or edge of a tell. This makes it more likely that the tilting of several walls within close proximity to one another can have occurred due to slower processes, such as water seepage causing leeching of soils in the particulate, not well compacted ground of a tell. Although it is difficult to discern in the site reports how much the ground sloped at the time of Stratum VI, it is notable that in the southeast corner of Building 21a, in room 80a, where the wall and pillars are leaning southward, the floor is 0.2 m. lower than the floors in rooms 81a and 2a, at 229.55 m. elevation rather than 229.75 m. (see Figure 4). Nonetheless, we cannot rule out an earthquake as the cause of the damage to these walls.

For the evidences of ceiling collapse, it is not simple to ascribe them to earthquake damage; they may be due to abandonment and weakening. It is important for this to have a cataloging of the ceiling fragments according to size and location in order to distinguish between slow and sudden collapse, but this is absent in the Hazor reports. However, in Yadin’s favor, it is unclear if there would have been enough time for slow collapse in Stratum VI according to his chronology of the stratigraphy. It is also difficult to tell to what extent ceilings actually collapsed as the reports only contain mention of it in two buildings, whereas elsewhere Yadin implies that there was more widespread collapse as previously noted. Also, the discovery of broken pottery with ceiling fragments above it does not lead to the necessary conclusion that the ceiling fragments destroyed the pots.

A curious point is the fact that, in Building 2a, the Stratum V walls were built immediately on top of the leaning Stratum VI walls with essentially the same plan as the earlier stratum. In addition, Yadin claims that the material culture of the two strata is very similar if not identical. He concludes from this that there was a quick rebuilding of this structure (and the others) after the earthquake at a higher level, with the fallen parts of the structure buried under the floor of the next level so as not to necessitate the removal of the rubble. Yadin views this as conclusive evidence that an earthquake is what destroyed the previous stratum, but, even if he is correct that this indicates a quick rebuilding, an earthquake as the cause of the previous destruction is not the necessary cause. The biggest evidentiary problem facing Yadin’s proposal is that he does not report any earthquake related damage in any of the other areas excavated in this stratum, neither in Areas B nor G. The lack of widespread destruction makes it much less likely that an earthquake was the cause of these damaged walls and fallen ceilings. Stiros invokes widespread damage as a usual feature of earthquake-related damage and indicates that it is crucial for identification of an earthquake in archaeological remains.

A further complication to Yadin’s assembled evidence is that his whole analysis of the stratigraphy of Area A has been challenged by the newer excavations. One of the goals of the renewed excavations was to inspect Yadin’s stratigraphy in this area. Area heads Greenberg and Bonfil constructed a differing stratigraphy from Yadin’s. They noted an asymmetry in the ceramic, architectural, and stratigraphic phases as well as problems with the correlation of strata between the three Areas: A, B, and G. Part of their solution was to combine Yadin’s Stratum VIII and part of Stratum VII into a single Stratum 5, during which the Pillared Building and connected storehouse originally functioned. Stratum 4 equates to the rest of Stratum VII. At that time, Building 2a was initially built, while the Pillared Building was still in use, as opposed to Yadin’s ascription of it to Stratum VI. Stratum 3 corresponds to Yadin’s Stratum VI and possibly Stratum 2 to Yadin’s Stratum V, although those last results were not clear after the first four seasons of renewed excavation. This reorganization of the stratigraphy places the damage noted by Yadin to the end of Stratum 4, Yadin’s Stratum VII, and coterminous with the large Pillared Building and adjacent storehouse going out of use. This significant change in the layout of the buildings and the change to using smaller buildings in the area seems to imply that a significant change occurred. But, since no earthquake evidence was found in the other buildings Yadin ascribed to Stratum VII and since the large building went out of use in favor of smaller ones, it seems that a period of abandonment leading to a reorganization of the area is more probable than an earthquake. If so, then Yadin’s argument from the sealing of the floor of the initial stratum in Building 2a after an earthquake is unappealing. In addition, it would seem that the fallen ceiling pieces and leaning wall and pillars in Building 2a would then be distanced in time from the leaning walls and fallen ceilings in the nearby buildings to its northeast.

In sum, although Yadin’s reasoning and evidence is questionable in several different ways, making it more probable that it does not substantiate the earthquake mentioned in Amos than that it does, more investigation is necessary to make solid conclusions. One can hope that the current excavations will include experts trained in the detection of archaeoseismic evidence, that the excavation design will include emphasis on answering this question, and that the reports will contain the detail needed to investigate such possibilities. More recently, William Dever claimed to have discovered evidence for an earthquake in the middle of the 8th century B.C.E. at Tell Gezer. The focus of his evidence is on the outer wall of the city, in which he has found cracks through several courses of stones, bends in the wall, and stones fallen off of it, supposedly with stretches of courses together. Although the arrangement of courses of stones falling in both directions off of a wall is good evidence for an earthquake, “collapsed, bulging or outwardly leaning retaining walls are unlikely to be due to earthquake damage alone.” And, even though the bottom courses of the wall “were set into leveled-out depressions cut directly into the bedrock,” the outward pressure from the inside ground of the tell could very well have caused significant displacement of higher stones. Since Dever offers no other evidence than that of the outer wall at Gezer, our conclusion will have to be open ended until further inspection of the site and/or its reports are completed.

6. Conclusion

This paper has investigated the possible biblical and some of the possible archaeological evidence relating to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah mentioned in the Book of Amos. Our conclusions are mixed. Biblical evidence points toward an impactful earthquake. As of yet, the archaeological evidence which has been suggested as indicative of this earthquake by several archaeologists and scholars is largely inconclusive. Further archaeological excavations with this problem in mind, as well as with personnel knowledgeable in archaeoseismological investigation could make significant inroads toward its solution. The biblical evidence is very strong since most scholars recognize the earliest parts of the Book of Amos as belonging to the 8th century B.C.E. Because of that, there is an expectation that corresponding archaeological evidence will be found, but that will not necessarily occur. It is quite possible that no recognizable trace of this earthquake has remained in the archaeological record due to myriad factors. Even if it might exist, the biblical account is so vague regarding the location of actual damages incurred that digs may not be aimed in the correct locations. As such, it remains an open problem.



Footnotes

51 Ambraseys, “Earthquakes and Archaeology,” 1009-11.

52 See above, n. 49.

53 Galadini, et al., “Archaeoseismology,” 402-3, 404-6.

54 Ambraseys, “Earthquakes and Archaeology,” 1009-11.

55 Complete reports of the first two seasons were published subsequently in 1958 and 1960 (Yigael Yadin, et al., Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958]; Yigael Yadin, et al., Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960]), along with plates from the third and forth seasons in 1961 (Yigael Yadin, et al., Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Season of Excavations, 1957-1958. Vol. 1: Plates [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961]). The text of those later reports was published in 1989 (Yigael Yadin, et al., Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Season of Excavations, 1957-1958. Vol. 2: Text [Biblical Archaeology Society, 1989]). Excavations were continued in 1990 under the direction of Amnon Ben-Tor, who also published the results of Yadin’s 1968 season in conjunction with some of the results of his first four seasons (Amnon Ben-Tor and Robert Bonfil, Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavations, 1968 [Israel Exploration Society, 1997]).

56 Yigael Yadin, Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms (London: Oxford University Press, 1972).

57 Yigael Yadin, Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975).

58 Amnon Ben-Tor, “The Yigael Yadin Excavations at Hazor, 1990-1993: Aims and Preliminary Results,” in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 237; Eds. Neil A. Silberman and David Small; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 107-27.

59 Yadin, Hazor II, 24, lists damage in four rooms as follows (see Figure 4): [Room] 78 – The N. wall was leaning to the S., and was partly supported by the debris that blocked the W. entrance to the room. Next to the wall was a sloping pile of debris made up of courses of stones; buried beneath it were several vessels. The earthquake wrought most havoc in this room, and it was the wreckage here that first gave us the clue to the disaster. [Room] 14a – The W. wall leans sharply to the E., the E. wall less so. [Room] 113 – The W. wall is cracked down the middle and leans eastwards. The N. wall leans southwards very markedly. [Room] 21a – The E. wall slants eastwards, and fallen courses of stones covered the street to the E. of the room (28a).

60 It was only partially excavated in the 1956 season, and so later reported as follows: of the “six well-dressed square stone pillars[, t]hree […] were found still in situ.” But, “all the walls and pillars [of Building 2a] were tilted southwards,” so much so “that only their tops could be used, and even those only as a base for the new foundations” of the buildings of the subsequent Stratum V. In addition, “[i]n all the rooms, as well as in the western part of the court, huge blocks of ceiling plaster were found sealed off by the floors of Stratum V” (Yadin, Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, 179, 181).

61 Yadin, Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, 181.

62 Yadin, Hazor: Rediscovery, 151.

63 Yadin, Hazor II, 243

64 Yadin, Hazor: Rediscovery, 153.

65 Geva, Hazor, Israel, 125-31, tables 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30.

66 Yadin, Hazor: Rediscovery, 154.

67 Yadin, Hazor II, 24. He continues: Many walls in this stratum were found bent or cracked; in several places we found debris of walls lying course on course, just as is found in earthquakes when the entire wall collapses at once. The direction in which the walls leant or fell was southerly or easterly, according to the direction in which they ran. In some cases the upper part of the wall collapsed and the lower part remained standing but leaning. Leaning walls were used as a foundation for Stratum V when rebuilding began.

68 Ibid., 24-25. He continues: Strong walls had therefore stood up to the shock, while others had been only partially wrecked, even remaining standing in places, albeit at a slant. This partial destruction is seen again in the levels of the walls that survived from Stratum VI: some were preserved to a height of 2 m., others were totally wrecked. The damage done was repaired at once and the buildings were rebuilt.

69 Yadin, Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, 185.

70 Ibid., 181.

71 See Yadin, Hazor: Rediscovery, 151, 157-8.

72 Although the chronology of Iron Age strata of many sites in Israel has come under question, this seems to not be an issue at Hazor for the levels beginning exactly with Stratum VII. Israel Finkelstein spearheaded the argument that the Iron Age levels at Hazor and other sites need to be down-dated to better correlate with carbon 14 dates from those sites (see Amihai Mazar, “The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant,” in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text, and Science [Ed. Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham; London: Equinox, 2005], 15-30). But, he leaves Stratum VII at Hazor untouched (Israel Finkelstein, “Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314 [May, 1999]: 57).

73 See above, n. 68.

74 Ambraseys, “Earthquakes and Archaeology,” 1009.

75 Ben-Tor, “The Yigael Yadin Memorial Excavations at Hazor,” 123, notes “The area’s terrain slopes in all directions with an especially sharp slant toward the east.”

76 Ambraseys, “Earthquakes and Archaeology,” 1010.

77 Ibid. and Stiros, “Identification of Earthquakes from Archaeological Data,” 139, 141.

78 Galadini, et al., “Archaeoseismology,” 402.

79 Seemingly, there would be less time if we follow the Low Chronology, which shrinks the time spans of Iron Age II strata, but there would be more if Ben-Tor’s reports are correct and the building complex in which all of Yadin’s evidence is found was built still during his Stratum VII, while the Pillared Building still stood. See n. 72.

80 Above, p. 19.

81 Yadin, Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, 181.

82 Stiros, “Identification of Earthquakes from Archaeological Data,” 145.

83 Ben-Tor, “The Yigael Yadin Memorial Excavations at Hazor,” 110.

84 Ben-Tor, et al., Hazor V, 150; Ben-Tor, “The Yigael Yadin Memorial Excavations at Hazor,” 112-4.

85 Ben-Tor, et al., Hazor V, 123-51, 165.

86 Certainly the Pillared Building itself suffered no damage as all of its pillars were found in situ and erect.

87 William G. Dever, “A Case Study in Biblical Archaeology: The Earthquake of Ca. 760 BCE,” Eretz-Israel 23 (1992), 27*-35*.

88 Randall W. Younker, “A Preliminary Report of the 1990 Season at Tel Gezer: Excavations of the ‘Outer Wall’ and the ‘Solomonic’ Gateway (July 2 to August 10, 1990),” Andrews University Seminary Studies 29:1 (1991), 28.

89 Galadini, et al., “Archaeoseismology,” 403.

90 Ambraseys, “Earthquakes and Archaeology,” 1010.

91 Younker, “Preliminary Report,” 29.

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=353300402

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

Danzig, D. (2011). A Contextual Investigation of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for a Purported mid-8thCentury BCE Levantine Earthquake Book of Amos, Dr. Shalom Holtz.

Ben-Menahem, A. (1991). "Four Thousand Years of Seismicity along the Dead Sea rift." Journal of Geophysical Research 96((no. B12), 20): 195-120, 216.

Karcz, I., et al. (1977). "Archaeological evidence for Subrecent seismic activity along the Dead Sea-Jordan Rift." Nature 269(5625): 234-235.

Yadin, Y. and S. Angress (1960). Hazor II: an account of the second season of excavations, 1956, Magnes Press, Hebrew University.

Tell Judeiedeh

Approximate Location - Austin et. al. (2000)

759 BC - Austin et. al. (2000)

Another fortified Iron Age city of Judah was Tell Judeideh, located eight km northeast of Lachish. Excavations at Tell Judeideh by Bliss and Macalister (1902) showed that the Iron IIb could be divided into two phases. Bliss and Macalister provide no answers to the destruction of the €œlower phase€. However, Gibson (1994), after an extensive review of the archival materials, noted that pottery of the two phases has strong stratigraphic correlation to Level III and IV of nearby Lachish. He agreed with Ussishkin and Dever that earthquake destruction debris marks the top of Lachish Level IV. Therefore, Gibson (1994, p. 230) concluded that an earthquake in approximately 760 B.C destroyed Tell Judeideh'€™s €œlower-phase€ buildings.

FIG. 3. Time-stratigraphic correlation chart of Iron IIb excavations throughout an extensive region of Israel and Jordan. Datum for correlation is earthquake debris or rebuilding horizons assigned to a single, 750 B.C. seismic event. Locations of cities are shown in Figure 1. Strata names at each site are from primary archaeological reports.

Symbols:

P = pottery date
C-14 = radiocarbon date
T = dated text material
D = military destruction layer with historical date assigned
A = historically dated architectural style
E = earthquake destruction layer
E ? = probable earthquake destruction layer (significant rebuilding horizon without evidence of military conquest)

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=343100044

References

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00206810009465104#

Tell Lachish

Austin et. al. (2000), Ambraseys (2009)

759 BC - Austin et. al. (2000)

Lachish in the late Iron Age was a strongly fortified city of Judah on the boundary of the coastal plain and the Hebron Hills. The Iron II floor within Level IV in Area S was covered with large quantities of pottery, including intact and broken vessels, which indicates €œsudden destruction€ (Ussishkin, 1977, p. 43). The overall observation of abrupt termination of Level IV, without evidence of military conquest, led the excavator to follow M. Kochav'€™s suggestion that the city was destroyed by an earthquake during the reign of Uzziah, in approximately 760 B.C. (Ussishkin, 1993). The destruction debris at the top of Level IV is attributed to an earthquake and is dated to 760 B.C. ± 30 years.

FIG. 3. Time-stratigraphic correlation chart of Iron IIb excavations throughout an extensive region of Israel and Jordan. Datum for correlation is earthquake debris or rebuilding horizons assigned to a single, 750 B.C. seismic event. Locations of cities are shown in Figure 1. Strata names at each site are from primary archaeological reports.

Symbols:

P = pottery date
C-14 = radiocarbon date
T = dated text material
D = military destruction layer with historical date assigned
A = historically dated architectural style
E = earthquake destruction layer
E ? = probable earthquake destruction layer (significant rebuilding horizon without evidence of military conquest)

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

The case for Lachish (Hesy), where the archaeologists consider 'A natural catastrophe of this sort would, perhaps, be compatible with the earthquake mentioned by Amos' (Ussishkin 1977, 5; Dever 1992, 35, n. 10; Herzog 2002, 97).

11] Lachish (Hesy)
Estimated period of occurrence: 760 BC.
Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

' Level IV apparently came to a sudden end, but it seems clear that this was not caused by fire. On the other hand, the lower house of Level III and the rebuilt enclosure wall followed the lines of the Level IV structures, while the Level IV city wall and gate continued to function in Level III; these facts point towards the continuation of life without a break. Considering that the fortifications remained intact, we can hardly identify this level with the city which was stormed and completely destroyed in the fierce Assyrian attack. Here we may mention M. Kochavi's suggestion (made during a visit to the excavations in 1976 and quoted here with his kind permission) that the end of the Level IV structures may have been caused by an earthquake. A natural catastrophe of this sort would, perhaps, be compatible with the above findings. Of interest in this connection is the earthquake mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Zech. 14:5, which occurred around 760 BCE during the reign of Uzziah, king of Judah' (Ussishkin 1977, 52).

`The case of Lachish IV is perhaps the strongest' (Dever 1992, 35* n. 10).

`Since typological modification runs parallel to drastic changes in the design of settlements, as observed at Tel Beersheba and Lachish, they should be related to significant events. Tentatively this development might be associated with a severe earthquake dated to c. 760 BCE, based on biblical references (Dever 1992)' (Herzog 2002,97).

Location Info

http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/SitesDataView.php?SiteNo=343100799

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00206810009465104#

c. 759 BC Judaea

Among Biblical earthquakes the mid-eighth-century-BC earthquake known as ‘Amos”, ‘Zechariah’s’ or ‘Uzziah’s’ earthquake is an important event. Modern writers date the earthquake to 759 BC and assign to it a very large magnitude of ML (sic.) 8.2, with an intensity in Jerusalem between VIII and IX (Ben-Menahem 1979, 262; Austin et al. 2000). In addition, the event is said to have been associated with the coseismic left-lateral offset of the Jericho fault, which is a segment of the north–south trending strike–slip Dead Sea fault (Nur and Ron 1996). Obviously, such an important earthquake deserves authentication and its effects, reappraisal.

The earliest reference to a mid-eighth-century-BC earthquake in Judaea can be found in the opening verse of the Book of Amos who, without giving any details, mentions in passing an earthquake during his time, somewhere in Judaea, during the reign of Uzziah (791–752 BC) (numbers in square brackets refer to the notes at the end of the entry, [1]), perhaps the same event as alluded to by Isaiah (c. 700 BC) [2].

About three centuries later, early in the sixth century BC, Zechariah (c. 520 BC) mentions an earthquake in Judaea, again in the days of King Uzziah and probably the same event as that mentioned by Isaiah, which he says affected Jerusalem and caused the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, to split and form a valley [3]. The interpretation of this passage in Zechariah (14, 4–5), which seems to be a later fifth- or fourth-century-BC insertion, is not clear. Other versions of the same passage say that the Mount of Olives will split in two and create a valley that will reach Azel. This valley will run from east to west with half of the Mount of Olives moving to the north, away from the position it occupied, while the other half will move to the south. The valley will stop where the mountains will touch each other [3.1, 3–7].

A somewhat different reading is to be found in the Masoretic version, where, following the mention of the splitting of the Mount of Olives, it says that the valley shall reach unto Azal, as compared with the Revised Standard Version, which says instead that the valley shall be stopped up, for the valley shall touch the side of it (the mountain) [4, 5]. The source of this difference lies perhaps in the confused reading of the Hebrew words for ‘shall be stopped up’ (ve-nistam), and ‘you shall flee’ (venastem). The consonants are identical, but when the diacritical points were added to the Hebrew Bible to facilitate reading, the text was apparently misunderstood and the meaning changed (see the editor’s note in Wachs and Lewitte 1984). Upon adopting the latter reading as more plausible in relation to the natural phenomenon described, it is obvious that there is no other explanation than a large landslide, which may, or might not, have been triggered by this or by another earthquake.

Also, Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93), a book written about six centuries later, refers to an earthquake that happened in the last months of King Uzziah’s life, which caused a crack in the Temple at Jerusalem. Josephus adds that at a place called En-rogel, outside the city, half of the mountain in the west broke off from the rest and slid 800 m up to the mountain on the east, spoiling the king’s gardens [6]. Assuming that the two authors refer to the same event, this passage in Josephus seems to suggest that in all probability Zechariah describes a landslide, perhaps triggered by an earthquake, rather than a graben formed by normal faulting.

There is a further reference to these events in Uzziah’s days by Nathan ha-Bavli, who was writing in the middle of the second century AD. He does not mention the earthquake, but he says that at the time of the desecration of the temple by Uzziah the temple split open and the fissure extended for twelve ‘miles’ in each direction [6a].

The location of Azal is not certain, but the name may denote some place near the western extremity of the valley near Jerusalem or a hamlet on the outskirts of Jerusalem. As for the location of En-rogel, it has been suggested that it is the fountain of the Virgin, the modern Ain Umm al-Daraj. Others identify it with Bir Eyub, to the south of the Pool of Siloam, and below the junction of the valleys of Kidron and Hinnom, which seems to be a more probable location, but again this is not certain.

There remains the question of whether there is any evidence today for active faulting in the immediate vicinity of Old Jerusalem that can be associated with the ground deformations mentioned by Zechariah, Josephus and Nathan. Old aerial photographs of the chalky geological formations of the region show only landslides on steep slopes, but no through-going faults. A relatively large slide can be recognised on the Mount of Olives, which is located on the slope which faces west towards the Old City, the scarp of which can be seen halfway up the Mount of Olives. However, according to the Geological Survey of Israel, it is probably much more ancient than Biblical times (Wachs and Lewitte 1984; Frydman 1997). The multitude of short scarps shown on relatively recent geological maps of Jerusalem all terminate at the Kidron Valley (Gil 1996). The exception is a short northeast– southwest-running fault trace, which is shown on the Geotechnical Map of Jerusalem (Israeli 1977), which the Atlas of Israel labels Zechariah 14:4, earthquake fault. This feature extends from a point a few hundred metres south of the Jerusalem Railway Station to the west, running for more than three kilometres, to just north of al-Ayzariyah to the east, striking about N–70◦ E (Atlas of Israel 1985). The reason why this feature has been associated with Zechariah’s earthquake is not given.

There is no direct or indirect evidence that Jerusalem was damaged, and it is interesting that the details in Josephus concerning the effects of the earthquake on the temple are not supported by earlier sources, which remain silent about damage anywhere in Judaea and Israel [7].

Amos’ earthquake may be dated vaguely from the line of Jewish kings chronicled in the Old Testament, which provides us with 756 or 759 BC as a terminus ante quem (Soggin 1970, 120), or perhaps earlier. Courville dates this earthquake to 751–750 BC, on the basis of the Jewish legend reported by Josephus in which the prophet Zechariah is quoted as a source indicating the severity of the earthquake. This, however, would be the correct date only if the earthquake could be associated with the judgement on Uzziah, that is, only if Josephus’ account that the earthquake occurred at the same time as Uzziah was stricken with leprosy could be proven to be true [6]. While the Zechariah quotation is suggestive, it does not specifically associate the earthquake with God’s judgement on the king, and we cannot follow either Josephus’ or Courville’s attempts at a correlation without further evidence (Courville 1971, ii, 122). For instance, Courville goes on to correlate Uzziah’s earthquake with other catastrophic events, such as, for instance, the eruption of Thera. He can do this only because he brings the Late Bronze age down to the time of Uzziah, a view that must be rejected (Crisler 2004). If Courville’s view is adopted, however, the placement of Uzziah’s earthquake at the end of Samaria II can be correlated with a wave of destructions at this stratigraphic level, destruction that is said to have affected the Holy Land and could also have been due to the invasion by the Egyptians.

Modern writers have suggested that archaeological evidence points to at least 20 sites in Judaea and Israel that were destroyed by the same earthquake, although it is not possible to confirm this. The chief problem is the identification of the cause of the destruction at these sites, which are scattered in a north–south direction from Tel Hazor in the north to Tel Batash in the south, a distance of 350 km, and from the Mediterranean coast to the east side of the Dead Sea fault zone, that is, within an area of about 100 km radius. Archaeological reports give little or no technical justification to support the conclusion that damage was due to earthquake, and if so, due to the very same earthquake as that mentioned by Amos. Stratigraphic control did not consider or discuss the possibility that the observed damage was the result of later earthquakes, and dating is based solely on the only literary source available, the Bible.

For example, for Tel Beersheba (Tel Sheva) Herzog concludes that ‘Tentatively the destruction might be associated with a severe earthquake dated c. 760 BC, based on biblical references’ (Herzog 2002, 96). For Tel Arad the excavators attribute the destruction ‘to an earthquake during the reign of Uzziah in 760 or 750 BC’ (Herzog and Singer 2002, 96–98; Singer-Avitz 2002, 162).

The same is also the case for Lachish (Hesy), where the archaeologists consider ‘A natural catastrophe of this sort would, perhaps, be compatible with the earthquake mentioned by Amos’ (Ussishkin 1977, 5; Dever 1992, 35, n. 10; Herzog 2002, 97).

For Tel Gezer, ‘evidence for the destruction, as in other sites, can be attributed to the earthquake in Amos and Zacharia c. 760 BC’ (Dever and Younker 1991, 286; Younker 1991; Dever 1992, 30).

For Tell Qasile, which is included in the list of sites damaged by the earthquake of 760 BC, archaeological evidence suggests that the site was damaged during the period 1100–1050 BC (Dothan and Dunayevsky 1993; Mazar 1993, 298; Stern 1993).

Also Tell Abu Hawam, belonging to the same list, was damaged between 1125–1050 BC (Balensi 1980, 586; Warren and Hankey 1989, 161).

Crisler considers that ‘The destruction of Samaria [Shechem] was probably due to Uzziah’s earthquake of 783 BC’ (Crisler 2003; 2004).

For Tell Deir Alla the excavators say that ‘Indeed, the earthquake that destroyed level M/IX could well be the one mentioned in Amos, dated about 760 BC’ (Dever 1992, 35, n. 10; Lemaire 1997, 139 = 750; Knauf 2002). The same assumption is also made for the case of Megiddo, for which it is concluded that ‘The destruction may be linked to the biblical reference to a major earthquake c. 760 BC in the time of Jeroboam II’ (Knauf 2002).

Similarly for Tel Hazor ‘The damage is likely to be due to the well-known earthquake mentioned by Amos’ (Yadin 1972, 113, 181; Dever 1992, 28; Knauf 2002).

An earthquake that could obliterate man-made structures within an epicentral area of radius about 100 km, an area including all the sites listed as destroyed, is an earthquake of a size beyond the limits of the possible. The destruction of the towns and forts could have been the result of Zechariah’s earthquake or of separate events that occurred during the same week, month or year, but were not differentiated in the sources or, more likely, was the result of the invasion of Judaea and Israel by pharaoh Sheshonk I. It is interesting that many of the sites are included in the list of cities conquered by the Egyptians, the names of which are carved into the south wall of the courtyard of the temple of Karnak in Egypt, i.e. Timna (Tel Batash), Tel Gezer, Tel Michal, Tell Qasile, Tell el-Mazar, Tell el Saiidiyeh, Tell el-Hama, Tel Mevorakh, Tell Abu Hawam and Megiddo. It is probable that Megiddo, where Sheshonk erected a victory stele, was only partially destroyed, since it continued in use. The stele belongs to the time of Jeroboam II, and is dated to c. 783 BC (Kitchen 1986; Mazar 1993, 298; Ng 2004; Crisler 2004). Unfortunately, because of the differences between the Egyptian record and the Biblical account, it is difficult to establish whether the invasion by Sheshonk I was coeval with Amos’ earthquake.

In conclusion it is possible that the earthquake mentioned by Amos was embellished by Josephus and by later writers in their narratives to include the effects of an earthquake, to which the prophets do not refer. The available tectonic and geological evidence suggests, however, that it is more probable that the natural phenomenon that Zechariah describes fits better the more plausible ‘shall be stopped up’ reading of his text, which implies the occurrence of a large landslide, perhaps triggered by an earthquake. The uncritical amalgamation of biblical information and archaeological evidence from various distant parts of Judaea has produced a very large earthquake of MS > 8.0. Such an earthquake should have razed Jerusalem to the ground, an event that the prophets or later chroniclers would have mentioned or that would itself have left its mark in the form of a major surface fault rupture. The date of this earthquake is very uncertain, since archaeological evidence is hampered by the unresolved differences between conventional chronology and New Chronology. The description by Josephus, whether really of the earthquake mentioned by Amos, Josephus and Nathan or not, is at least evidence of the effects of an earthquake that had occurred before their time somewhere in Judaea for which there are no means today of assessing its location and magnitude.

References

Ambraseys, N. N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900.

(001) c.760-750 B.C. Jerusalem, the valley of Hinnom, landslide

• sources Amos 1.1; Zechariah 14.3-5; 2 Chron. 26.16-7; 2 Kings 15.1-7; Ioseph. Al 9.223-7; Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 9
• literature Rahmer (1870); Shalem (1948); Yadin (1961); Soggin (1970); Dever (1992)
• catalogues Manetti [1457]; Bonito (1691); von Hoff (1840); Mallet (1853); Sieberg (1932 a); Ben-Menahem (1979); Guidoboni (1989)

In our opinion, this is the only earthquake mentioned in the Bible for which there is sound and direct historical evidence. At the beginning of the Book of Amos, we read:

The words of Amos, one of the sheep-farmers of Teqoa, which he received in visions concerning Israel during the reigns of Uzziah king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.

Amos is considered to be the foremost and earliest of the prophets of Israel. The opening words of the book say that he lived at Teqoa, a village south of Bethlehem; and if we accept the biblical chronology - it is possible to establish fairly accurately that he was active during the reigns of Uzziah in Judah (c.783-742 or 787-736 BC) and Jeroboam II in Israel (c.786-746 or 787-747BC.). Since the memorable occurrence of an earthquake is used in the prologue to the book to indicate the date of the prophecy, it must have been serious enough to suggest itself as an obvious and unquestionable term of reference, even though a number of years had passed. But exactly when did the earthquake occur, and what area did it affect? While Amos provides us with the broad chronological limits of c.787 and c.736 B.C., we can gain more accurate information from the book of the prophet Zechariah. According to Rahmer (1870), Shalem (1948, p.28), Soggin (1970) and Ben-Menahem (1979), the whole of Zechariah 14.3-5 is related to an earthquake which occurred during the reign of king Uzziah. First of all, however, it has to be kept in mind that the passage in question, as it appears in the Hebrew text of the Bible, is very corrupt. If it is to be interpreted correctly, therefore, we must have recourse to emendations arrived at by comparing it with early Aramaic, Greek and Latin translations of the Scriptures. Using the textual emendations suggested in the apparatus to the Biblia hebraica Stuttgartensia, we can establish the following reading:

The Lord will come out and fight against those peoples, as in the days of his prowess on the field of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is opposite Jerusalem to the east, and the mountain shall be cleft in two by an immense valley running east and west; half the mountain shall move northwards and half southwards. And the valley of Hinnom shall be blocked, for it shall reach as far as [the valley] which is close to it [the text being emended to read as follows: We-nistam ge'-Hinnom ki-yaggia` ge-Hinnom el eslo]. You shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the time of Uzziah king of Judah. And the Lord my God will appear with his angels.

A literal translation of verse 5, however, following the unemended Hebrew text, gives a different topographical description of events:

You shall flee from the valley of the hills, for the valley of the hills will reach as far as Asal; you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the time of Uzziah king of Judah.

It should be noted that, even though the prophecy about Jerusalem is expressed in the future, the reference to the earthquake at the end of verse 5 and the accuracy with which the splitting of the Mount of Olives into two is described, suggest an underlying historical earthquake experience.

The passage from Zechariah is to be related to what Josephus has to say (AI 9.223-7) about damage to the Temple in Jerusalem in an earthquake provoked by an impious act on the part of Uzziah king of Judah:

Thus, on the occasion of a notable day which was a public festival, he put on the priestly garment and entered the sacred precinct to offer sacrifice to God on the golden altar. And, when the high priest Azarias, with whom there were eighty priests, tried to prevent him for they said it was not lawful for anyone to offer sacrifice, but to do so was allowed only to those of the line of Aaron and they all clamoured for him to go out and not transgress against God, he became angry and threatened them with death if they did not hold their peace. But, while he spoke, a great tremor shook the earth, and, as the temple was riven, a brilliant shaft of sunlight gleamed through it and fell upon the king's face so that leprosy at once smote him, while before the city at a place called Eroge half of the western hill was broken off and rolled four stades till it stopped at the eastern hill and obstructed the roads and the royal gardens. When the priest saw the king's face smitten with leprosy, they explained to him the cause of his misfortune, and told him to go out of the city as an unclean person.

The same damage as that mentioned by Josephus is also mentioned in chapter 9 of Auot de-Rabbi Nathan, one of the so-called extra-canonical tractates of the Talmud:

In connection with Uzziah we find [written (2 Chron. 26.16-7)]: 'But when he gained power, his heart grew so proud that it caused his downfall. For he transgressed against the Lord his God and went into the sanctuary of the Lord to offer incense on the altar of perfumes. He was followed there by the priest Azaryahu with eighty courageous priests of the Lord. They stood before king Uzziyahu and said to him: 'It is not for you, Uzziyahu, to offer incense to the Lord, but for the priests who are sons of Aaron and who were consecrated to offer incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have sinned and your reputation before the Lord God will not be improved by it'. Uzziyahu grew angry, as he held the censer in his hand, and at the moment of his irritation with the priests, leprosy appeared on his brow'. At the same moment the temple split open and the fissure extended for twelve miles in each direction. The priests made him leave, and he himself hurried to depart because the Lord had struck him. [King Uzziyahu] remained a leper until his death, and lived in a leper house, because he had been sent away from the house of the Lord. Meanwhile, his son Jotham supervised the royal palace and administered justice to the people of the country.

See also Midrash Tanhuma to Noah, chapter 5 and Jerome's commentary on Amos (PL, vol.25, co1.992).

The Scriptures also contain another passage about Uzziah which is parallel to that in Chronicles. It is to be found in 2 Kings 15.1-7, where Uzziah is strangely called Azariah. There can be no doubt, however, that the same person is being referred to:

In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah became king. He was sixteen years old when he came to the throne, and he reigned in Jerusalem for fifty-two years; his mother was Jecoliah of Jerusalem. He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as Amaziah his father had done. But the hill-shrines were allowed to remain; the people still continued to slaughter and burn sacrifices there. The Lord struck the king with leprosy, which he had till the day of his death; he was relieved of all his duties and lived in his own house, while his son Jotham was comptroller of the household and regent. The other acts and events of Azariah's reign are recorded in the annals of the kings of Judah. So he rested with his forefathers and was buried with them in the city of David; and he was succeeded by his son Jotham.

If we compare the various pieces of literary evidence mentioned above - that is to say, Amos, Zechariah, Kings, Chronicles, Josephus and the rabbinical tradition of exegesis - we find that historical fact and legendary elements are superimposed on one another. And we can summarise the available data by saying that the sources speak of an earthquake at Jerusalem and in the nearby Valley of Hinnom, in the Mount of Olives area.

This earthquake, and more particularly the damage it caused to the temple in Jerusalem, is linked to the punishment which God inflicted on Uzziah king of Judah for his impious behaviour. Since we know that when king Uzziah was suffering from leprosy, Jotham became regent - around 756 (or 759) B.C. - we have a valuable piece of chronological evidence for dating the earthquake (Soggin 1970, p.120). In other words, we know that king Uzziah caught leprosy in the sixth decade of the eighth century B.C. At the time of his illness there was an earthquake, and these two unusual events were interpreted as a punishment from God. King Uzziah's place was taken by Jotham, as regent, and in the memory of the Jewish people these individual episodes became superimposed upon one another in such a way as to constitute one of the many events in the continuing history of the relationship between the God of Israel and his people. According to Ben-Menahem (1979, p.262) we can be even more precise: in his opinion, the earthquake is very likely to have occurred at Yom-Kippur, Monday, 10 Tishrei, 3003, which is Oct. 07, 759 B.c., during day time.

It is very important to note at this stage that the historical reality of the earthquake and its approximate date have been confirmed by recent archaeological discoveries. Excavations carried out by the Israeli archaeologist Y.Yadin in 1956 at the Hazor site revealed traces of an upheaval of the earth which caused serious damage and a sudden interruption to the building of the settlement. Stratigraphic evidence suggests that the earthquake is likely to have occurred around 760 B.C. Hazor was in northern Galilee, and is to be identified with present day Tell al-Qidah (or Tell Waqqas), 14 km north of Lake Tiberias. Traces of the earthquake were found in the sixth stratum o f the upper city (8th century B.c.); see Yadin (1961, p.24, note 73). There is further evidence of this from recent excavations at Gezer. Dever (1992) has in fact attributed to the earthquake of c.760 B.C. signs of sudden destruction found in a defensive wall (an Iron Age addition to the Late Bronze Age walls: 1990 season of excavations).

References

Guidoboni, E., et al. (1994). Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century. Rome, Istituto nazionale di geofisica.

References

Zohar, M. (2019). Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Seismic Activity Associated with the Dead Sea Transform (DST) during the Past 3000 Yr. Seismological Research Letters 91(1): 207-221.

Table 1 Earthquake damage around the DST during Bronze and Iron Ages




References

Raphael, Kate and Agnon, Amotz (2018). EARTHQUAKES EAST AND WEST OF THE DEAD SEA TRANSFORM IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES. Tell it in Gath Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday J. R. C. Itzhaq Shai, Louise Hitchcock, Amit Dagan, Chris McKinny, and Joe Uziel.

2. Biblical Evidence for the Earthquake Mentioned in Amos

Physical phenomena related to earthquakes include loud noises, ground shaking, ground displacement, landslide, liquefaction of unstable soils, sand blows from the ground, damage to or collapse of units of the human constructed environment, fire, changes of water courses, and tsunami. Forty possible references exist to almost all of these throughout the Book of Amos, excluding only sand blows and changes of water courses (see Table 1). Of these forty, ten are quite certain. The distribution of such references throughout the book clearly indicates the high degree of impact that at least one earthquake had upon Amos and the people of Israel. Earthquake-related destruction is one of the major types of looming destructive forces that Amos proclaims will befall the Israelites. When taken in aggregate including all of the possible resultant phenomena, earthquake-related destructive threats are the most numerous among the threats in Amos. The prominence of earthquake references and allusions substantiates the notion that the earthquake in Amos's time is what solidified his prophecies as true via what must have been seen, at least in part, as their fulfillment. Some scholars have gone as far as designating this turn of events as a major causative factor in the onset of classical Israelite prophecy in the form of non-professional, morally sensitive, exhortatory prophets whose visions and admonitions were written down as non-narrative, literary works.

There are several types of references to earthquakes and earthquake-related phenomena in Amos. Most straightforward are explicit references to actual events, which is found only in the superscription to the book (Amos 1:1). Other references in are found in the types of literature common to the book, mostly visions and oracles. In those, there are allusions to impending disastrous events and descriptions of God's power over nature, as well as to God's walking and presence, which may cause catastrophes. All of these types of allusions are used in multiple ways in connection with earthquakes and earthquake-related events.

... The explicit references in Amos to the earthquake at his time are found in 1:1 and 9:1. The former, the superscription to the book, or at least its first group of prophecies, locates the earthquake in time as [] two years before the earthquake. It also places Amos' mission in the days of Uzziah and Jereboam II, which substantiates the equation of Amos' earthquake with that mentioned in Zechariah 14:4-5 that is said to have occurred in the days of Uzziah. Isaiah may also refer to that same earthquake in 2:10-21 and 6:4.

Amos 9:1 describes an interactive prophetic vision:

[] I saw my Lord standing by the altar, and He said: Strike the capitals so that the thresholds quake, and make an end of the first of them all.

God instructs Amos to strike the capitals of the columns of the doorway to a temple in which Amos beholds Him standing atop or beside the altar. This will then shake the pillars of the doorway, which will tumble down on the people. Seemingly, this will initiate an earthquake. Even though this is not stated as historical fact, it still might indicate that the epicenter, the central surface location of an earthquake that corresponds to its underground focus, was near this temple. It is unclear to what temple the text refers. The only specific temple environs referred to in Amos are that of Bet El in the vignette of Amos and the priest Amaziah (7:10-17). As such, it is the most likely location for this story, although it may be in the temple in Jerusalem in Amos' homeland, or in another temple.

... Some view the apocalyptic earthquake envisioned in Zechariah as, at least in part, a description of what occurred during the one in the days of Uzziah. The text reads:

[] 4 On that day, He will set His feet on the Mount of Olives, near Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall split across from east to west, and one part of the Mount shall shift to the north and the other to the south, a huge gorge. 5 And the Valley in the Hills shall be stopped up, for the Valley of the Hills shall reach only to Azal; it shall be stopped up as it was stopped up as a result of the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. And the Lord my God, with all the holy beings, will come to you.

This passage describes some type of ground movements, either faulting, or, more probably, major landslides, which significantly changed the landscape east of Jerusalem. The first verse seems to describe the disintegration of the central part of the mountain, leaving two sister mountains, side-by-side. The second seems to refer to the damming up of the valley, either the new one between the mountains or the one between the Mount of Olives and the temple mount. However, it is very unclear as to how much of this description refers to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah. If one reads the word [] in accordance with the Massoretic Pointing as you escape(d), then the whole description seems to be of something similar to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah. But, if one understands [] as was closed up, then it seems that only the closing up of the valley is what was similar to that of the days of Uzziah. In either reading, it seems to imply that the earthquake in the days of Uzziah affected Jerusalem, although even that could be questioned.

... In sum, the direct textual evidence for the earthquake in the time of Uzziah and Amos is unanimous regarding its occurrence and dating to King Uzziah's reign. Specific details about its physical impact, possibly in Bet El and Jerusalem, are less certain

...

There is also a phrase describing impending disaster, appearing twice nearly identically, that certainly refers to earthquake:

[] And all of it swells like the Nile and subsides like the Nile of Egypt (8:8, 9:5).

The image of the rise and fall of the Nile as applied by these verses to [] forms a double entendre, indicating both the ground movements of an earthquake and the water movements of a tsunami. Another phrase that is doubled in Amos, which directly describes God as creating a tsunami, reads,

[] Who summons the waters of the sea and pours them over the land (5:8, 9:6).

It seems that the phrases in 8:8 and 5:8 were copied from the earlier locations in Amos and collated in Amos 9:5-6, possibly as an expansion on Amos' vision of the striking of the capitals in 9:1. If so, the collator definitely understood 9:1 as describing the divine onset of the earthquake. Tsunamis reach the Levantine shores of the Mediterranean due to either earthquakes from the underwater subduction zone arcing south of Cyprus or from farther afield, such as offshore Greece or Italy, or to nearby underwater slumps or avalanches caused by seismic shaking from the Dead Sea Transform.

God is standing on the altar resonates in connection with an earthquake, since one of the ways the ancient Israelites and other peoples of the ancient Near East understood earthquakes was as the walking of the gods. 30

...

4. Archaeological Evidence for the Earthquake Mentioned in Amos

...

Regarding the earthquake referenced in Amos, strata identified as belonging to Iron Age IIB in the 8th century BCE, at sites as far flung as Hazor and Meggido in the north, Gezer and Lachish in the middle, and Beersheba and Tell Deir Alla in the south, have been proposed as containing damage from this earthquake (see Table 2 for a list). Some archaeological arrangements that have been suggested as possibly indicative of earthquake damage related to the earthquake in Amos are: site abandonment; building restorations; destruction layers; destroyed buildings; and deformation of buildings or city walls, including fallen, tilted, or displaced walls, displaced blocks, or cracks in wall stones, especially vertically and in a series of contiguous stones. Since many of these things can happen in connection with normal geological processes over longer stretches of time, scholars have sought criteria for better identification of finds. Most important other than identifying possible reasons for the unusual geometry of finds are stratigraphic considerations. Also, one must keep in mind that in areas where earthquakes are common, damage often occurs as an accrual of smaller structural problems from several earthquakes over longer spans of time, rather than of major collapse at one time.

Yigael Yadin was the first to attempt to ascribe an archaeological arrangement to the earthquake mentioned in the Book of Amos. Yadin excavated for four seasons in 1955-58, working in several different areas on Tell Hazor, as well as one season in 1968. He claimed to have found evidence for earthquake-related ruins at Hazor in his Stratum VI, which he dated to the 8th century B.C.E., to the time of Jeroboam II, and connected it to the earthquake mentioned in Amos. Aside from the excavation reports, Yadin describes and interprets his excavations in two later works, Hazor: Head of All Those Kingdoms, the 1972 publication of the Schweich Lectures he gave in 1970, and Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, 1975. Further excavations, directed by Amon Ben-Tor, began in 1990 and are ongoing, but only partially published.

Yadin reported observations of several leaning walls, some partially collapsed walls, and fallen ceiling materials as proof of his interpretation of earthquake damage. All of this damage was found in levels he ascribed to Stratum VI in Area A, on the middle of the upper citadel area of the tell (see Figure 3). Yadin described this area in Stratum VI as mostly shops and workshops. Another building with purported earthquake damage is Building 2a (see Figure 4). Yadin claims, based on his observations, that [t]he house was severely damaged by an earthquake.

... There are several problems with Yadin's conclusion that an earthquake is evidenced by finds in Stratum VI at Tell Hazor and that that earthquake is to be identified with the one described in the Book of Amos, in the mid-8th century B.C.E. Some pieces of Yadin's evidence for an earthquake are not convincing and his stratigraphic conclusions in Area A, where all of the purported earthquake evidence was found, have been challenged by Ben-Tor's excavations. The items of evidence Yadin found are mainly of two types: leaning or fallen walls or pillars and fallen ceiling pieces. In total, Yadin describes 7 leaning or partially fallen walls, 3 leaning columns, collapsed plaster ceilings in 2 buildings, and broken pottery under some of those ceilings.

...

In sum, although Yadin's reasoning and evidence is questionable in several different ways, making it more probable that it does not substantiate the earthquake mentioned in Amos than that it does, more investigation is necessary to make solid conclusions. One can hope that the current excavations will include experts trained in the detection of archaeoseismic evidence, that the excavation design will include emphasis on answering this question, and that the reports will contain the detail needed to investigate such possibilities.

More recently, William Dever claimed to have discovered evidence for an earthquake in the middle of the 8th century B.C.E. at Tell Gezer. The focus of his evidence is on the outer wall of the city, in which he has found cracks through several courses of stones, bends in the wall, and stones fallen off of it, supposedly with stretches of courses together. Although the arrangement of courses of stones falling in both directions off of a wall is good evidence for an earthquake, collapsed, bulging or outwardly leaning retaining walls are unlikely to be due to earthquake damage alone. And, even though the bottom courses of the wall were set into leveled-out depressions cut directly into the bedrock, the outward pressure from the inside ground of the tell could very well have caused significant displacement of higher stones. Since Dever offers no other evidence than that of the outer wall at Gezer, our conclusion will have to be open ended until further inspection of the site and/or its reports are completed.

...

6. Conclusion

This paper has investigated the possible biblical and some of the possible archaeological evidence relating to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah mentioned in the Book of Amos. Our conclusions are mixed. Biblical evidence points toward an impactful earthquake. As of yet, the archaeological evidence which has been suggested as indicative of this earthquake by several archaeologists and scholars is largely inconclusive. Further archaeological excavations with this problem in mind, as well as with personnel knowledgeable in archaeoseismological investigation could make significant inroads toward its solution. The biblical evidence is very strong since most scholars recognize the earliest parts of the Book of Amos as belonging to the 8th century B.C.E. Because of that, there is an expectation that corresponding archaeological evidence will be found, but that will not necessarily occur. It is quite possible that no recognizable trace of this earthquake has remained in the archaeological record due to myriad factors. Even if it might exist, the biblical account is so vague regarding the location of actual damages incurred that digs may not be aimed in the correct locations. As such, it remains an open problem.

References

Danzig, D. (2011). A Contextual Investigation of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for a Purported mid-8th Century BCE Levantine Earthquake Book of Amos, Dr. Shalom Holtz.

• Your browser must have a pdf viewer to see this file
• See section titled Zechariah's earthquake on pages 330-334

References

Ambraseys, N. (2005). "Historical earthquakes in Jerusalem – A methodological discussion." Journal of Seismology 9(3): 329-340.

• Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.
  
  

Ben-Menahem(1991)

5.4.3. 759 B.C.E. Felt throughout Israel, Egypt and Mesopotamia, Af 1200 km. According to the Bible, Josephus, the Talmudic literature and the late archeological findings at Hazor and Sebastia, the epicenter seems to be east of Hazor, approximately at 33.0° 35.5° E.

Year of occurrence is likely to be 759 B.C.E., in which King Uziah abdicated the throne in favor of his son Yotam [Cassuto, 1976; Josephus; II Chr. 26]. The date of this earthquake is linked to the eclipse of the Sun on June 15, 763 B.C.E. (Julian Day 1,442,902.8392, or Monday, Sivan 30, 2998, of the Jewish Calendar [see Kudlek and Mickler, 1971; Chambers, 1904, Thompson, 1900; Oppolzer, 1887; Fotheringham, 1920]). The eclipse was partial in Jerusalem (maximal magnitude 0.91). Evidence for the proximity of the earthquake and the eclipse is found in Amos 8: 8-9; Zech. 14: 4-7, and Jer. 4: 24.

The location of the causative fault can be estimated from the oriented tilt of the walls in stratum 6 at Hazor (Figure 6), a detail of which is shown in Figure 7. According to the report of the excavating archeologists [Yadin et al., 1959], northern walls were tilted southward, while western walls tilted eastward. Figure 8 shows that these orientations are consistent with the effect of a near field horizontal shear acceleration coming to Hazor from the north east. This is consistent with modern ideas that structures in the near-field of a major earthquake are mostly affected by SH body waves and the fundamental Love mode.

Day of occurrence, according to II Chron.26 and Josephus, is likely to be on the eve of the Tabernacle holiday, 14 Tishrei, 3003, which is October 759 B.C.E. There was great destruction in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Intensity at Jerusalem (A = 135 km) estimated as MM 8; Io = 11; big earth slips in the Kidron Valley, destruction of Razor, Sebastia (Mic. 1: 6) and the ancient city of Kinnereth (9 km north of Tiberias). A tsunami in the Sea of Galilee is hinted in Amos 5: 8; 9: 5-6.

Ben-Menahem et. al. (1976)

(5) Strike-slip faulting east of Jerusalem at about 760 B.C. Amos (I and VIII, 9), Zacharias (XIV, 5) and Josephus (Anti.quities of the Jews, IX, 14) (see below) relate the effects of a seismic event dated about 760 B.C. (Ambraseys, 1962). In particular, the description of Zacharias is that of a sinistral strike-slip faulting(!).

References

Ben-Menahem, A. (1991). "Four Thousand Years of Seismicity along the Dead Sea rift." Journal of Geophysical Research 96((no. B12), 20): 195-120, 216.

• Your browser must have a pdf viewer to see this file

References

Wachs, D. and D. Levitte (1984). "Earthquake risk and slope stability in Jerusalem." Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 6(3): 183-186.

Wachs, D., Lewitte, D. (1984). "Earthquakes in Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives landslides." Israel Land & Nature 3: 118-121.

• from www.bible.ca

• Whether the author is correct in his hypothesis or not, the images alone make this now deleted blog post worth saving

• Seismic Theophany is a literary motif where earthquakes are seen as a manifestation of God's will

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

Austin, S. 2010. The Scientific and Scriptural Impact of Amos' Earthquake. Acts & Facts. 39 (2): 8-9.

Roberts, R. N. (2012). Terra Terror: An Interdisciplinary Study of Earthquakes in Ancient Near Eastern Texts and the Hebrew Bible. Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. Los Angeles, University of California - Los Angeles Doctor of Philosophy.

Danzig, D. (2011). A Contextual Investigation of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for a Purported mid-8th Century BCE Levantine Earthquake Book of Amos, Dr. Shalom Holtz.

Albright, W.F., The archaeological results of an expedition to Moab and Dead Sea, Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 7, 2-12, 1924.

Ambraseys, N. (2005). "Historical earthquakes in Jerusalem - A methodological discussion." Journal of Seismology 9(3): 329-340.

Ogden, K. 1992. The earthquake motif in the book of Amos. In Schunck, K., and M. Augustin, eds., Goldene apfel in silbernen schalen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 69–80

Freedman, D.N., and A. Welch. 1994. Amos's earthquake and Israelite prophecy. In Coogan, M.D., J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager, eds., Scripture and other artifacts: essays on the Bible, and archaeology in honor of Philip J. King. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 188–198

Nur, A. and H. Ron (1996). The walls came tumbling down: Earthquake history of the Holy Land. in Stiros, S. and Jones, R. Archaeoseismology. Institute of Geology & Mineal Exploration at the University of Michigan

ANTONOPOULOS, J. 1979, "Catalogue of Tsunamis in the Eastern Mediterranean from Antiquity to Present Times." Annals of Geophysics 32(1): 113-130.

Atlas of Israel (1985), Physical and Human Geography, 3rd edn, The Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, p. 17.

Avi-Yonah, M. (1975). The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Israel Exploration Society and Massada Press.

Balensi, J. M. J. C. (1980). LES FOUILLES DE R.W. HAMILTON A TELL ABU HAWAM EFFECTUEES EN 1932-1933 POUR LE COMPTE DU DEPARTEMENT DES ANTIQUITES DE LA PALESTINE SOUS MANDAT BRITANNIQUE NIVEAUX IV ET V DOSSIER SUR L'HISTOIRE D'UN PORT MEDITERRANEEN DURANT LES AGES DU BRONZE ET DU FER (?1600-950 ENV.AV. JC. [S.l.], [s.n.].

Cassuto, U.M.D. (Ed.), Encyclopedia Biblica, The Bialik Institute, Jerusalem, 1976.

Chambers, G.F., The Story of Eclipses, McClure, Phillips, New York, 1904.

Crisler, V. (2003). "Shechem."

Crisler, V. (2004). "Samaria (rough draft)."

Dever, W. G., Younker, R. W. (1990). "Tel Gezer, 1990." Israel Exploration Journal 41(282-286).

Dever, W. G., 1992, A case study in biblical archaeology: The earthquake of ca. 760 BCE: Eretz Israel, v. 23, p. 27-35

Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. (1993). Tel Qasile. Excavations in area A and B The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. E. Stern.

Fotheringham, J.K., A solution of ancient eclipses of the Sun, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 81, 104-126, 1920.

Frydman, S. (1997). "Geotechnical problems in the Holyland - Then and Now." Electronic J. Geotechn. Eng. 2(1-28).

Garstang, J. (1948). The Story of Jericho, Marshall, Morgan & Scott.

Gil, D. (1996). The geology of the city of David and its ancient subterranean waterworks. Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985, vol. 4. D. T. A. a. A. De and Groot. Jerusalem, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: 1-28.

Herzog, Z. e. (2002). "The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad an Interim Report." Tel Aviv 2002(1): 3-109.

Israeli, A. (1977), Geotechnical map of Jerusalem and surroundings, Report M.M./12/77, Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel.

Karcz, I., et al. (1977). "Archaeological evidence for Subrecent seismic activity along the Dead Sea-Jordan Rift." Nature 269(5625): 234-235.

Kenyon, K. M. (1957). Digging Up Jericho. London, Ernest Benn.

Kenyon, K. M. (1985). Archaeology in the Holy Land, Methuen.

Kenyon, K. M., et al. (1987). The Bible and recent archaeology, British Museum Publications.

Kitchen, K. A. (1986). The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: (1100-650 B.C.), ARIS & PHILLIPS % HUMANITIES.

Knauf, E. A. (2002), 'Excavating Biblical history, revelations from Megiddo', The Newsletter of the Megiddo Expedition 6, Tel Aviv: Technical University of Tel Aviv.

Kudlek, M., and E.H. Mickler, Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East from 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, Butzon and Bercker Kevelaer, Berlin, Germany, 1971.

Lemaire, A. (1997), Deir 'Alla Inscriptions', in E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 11, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 138-140.

Lemonick, M. D. (1990). Score one for the Bible: fresh clues support story at the walls of Jericho',,. Time: 59.

Marco, S., A. Agnon, I. Finkelstein, and D. Ussishkin (2006). Megiddo earthquakes, in Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons, edited by I. Finkelstein et al. Tel Aviv, Israel: pp. 568-575.

Mazar, A. (1993a), 'Beth Shean. The Beth Shean and the Northern Cemetery', in Stern (1993), vol. 1, pp. 214-223.

Mazar, A. (1993b), 'Beth Shean in the Iron Age. Preliminary Report and Conclusions of the 1990-1991 Excavations', Israel Exploration J. 43 (4), 201-229.

Neev, D., and K.O. Emery, The Dead Sea, Bull. Geol. Surv. Isr., 41, 147pp., 1967.

Neev and Emery, W. H. O. Institution (1995). The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho : Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background, Oxford University Press, USA.

Nigro, L., Marchetti, N. (1998). ? New York Times.

Nur, A. and H. Ron (1997). "Armageddon's Earthquakes." International Geology Review 39(6): 532-541.

Oppolzer, T.R., Cannon Der Finsternisse, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschafter, Wien, 1887.

Rothenberg, B. (1972), Timna. Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines, London: Thames and Hudson.

Schaeffer, C. F. A. and G. Institute (1948). Stratigraphie Compare Et Chronologie de L'Asie Occidentale (IIIe Et IIe Millnaires): t. 1, Griffith institute.

Schaeffer, Claude Frédéric-Armand (1948). Syrie, Palestine, Asie mineure, Chypre, Perse et Caucase

Sellin, E. and C. Watzinger (1913). Jericho: die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Hinrichs.

Singer-Avitz, L. (2002). "The Iron Age pottery assemblage." Tel Aviv 29: 110-215.

Thompson, R.C., The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon in the British Museum, I-II, Luzac, 1900

Tristram, H. (2005). The Land Of Moab: Travels And Discoveries On The East Side Of The Dead Sea And The Jordan, Kessinger Publishing.

Ussishkin, D. (1977). "The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars." Tel Aviv 4(1-2): 28-60.

Wachs, D., Lewitte, D. (1984). "Earthquakes in Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives landslides." Israel Land & Nature 3: 118-121.

Warren, P. M. and V. Hankey (1989). Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol Classical Press.

Wood, B. G. (1990). "Did the Israelites conquer Jericho?" Biblical Archaeol. Review 16(2): 5.

Yadin, Y., Y. Aharoni, I. Dunayevsky, T. Dothan, R. Amiran, and J. Perrot, Excavations at Hazor. The Second Campaign, Aug. 1, 1956-Nov. 1, 1956 (in Hebrew), Mosad Bialik and the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1959.

Yadin, Y. (1972), Hazor, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1970, London.

Younker, R. W. (1991). A preliminary report of the 1990 season at Tel Gezer. Excavations of the `outer wall' and the `Solomon wall', July to August 10,1990' Andrews University Seminar Studies, Andrews University 29: 19-60.



Citations in Ambraseys (2009)

Carville 1971
Aharoni et al 1970
Aharoni and Aharoni 1970
Soggin 1970
Herzog and Singer 2002
Ng 2004
Rotherberg and Lupu 1967




Ancient Texts

Josephus, F. (1930). Jewish antiquities. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Josephus; II Chr. 26

Josephus [9: 14]



Biblical References

Amos 1.1

Amos 3: 14-15

Amos 4: 11

Amos 5: 8

Amos 6:11

Amos 8: 8-10

Amos 9: 1

2 Chron. 26.16-7

Jeremiah 1:3-6

Jeremiah 4: 24

2 Kings 12: 6

2 Kings 15.1-7

2 Kings 23: 22

Nahum 1: 4-5

Zechariah 14.3-7



Misc Links



Nathan Ha-Bavli

The Archaeological Context of the Tell Deir Alla Tablets