Go to top

Pig on the Wall Quake

64 BCE

by Jefferson Williams









Introduction & Summary

This earthquake account is best described as a conundrum. A fanciful story in the Babylonian Talmud about an earthquake initiated when a pig clawed its hooves into the Temple Walls in Jerusalem is the sole textual account. Although the story seems implausible, there is weak paleoseismic and possibly archeoseismic evidence for an earthquake around this time leading one to wonder if an actual earthquake seeded the imagination of the writer of the story.

Textual Evidence

Text (with hotlink) Original Language Biographical Info Religion Date of Composition Location Composed Notes
Babylonian Talmud Hebrew, Aramaic
Background

Jewish 3rd-8th centuries CE Iraq In the midst of a Jewish Civil War while the Temple in Jerusalem was under siege, money was sent down the walls of the Temple in exchange for animals to be sacrificed. When the time came to send the animals up the walls, a trick was played. A pig was placed in the basket and hoisted up the walls of the Temple. As the basket rose, the pig stuck its claws in the wall and the entire land of Israel was shaken.
Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus Greek, possibly translated from an earlier version in Aramaic
Biography

Jewish about 95 CE Rome or Judea Josephus tells the same story as the Babylonian Talmud except the basket with animals for the sacrifices came up empty. When the Temple Priests realized they had been cheated, they prayed for retribution which came in the form of a strong and vehement storm of wind, that destroyed the fruits of the whole country.
Roman History by Dio Cassius Greek
Biography

~207-229 CE Mostly in Capua (Italy). Possibly wrote some material in other locations. Dio Cassius mentions the Jewish Civil War in a passage describing Pompey's' conquest of Judea. Pompey exploited the Civil War for his own gain and conquered Judea with relative ease but encountered difficulties assaulting the Temple. Finally, however, they conquered the last holdouts and installed John Hyrcanus as a Proxy King. There is no mention of of any type of basket used to bring animal sacrifices up the Temple Walls, an earthquake, or a strong and vehement storm of wind.
Earthquake Catalog Descriptions Brief Earthquake Catalogs can't be trusted.
Text (with hotlink) Original Language Biographical Info Religion Date of Composition Location Composed Notes
Babylonian Talmud

Background

Background and Biography

Synopsis
Synopsis

In the Babylonian Talmud, a curious story from the eve of a distant Passover has generated an entry in a number of earthquake catalogs1. In 64 BC, Aristobulus II was the Hasmonean King of Judea. He was challenged by his elder brother John Hyrcanus II who recruited Nabatean allies to help him fight for control of the Kingdom. While Hyrcanus II and his allies laid siege to Jerusalem, an agreement was forged before the onset of Passover. Money was sent down the walls of the second Temple in exchange for animals to be sacrificed at the Temple. When the time came to send the animals up the walls, a trick was played. The nature of this trick differs in two different texts. According to Josephus, the animal sacrifices were not delivered. The Babylonian Talmud however states that a pig was placed in the basket and hoisted up the walls of the Temple. As the basket rose, the pig stuck its claws in the wall and the entire land of Israel was shaken for a distance of 400 parsangs2 (1463 km.) where 400 parsangs may be hyperbole or a euphemism indicating a wide area3.

According to Josephus, divine retribution for this trick came not in the form of an earthquake but “a strong and vehement storm of wind that destroyed the fruits of the whole country”. Roman Historian Dio Cassius also recounts the siege of Jerusalem but does not discuss the supposed Passover animal in the basket trick.

Footnotes

1 e.g. Ben-Menahem (1979), Ben-Menahem (1991), and Amiran et. al. (1994).

2 A parsang is a Persian mile. There are differing accounts of the exact distance of a parsang. Karcz (2004) states that this is 4000 yards which is in approximate agreement with other estimates. Using the reckoning of Karcz (2004), 400 parsangs equals to 1463 km.

3 400 parasangs shows up in a Talmudic description of an earthquake in Megilla 3a (2nd paragraph) of the Babylonian Talmud which is discussed in the Textual Evidence section for the early second century Incense Road Earthquake.

Excerpts
English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud Sotah 49b (Soncino)

When the kings of the Hasmonean house fought one another, Hyrcanus was outside and Aristobulus within. Each day they used to let down denarii in a basket, and haul up for them [animals for] the continual offerings. An old man there, who was learned in Greek wisdom, spoke with them in Greek, saying: 'As long as they carry on the Temple-service, they will never surrender to you'. On the morrow they let down denarii in a basket, and hauled up a pig. When it reached half way up the wall, it stuck its claws [into the wall] and the land of Israel was shaken over a distance of four hundred parasangs.

English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud Sotah 49b (William Davidson Talmud)

§ The mishna taught that during the war of Titus the Sages decreed that a person should not teach his son Greek. The Sages taught that this decree came about as a result of the following incident: When the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy besieged each other in their civil war, Hyrcanus was outside of Jerusalem, besieging it, and Aristoblus was inside. On each and every day they would lower dinars in a box from inside the city, and those on the outside would send up animals for them to bring the daily offerings in the Temple.

A certain Elder was there, in Jerusalem, who was familiar with Greek wisdom. He communicated to those on the outside by means of Greek wisdom, using words understood only by those proficient in Greek wisdom. He said to them: As long as they are engaged in the Temple service, they will not be delivered into your hands. Upon hearing this, on the following day, when they lowered dinars in a box, they sent up a pig to them. Once the pig reached halfway up the wall, it inserted its hooves into the wall and Eretz Yisrael shuddered four hundred parasangs.

Hebrew

הָיָה שָׁם זָקֵן אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מַכִּיר בְּחׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית לָעַז לָהֶם בְּחׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית אָמַר לָהֶן כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁעוֹסְקִים בַּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין נִמְסָרִין בְּיֶדְכֶם לְמָחָר שִׁלְשְׁלוּ לָהֶם דִּינָרִים בְּקוּפָּה וְהֶעֱלוּ לָהֶם חֲזִיר כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לַחֲצִי חוֹמָה נָעַץ צִפׇּרְנָיו נִזְדַּעְזְעָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת פַּרְסָה

אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמְרוּ אָרוּר אָדָם שֶׁיְּגַדֵּל חֲזִירִים וְאָרוּר אָדָם שֶׁיְּלַמֵּד לִבְנוֹ חׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית וְעַל אוֹתָהּ שָׁנָה שָׁנִינוּ מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָא עוֹמֶר מִגַּגּוֹת צְרִיפִים וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם מִבִּקְעַת עֵין סוֹכֵר

William Davidson Translation of Babylonian Talmud - Sotah 49 b - English and Hebrew - embedded
Soncino Translation of Babylonian Talmud - Sotah - English - embedded



Seismic Effects
Footnotes

2 A parsang is a Persian mile. There are differing accounts of the exact distance of a parsang. Karcz (2004) states that this is 4000 yards which is in approximate agreement with other estimates. Using the reckoning of Karcz (2004), 400 parsangs equals to 1463 km.

3 400 parasangs shows up in a Talmudic description of an earthquake in Megilla 3a (2nd paragraph) of the Babylonian Talmud which is discussed in the Textual Evidence section for the early second century Incense Road Earthquake.

Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English translation of Antiquities of the Jews from Whiston et al (1895)

But God punished them immediately for this their barbarity, and took vengeance of them for the murder of Onias, in the manner following: While the priests and Aristobulus were besieged, it happened that the feast called the passover was come, at which it is our custom to offer a great number of sacrifices to God; but those that were with Aristobulus wanted sacrifices, and desired that their countrymen without would furnish them with such sacrifices, and assured them they should have as much money for them as they should desire; and when they required them to pay a thousand drachmae for each head of cattle, Aristobulus and the priests willingly undertook to pay for them accordingly, and those within let down the money over the walls, and gave it them. But when the others had received it, they did not deliver the sacrifices, but arrived at that height of wickedness as to break the assurances they had given, and to be guilty of impiety towards God, by not furnishing those that wanted them with sacrifices. And when the priests found they had been cheated, and that the agreements they had made were violated, they prayed to God that he would avenge them on their countrymen. Nor did he delay that their punishment, but sent a strong and vehement storm of wind, that destroyed the fruits of the whole country, till a modius of wheat was then bought for eleven drachmae.

Greek

Ὁ δὲ θεὸς ταύτης αὐτοὺς παραχρῆμα ἐτιμωρήσατο τῆς ὠμότητος καὶ δίκην εἰσεπράξατο τοῦ Ὀνίου φόνου τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ: πολιορκουμένων τῶν ἱερέων καὶ τοῦ Ἀριστοβούλου συνέβη τὴν ἑορτὴν ἐπιστῆναι τὴν καλουμένην φάσκα, καθ᾽ ἣν ἔθος ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πολλὰ θύειν τῷ θεῷ. ἀποροῦντες δὲ θυμάτων οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀριστόβουλον ἠξίωσαν αὐτοῖς τοὺς ὁμοφύλους παρασχεῖν χρήματα λαβόντας ἀντὶ τῶν θυμάτων ὅσα θέλουσιν. τῶν δέ, εἰ βούλονται λαβεῖν, χιλίας δραχμὰς ὑπὲρ ἑκάστης κεφαλῆς καταβαλεῖν κελευόντων, προθύμως ὅ τε Ἀριστόβουλος καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς ὑπέστησαν καὶ διὰ τῶν τειχῶν καθιμήσαντες ἔδωκαν αὐτοῖς τὰ χρήματα. κἀκεῖνοι λαβόντες οὐκ ἀπέδωκαν τὰ θύματα, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τοῦτο πονηρίας ἦλθον, ὥστε παραβῆναι τὰς πίστεις καὶ ἀσεβῆσαι τὸν θεὸν τὰ πρὸς τὰς θυσίας μὴ παρασχόντες τοῖς δεομένοις. παρασπονδηθέντες δὲ οἱ ἱερεῖς ηὔξαντο τὸν θεὸν δίκην αὐτῶν εἰσπράξασθαι παρὰ τῶν ὁμοφύλων, ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἀνεβάλετο τὴν τιμωρίαν, ἀλλὰ πνεῦμα πολὺ καὶ βίαιον ἐπιπέμψας τὸν καρπὸν ἁπάσης τῆς χώρας διέφθειρεν, ὡς τὸν μόδιον τοῦ σίτου τότε αὐτοὺς ἐξωνεῖσθαι δραχμῶν ἕνδεκα.

English Translation by Whiston (1737) of Jewish Antiquities Book 14 - Embedded



Seismic Effects Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Roman History by Dio Cassius

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English from Cary and Foster (1916)

Thence he [Pompey] proceeded against Syria Palaestina, because its inhabitants had ravaged Phoenicia. Their rulers were two brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, who were quarrelling themselves, as it chanced, and were creating factions in the cities on account of the priesthood (for so they called their kingdom) of their god, whoever he is. Pompey immediately won over Hyrcanus without a battle, since the latter had no force worthy of note; and by shutting up Aristobulus in a certain place he compelled him to come to terms, and when he would surrender neither the money nor the garrison, he threw him into chains. After this he more easily overcame the rest, but had trouble in besieging Jerusalem. Most of the city, to be sure, he took without any trouble, as he was received by the party of Hyrcanus; but the temple itself, which the other party had occupied, he captured only with difficulty. For it was on high ground and was fortified by a wall of its own, and if they had continued defending it on all days alike, he could not have got possession of it. As it was, they made an excavation of what are called the days of Saturn, and by doing no work at all on those days afforded the Romans an opportunity in this interval to batter down the wall. The latter, on learning of this superstitious awe of theirs, made no serious attempts the rest of the time, but on those days, when they came round in succession, assaulted most vigorously. Thus the defenders were captured on the day of Saturn, without making any defence, and all the wealth was plundered. The kingdom was given to Hyrcanus, and Aristobulus was carried away.

Seismic Effects Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Earthquake Catalog Descriptions

The entries for this supposed event in some of the earthquake catalogs are brief.

Sometimes, the references listed for this earthquake are older even more problematic earthquake catalogs with no mention of source documents. Amiran et. al. (1994) for example cites Arvanitakis (1903), Willis (1927), and Sieberg (1932a) or Sieberg (1932b). As such, this illustrates the incestuous nature of earthquake catalogs that rely too much on other catalogs instead of examining original source material such as was rigorously done in the earthquake catalogs of Guidoboni et al (1994) and Ambraseys (2009).

An example of how catalog errors can deceive a researcher can be found in Ken-Tor et al. (2001a) which assigns a date of 64 BCE to a seismite (Event A) in Nahal Ze ‘elim when the age-depth profile presented suggests the seismite was formed in the middle of the second century BCE. Ken-Tor et. al (2001a) appear to have based their date assignment on the earthquake catalogs of Willis (1928) and/or Amiran et al (1994). Williams (2004) and Agnon et. al (2006) later redated this seismite (Event A) to ~150 BCE.

Archaeoseismic Evidence

Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Heshbon possible ≥ 8
Stratum 15 Destruction Layer (Mitchel, 1980) - 2nd - 1st century BCE

Mitchel (1980:21) noted chronological difficulties dating Stratum 15.

Though evidence for Stratum 15 occupation at Tell Hesban occurs in the form of ceramic remains found across the entire site, evidence of stratigraphic value is greatly limited in quantity and extent.
Mitchel (1980:47) noted that there was limited evidence for destruction and/or abandonment in Stratum 15 though most of the evidence was removed by subsequent building activities particularly in Stratum 13. Destruction layers were variously described as debris, a rubble layer, or tumble. Due to slim evidence, Mitchel (1980:70) did not form firm conclusions about the nature of the end of Stratum 15
The transition to Stratum 14 may be characterized as a smooth one, although the evidence is slim. There is currently no evidence of a destroying conflagration at the end of Stratum 15. In fact, I do not believe it is likely that we shall know whether Stratum 15 Heshbon was simply abandoned or destroyed by natural or human events.

Stratum 14 Earthquake (Mitchel, 1980) - 1st century BCE - 2nd century CE

Mitchel (1980) identified a destruction layer in Stratum 14 which he attributed to an earthquake. Unfortunately, the destruction layer is not precisely dated. Using some assumptions, Mitchel (1980) dated the earthquake destruction to the 130 CE Eusebius Mystery Quake, apparently unaware at the time that this earthquake account may be either misdated as suggested by Russell (1985) or mislocated as suggested by Ambraseys (2009). Although Russell (1985) attributed the destruction layer in Stratum 14 to the early 2nd century CE Incense Road Quake, a number of earthquakes are possible candidates including the 31 BCE Josephus Quake.

Mitchel (1980:73) reports that a majority of caves used for dwelling collapsed at the top of Stratum 14 which could be noticed by:

bedrock surface channels, presumably for directing run-off water into storage facilities, which now are totally disrupted, and in many cases rest ten to twenty degrees from the horizontal; by caves with carefully cut steps leading down into them whose entrances are fully or largely collapsed and no longer usable; by passages from caves which can still be entered into formerly communicating caves which no longer exist, or are so low-ceilinged or clogged with debris as to make their use highly unlikely — at least as they stand now.
Mitchel (1980:73) also noticed that new buildings constructed in Stratum 13 were leveled over a jumble of broken-up bedrock. Mitchel (1980:95) reports that Areas B and D had the best evidence for the massive bedrock collapse - something he attributed to the "softer" strata in this area, more prone to karst features and thus easier to burrow into and develop underground dwelling structures. Mitchel (1980:96) reports discovery of a coin of Aretas IV (9 BC – 40 CE) in the fill of silo D.3:57 which he suggests was placed as part of reconstruction after the earthquake. Although Mitchel (1980:96) acknowledges that this suggests that the causitive earthquake was the 31 BCE Josephus Quake, Mitchel (1980:96) argued for a later earthquake based on the mistaken belief that the 31 BCE Josephus Quake had an epicenter in the Galilee. Paleoseismic evidence from the Dead Sea, however, indicates that the 31 BCE Josephus Quake had an epicenter in the vicinity of the Dead Sea relatively close to Tell Hesban. Mitchel (1980:96-98)'s argument follows:
The filling of the silos, caves, and other broken—up bedrock installations at the end of the Early Roman period was apparently carried out nearly immediately after the earthquake occurred. This conclusion is based on the absence of evidence for extended exposure before filling (silt, water—laid deposits, etc.), which in fact suggests that maybe not even one winter's rain can be accounted for between the earthquake and the Stratum 13 filling operation. If this conclusion is correct, then the Aretas IV coin had to have been introduced into silo D.3:57 fill soon after the earthquake. which consequently could not have been earlier than 9 B.C.

The nature of the pottery preserved on the soft, deep fills overlying collapsed bedrock is also of significant importance to my argument in favor of the A.D. 130 earthquake as responsible for the final demise of underground (bedrock) installations in Areas B and D. Table 7 provides a systematic presentation of what I consider to be the critical ceramic evidence from loci in three adjacent squares, D.3, D.4, and B.7. The dates of the latest pottery uniformly carry us well beyond the date of the earthquake which damaged Qumran, down, in fact, closer to the end of the 1st century A.D. or the beginning of the 2nd.

In addition to these three fill loci, soil layer D.4:118A (inside collapsed cave D.4:116 + D.4:118) yielded Early Roman I-III sherds, as well as two Late Roman I sherds (Square D.4 pottery pails 265, 266). Contamination of these latter samples is possible, but not likely. I dug the locus myself.

Obviously, this post-31 B.C. pottery could have been deposited much later than 31 B.C.. closer, say, to the early 2nd century A.D., but the evidence seems to be against such a view. I personally excavated much of locus D.4:101 (Stratum 13). It was a relatively homogeneous, unstratified fill of loose soil that gave all the appearances of rapid deposition in one operation. From field descriptions of the apparently parallel loci in Squares D.3 and B.7. I would judge them to be roughly equivalent and subject to the same interpretation and date. And I repeat, the evidence for extended exposure to the elements (and a concomitant slow, stratified deposition) was either missed in excavation, not properly recorded, or did not exist.

This case is surely not incontrovertible but seems to me to carry the weight of the evidence which was excavated at Tell Hesban.
Mitchel (1980:100)'s 130 CE date for the causitive earthquake rests on the assumption that the "fills" were deposited soon after bedrock collapse. If one discards this assumption, numismatic evidence and ceramic evidence suggests that the "fill" was deposited over a longer period of time - perhaps even 200+ years - and the causitive earthquake was earlier. Unfortunately, it appears that the terminus ante quem for the bedrock collapse event is not well constrained. The terminus post quem appears to depend on the date for lower levels of Stratum 14 which seems to have been difficult to date precisely and underlying Stratum 15 which Mitchel (1980:21) characterized as chronologically difficult.

Tel Ateret aka Vadun Jacob possible Ellenblum et. al. (2015) estimate ~1.5 meters of fault slip occurred on the site between its abandonment probably in the middle of the first century BC and when a Crusader fortress was built at the end of the 12th century CE. Due to the sites abandonment and lack of identified new constructions during this time, it is difficult to resolve the ~1.5 meters of slip into individual earthquake events. However, abandonment of the site may have been precipitated by an earthquake. The latest Hellenistic coin excavated from the site dates to 65/64 BCE indicating desertion of the site occurred afterwards.
Tell Anafa possible Hellenistic Earthquake inferred from abandonment - Ellenblum et. al. (2015:4) suggested that an earthquake could be interpreted from the results of excavations in the Hellenistic period at Tel Anafa.
In another two-phase Hellenistic settlement some 20 km north of Ateret - Tell Anafa, an abrupt termination of a well-developed settlement with elaborate construction [Sharon Herbert in Stern et al (1993:58-61, v. 1)], may be re-interpreted as a result of an earthquake destruction.
Although Herbert in Stern et al (1993) did not report any evidence for seismic destruction in Hellenistic times, they did date construction of a Late Hellenistic stuccoed building around ~125 BCE noting that a coin of Alexander Zebina (128-125 BCE) found in the construction fill of the bath's southern room is the latest find under any of the building's original floors. Herbert in Stern et al (1993) also reports that a massive leveling and terracing operation took place with the construction of the Late Hellenistic stuccoed building, obliterating earlier architectural remains. This could explain an absence of archaeoseismic evidence. Coins and [] stamped amphora handles strongly suggested that the site was abandoned in second quarter of the first century BCE; similar to Tel Ateret which was abandoned sometime after 65/64 BCE.

Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Heshbon



Tel Ateret aka Vadun Jacob



Tell Anafa



Tsunamogenic Evidence

Paleoseismic Evidence

<
Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Tekieh Trenches possible to unlikely ≥ 7 Gomez et. al. (2003:15) may have seen evidence for an earthquake in the 1st or 2nd century BCE in Event B. Event B is estimated to have created ~ 2 meters of left lateral strike slip displacement which translates to an estimated Magnitude between 7.0 and 7.3 (7.0 and 7.2 according to Gomez et al, 2003:16-17). In terms of dating, an upper bound for Event B is 170 BCE - 20 CE while a lower bound for Events B and and the older Event C is from 1690 - 1400 BCE.
Bet Zayda possible to unlikely ≥ 7 Event CH4-E6 (modeled age 392 BCE – 91 CE) from Wechsler at al. (2014) could have been caused by the Pig on the Wall Quake.
Jordan Valley - Dir Hagla Trenches possible ≥ 7 Reches and Hoexter (1981) report that Event A was dated from 200 BCE - 200 CE and exhibited 3.5 m of vertical displacement. Although the total vertical displacement could have been created by more than one seismic event, there were no broken layers between Event A the next Event (B) which was dated to between 700 and 900 CE. Further, they interpreted Event A created a fault scarp on the site. Kagan, E., et al. (2011) noted that the dip slip could have been magnified by local variations in the strike of the fault.
Dead Sea - Seismite Types n/a n/a n/a
Dead Sea - Nahal Darga possible ≥ 7 Enzel et. al. (2000) identified a 40-75 cm. thick seismite in coarse grained lithology in Deformed Unit 9 in Stratigraphic Unit 11 which dated to ~50 BCE (~ 2000 yrs BP).
Dead Sea - En Feshkapossible 7.9 - 8.8 Kagan et al (2011) identified two seismites which could have been caused by an earthquake from around 64 BCE.
Depth (cm.) Thickness (cm.) Seismite Type Modeled Age (± 1σ) Modeled Age (± 2σ) Quake Assignment (Kagan) Quake Assignment (Williams)
377 less than 1 4 (microbreccia) 69 BCE ± 28 67 BCE ± 65 64 BCE Pig on the Wall Quake not assigned
377.8 less than 1 4 (microbreccia) 72 BCE ± 30 70 BCE ± 64 not assigned not assigned
Dead Sea - En Gedi no evidence - masked Migowski et. al. (2004) observed that any possible 64 BCE seismite in En Gedi was masked or overprinted by the thick 31 BCE Josephus Quake seismite.
Dead Sea - Nahal Ze 'elim unlikely Williams (2004) and Agnon et. al (2006) both revised an original date assignment of Event A at site ZA-1 by Ken-Tor et al. (2001a) from ~64 BCE to approximately mid second century BCE since the mid second century date better matched the radiocarbon profile and estimates of sedimentation rate.

Kagan et al (2011) did not assign a 64 BCE earthquake to any of the seismites observed at site ZA-2
Araba - Introduction n/a n/a n/a
Araba - Taybeh Trench possible to unlikely ≥ 7 LeFevre et al. (2018) did not observe any seismic events whose time window encompassed 64 BCE.
Araba - Qatar Trench unlikely ≥ 7 Klinger et. al. (2015) did not observe any seismic events whose time window encompassed 64 BCE.
Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Tekieh Trenches

Gomez et. al. (2003:15) may have seen evidence for an earthquake in the 1st or 2nd century BCE in Event B. Event B is estimated to have created ~ 2 meters of left lateral strike slip displacement which translates to an estimated Magnitude between 7.0 and 7.3 (7.0 and 7.2 according to Gomez et al, 2003:16-17). In terms of dating, an upper bound for Event B is 170 BCE - 20 CE while a lower bound for Events B and and the older Event C is from 1690 - 1400 BCE.



Bet Zayda (aka Beteiha)

Event CH4-E6 (modeled age 392 BCE – 91 CE) from Wechsler at al. (2014) could have been caused by the Pig on the Wall Quake.



Jordan Valley - Dir Hagla Trenches

Reches and Hoexter (1981) report that Event A was dated from 200 BCE - 200 CE and exhibited 3.5 m of vertical displacement. Although the total vertical displacement could have been created by more than one seismic event, there were no broken layers between Event A the next Event (B) which was dated to between 700 and 900 CE. Further, they interpreted Event A created a fault scarp on the site. Kagan, E., et al. (2011) noted that the dip slip could have been magnified by local variations in the strike of the fault.



Dead Sea - Seismite Types



Dead Sea - Nahal Darga

Enzel et. al. (2000) identified a 40-75 cm. thick seismite in coarse grained lithology in Deformed Unit 9 in Stratigraphic Unit 11 which dated to ~50 BCE (~ 2000 yrs BP).



Dead Sea - En Feshka

Kagan et al (2011) identified two seismites which could have been caused by an earthquake from around 64 BCE.

Depth (cm.) Thickness (cm.) Seismite Type Modeled Age (± 1σ) Modeled Age (± 2σ) Quake Assignment (Kagan) Quake Assignment (Williams)
377 less than 1 4 (microbreccia) 69 BCE ± 28 67 BCE ± 65 64 BCE Pig on the Wall Quake not assigned
377.8 less than 1 4 (microbreccia) 72 BCE ± 30 70 BCE ± 64 not assigned not assigned


Dead Sea - En Gedi

Migowski et. al. (2004) observed that any possible 64 BCE seismite in En Gedi was masked or overprinted by the thick 31 BCE Josephus Quake seismite.



Dead Sea - Nahal Ze 'elim

ZA-1
Williams (2004) and Agnon et. al (2006) both revised an original date assignment of Event A at site ZA-1 by Ken-Tor et al. (2001a) from ~64 BCE to approximately mid second century BCE since the mid second century date better matched the radiocarbon profile and estimates of sedimentation rate.
ZA-2
Kagan et al (2011) did not assign a 64 BCE earthquake to any of the seismites observed at site ZA-2



Araba - Introduction



Araba - Taybeh Trench

LeFevre et al. (2018) did not observe any seismic events whose time window encompassed 64 BCE.



Araba - Qatar Trench

Klinger et. al. (2015) did not observe any seismic events whose time window encompassed 64 BCE.



Notes

Paleoclimate - Droughts

Date (with hotlink) Notes
Onias Drought
Date (with hotlink) Notes
Onias Drought

Mention is made of a drought preceding this siege of Jerusalem which may have some expression in the sediments and may assist in resolving chronology. In Antiquities of the Jews , Josephus writes in Book XIV, Chapter II, Paragraph 1

Now there was one, whose name was Onias, a righteous man be was, and beloved of God, who, in a certain drought, had prayed to God to put an end to the intense heat, and whose prayers God had heard, and had sent them rain.

References