Tell Es-Sultan (Jericho)

Transliterated Name	Source	Name
Tel Jericho	English
Ancient Jericho	English
Tell es-Sultan	Arabic	تل السلطان

Tell es-Sultan

History

from Kathleen Kenyon in Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

Jericho enters written history as the first town west of the Jordan River to be captured by the Israelites approaching from the east. Joshua's instruction to his spies to "Go, view the land, especially Jericho" (Jos. 2:1) is an illustration of the position of Jericho in the age-long process of penetration by nomads and seminomads from the desert area in the east into the fertile coastal lands. It stood near the Jordan fords between a good valley route down the eastern side of the Jordan Valley and another going up the western mountains. As it dominated one of the few routes leading directly from east to west, it was liable to attack by successive invaders.

The identification of the main mound of the oasis, Tell es-Sultan (map reference 192.142), with the oldest city is generally accepted. The mound rises to a height of21.5 m and covers an area of about one acre. It stands quite near 'Ein es-Sultan (Elisha's Well). As regards the Jericho of the Book of Joshua, there are some chronological difficulties, as will be seen below. Following its destruction by Joshua, the Bible states, Jericho was abandoned for centuries until a new settlement was established by Hiel the Bethelite (1 Kg. 16:34), in the time of Ahab, in the ninth century BCE. Other biblical references do not suggest that Jericho ever recovered its importance. The archaeological evidence shows that occupation on the ancient site came to an end at the time of the Babylonian Exile. The centers of the later Jerichos were elsewhere in the Oasis.

Biblical History

from Thomas A. Holland in Meyers et. al. (1997)

The first references to Jericho in the Hebrew Bible are in the books of Numbers (22:1, 26:3), where the encampment of Israel is described across the river from the town; of Deuteronomy (34:1, 3), where the site is named; and of Joshua (2:1-3, 5:13-6:26), where it is recorded that spies were sent to examine the city and that the town was surrounded and conquered. The modern name of the mound, Tell es-Sultan, is the medieval name given to the site because it is located at the spring of 'Am es-Sultan ("Elisha's fountain"). During the period of the Judges, when the site was purportedly occupied by Eglon of Moab, the town was also known as the "city of palm trees" (Jgs. 3:13).

Exploration

from Kathleen Kenyon in Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

Soundings at Tell es-Sultan were first made by C. Warren in 1868 as part of the early campaigns of the British Palestine Exploration Fund. Warren sank a number of shafts into the mound and concluded that there was nothing to be found. Two of his shafts were identified in the 1957-1958 excavations, one of them penetrating the Early Bronze Age town wall and the other missing the great Pre-Pottery Neolithic stone tower by only one meter.

The first large-scale excavations were those of an Austro-German expedition, from 1907 to 1909, under the direction of E. Sellin and C. Watzinger. The expedition cleared the face of a considerable part of the Early Bronze Age town wall and traced the line of about half of the revetment at the base of the Middle Bronze Age defenses. Within the town, a large area of houses was cleared at the north end and a great trench was cut across the center. Reexcavation in 1953 showed that it had penetrated well into the Pre-Pottery Neolithic levels. The excavations were conducted and published by the best standards of the time. Unfortunately, at that time, there was no accepted chronology, so that the usefulness of this early work is limited.

By the time new excavations were undertaken by the Neilson expeditions, directed by J. Garstang, from 1930 to 1936, the knowledge of pottery chronology had greatly increased. Excavation technique lagged, however, and the absence of detailed stratigraphy still often made the dating of the structures mere guesswork. The dating of the successive Bronze Age defensive systems by Garstang has, in fact, proved to be wrong. No Late Bronze Age wall survives. Also, as knowledge of pottery chronology increased, the dating given to the scanty Late Bronze Age levels from the mound and the tombs was shown to be incorrect. Garstang's most important discovery was that beneath the Bronze Age levels there was a deep Neolithic accumulation, usually of the Pre-Pottery stage. He believed that there was a transition to the use of pottery at the site, but this was a mistake. A third major series of excavations was carried out between 1952 and 1958, directed by K. M. Kenyon on behalf of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Archaeological History

from Thomas A. Holland in Meyers et. al. (1997)

Because of its biblical connections, the site of Jericho inspired considerable attention for nearly fifteen hundred years before the advent of modern archaeological research. Many pilgrims and travelers visited the area during the first millennium CE, the first written account, in 333 CE, being that of the Pilgrim of Bordeau (described in Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099-1185, by John Wilkinson, with Joyce Hill and W. F. Ryan, London, 1988, p. 4 [JW: bookmarked to the page at archive.org]). It was not until 1868, however, that the first archaeological investigation of the mound was undertaken by Charles Warren, on behalf of the British Palestine Exploration Fund. Warren excavated east-west trenches on the mound and sank 2.4 sq. m shafts 6.1 m into the earth (Warren, 1869, pp. 14-16) . Although Warren dug through the EB town wall and found artifacts, he did not consider that the excavated material remains (pottery and stone mortars) were very important occupational finds for dating successive historical periods. Warren's conclusion regarding Jericho and other similar sites was: "The fact that in the Jordan valley these mounds generally stand at the mouths of the great wadies, is rather in favour of their having been the sites of ancient guard-houses or watch-towers" (Warren, 1869, p. 210).

The site was more seriously investigated when Claude R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener made a topographical survey of Jericho and its surroundings, published in The Survey of Western Palestine, vol. 3 (London, 1883). The second archaeological expedition to the site was conducted by an Austro-German team directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger between 1907 and 1909 and in 1911, under the sponsorship of the German Oriental Society (Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft); the results appeared in Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen (Leipzig, 1913). The large portion of the mound excavated revealed much of the Middle Bronze Age glacis, which originally surrounded the town, as well as portions of the EB town walls. Houses belonging to the Israelite occupation of the town (eleventh-early sixth centuries BCE) were discovered on the southeast side of the mound. Controversy over the dating and capture of Jericho by Joshua has centered around two main schools of thought. The first theory conforms essentially to the biblical view that the Israelite occupation occurred with military attacks on Canaanite cities (a view primarily maintained by William Foxwell Albright, G. Ernest Wright, and John Bright). The second theory is that the conquest was a gradual and peaceful assimilation process that occurred in about 1200 BCE, at the beginning of the Iron Age (a view held by Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth and more recently discussed by Manfred Weippert [1971], and Israel Finkelstein [1988]).

In an effort to obtain further archaeological evidence concerning this question, excavations were conducted at Jericho from 1930 to 1936 by John Garstang. He led the Marston Melchett Expedition on behalf of the University of Liverpool and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Garstang excavated many areas on the mound and also located a number of MB and LB tombs in the necropolis associated with the site (Garstang, 1932, pp. 18-22, 41-54; 1933a PP- 4-42; Bienkowski, 1986, pp. 32-102). Garstang originally claimed that the Israelites had indeed destroyed Jericho on the evidence of fallen walls he dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age, but he later revised their destruction to a much earlier period. Although the Joshua controversy was not solved, Garstang did reveal the very early Mesolithic and Neolithic stages of occupation on the site.

In an effort to resolve the Joshua problem and to clarify the results of Garstang's excavations, Kathleen M. Kenyon directed the most recent archaeological work at Jericho (1952-1958), sponsored by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the British Academy in collaboration with the American School of Oriental Research (now Albright Institute) in Jerusalem and the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (Kenyon, 1957, i960, 1965, 1981; Kenyon and Holland, 1982, 1983). The Kenyon expedition excavated a large number of tombs in the necropolis dating from the Proto-Urban period (c. 3400- 3100 BCE) to the Roman period. Although much of the ancient mound had already been dug by the previous two expeditions, Kenyon was able to plot three main trenches on the north (trench II), west (trench I), and south (trench III) slopes of the tell in order to obtain comparative stratigraphical cross-sections of the main fortification systems of different historical periods. She also excavated a number of large squares inside tlie walls of the town in order to crosscheck the results of the former excavations as well as to expose larger areas of the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods of occupation; these squares are lettered and numbered

A I—II (grid E4-5, on the highest part of the tell, 24 m high)
D I
D II (grid H4-5, east end of trench I)
E I-V (grid E-F6-7, northeast side of the tell)
F I (grid G4-5, northeast end of trench I)
H I-VI (grid H6-7 , east side of the mound above the spring)
L I (grid G5-6 , center of the mound)
M I (grid F-G5 , overlapping the EB town wall on the northwestern side of the mound)

Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, Sections, Tables, and Photos

Maps

Fig. 5 Geological sketch
Figure 5

Geological sketch of the Tell es-Sultan surrounding area. Fault traces (Roth, 1970; Begin, 1974; Shamir et al., 2005; Shamir, 2006) and the location of Tell and other major sites of great cultural interest are reported. Photos:
1. fault zone in a Cretaceous deposit northeast of the Tell
2. view from the southeast of a northeast—southwest-trending scarp (red arrows point the crest) along the Nuweime fault trace. Tell es-Sultan is in the background
Alfonsi et al. (2012)
of the Tell es-Sultan and surrounding area from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Location Map from Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

Map of the main sites at Jericho and its environs, Roman-Byzantine period.

Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
Fig. 1 - Location Map

Figure 1

Location Map

Netzer (1975)

from Netzer (1975)

Aerial Views

Tell es-Sultan in Google Earth

Tell es-Sultan

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Tell es-Sultan on govmap.gov.il

Tell es-Sultan

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Site Plan with

Figure 2

Tell es-Sultan with the areas excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997-2000) and the Austro-German and British Expeditions.

Nigro and Taha (2006)

excavations areas of Garstang, Kenyon, and the Italian-Palestinians from Nigro and Taha (2006)
Fig. 2 Site Plan from

Figure 2

Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

Nigro (2016)
Fig. 6 Site Plan of EB II

Figure 6

Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho.

Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

(3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 8 Site Plan of EB III

Figure 8

Reconstructive plan of the EB III city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, with Palace G and the nearby temple.

Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

city of Jericho from Nigro (2016)
Site Plan and Excavation Areas
Tell es-Sultan: plan of the site and excavation areas
1. City wall from Early Bronze Age; in west it is built directly above Neolithic wall
2. Retaining wall of glacis from Middle Bronze Age II
3. Glacis;
4. Kenyon's trench I
5. Trench II
6. Trench III
7. Road
8. Pools near spring
Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
from Kathleen Kenyon in Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
Fig. 1 Composite sketch

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907-1958

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 2 Plan of Pre-Pottery

Fig. 2

Plan of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Town Walls

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Neolithic Town Walls from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze

Fig. 3

Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Age Town Walls from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 4 Plan of Middle Bronze

Fig. 4

Plan of Middle Bronze Age town rampart and revetment

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Age town rampart and revetment from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Site Plan with

Figure 2

Tell es-Sultan with the areas excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997-2000) and the Austro-German and British Expeditions.

Nigro and Taha (2006)

excavations areas of Garstang, Kenyon, and the Italian-Palestinians from Nigro and Taha (2006)
Fig. 2 Site Plan from

Figure 2

Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

Nigro (2016)
Fig. 6 Site Plan of EB II

Figure 6

Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho.

Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

(3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 8 Site Plan of EB III

Figure 8

Reconstructive plan of the EB III city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, with Palace G and the nearby temple.

Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

city of Jericho from Nigro (2016)
Site Plan and Excavation Areas
Tell es-Sultan: plan of the site and excavation areas
1. City wall from Early Bronze Age; in west it is built directly above Neolithic wall
2. Retaining wall of glacis from Middle Bronze Age II
3. Glacis;
4. Kenyon's trench I
5. Trench II
6. Trench III
7. Road
8. Pools near spring
Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
from Kathleen Kenyon in Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
Fig. 1 Composite sketch

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907-1958

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 2 Plan of Pre-Pottery

Fig. 2

Plan of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Town Walls

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Neolithic Town Walls from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze

Fig. 3

Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Age Town Walls from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 4 Plan of Middle Bronze

Fig. 4

Plan of Middle Bronze Age town rampart and revetment

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Age town rampart and revetment from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Plans with CoSeismic Effects - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 4 Section of

Figure 4

Section of Trench 1

Kenyon (1957)

Trench 1 from Kenyon (1957)
Plate VI Section

Plate VI

Section through the Excavated Area in the Northeast Corner

Garstang and Garstang (1948)

through the Excavated Area in the Northeast Corner from Garstang and Garstang (1948)

Magnified

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 4 Section of

Figure 4

Section of Trench 1

Kenyon (1957)

Trench 1 from Kenyon (1957)
Plate VI Section

Plate VI

Section through the Excavated Area in the Northeast Corner

Garstang and Garstang (1948)

through the Excavated Area in the Northeast Corner from Garstang and Garstang (1948)

Tables

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 2 - Earthquake-Induced Damage from Archaeological Reports for PPNB (7,500–6,000 BCE) - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photos

Fig. 1 Oblique Aerial View

Figure 1

General view of the site of Tell es-Sultan, from the south.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

of Tell es-Sultan from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 3a Coseismic Effects

Figure 3a

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3b Coseismic Effects

Figure 3b

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3c Coseismic Effects

Figure 3c

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3d Coseismic Effects

Figure 3d

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3e Coseismic Effects

Figure 3e

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(e) The Garstang excavation as appears today (same shot position). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3f Coseismic Effects

Figure 3f

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Stratigraphy

Entire Site

Nigro (2016)

from Nigro (2016)

Table 1

Correlation between Archaeological Periodization and the Stratigraphic Phases of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition at Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho

Nigro (2016)

Nigro (2006)

from Nigro (2006)

Table 1

Correlation between Kenyon’s periodization and the stratigraphic phases of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition.

Nigro (2006)

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Time Periods

Time periods from Stern et al (1993)

Age	Dates	Comments
Early Bronze IA-B	3300-3000 BCE	‎
Early Bronze II	3000-2700 BCE	‎
Early Bronze III	2700-2200 BCE	‎
Middle Bronze I	2200-2000 BCE	‎EB IV - Intermediate Bronze
Middle Bronze IIA	2000-1750 BCE	‎
Middle Bronze IIB	1750-1550 BCE	‎
Late Bronze I	1550-1400 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIA	1400-1300 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIB	1300-1200 BCE	‎
Iron IA	1200-1150 BCE	‎
Iron IB	1150-1100 BCE	‎
Iron IIA	1000-900 BCE	‎
Iron IIB	900-700 BCE	‎
Iron IIC	700-586 BCE	‎
Babylonian & Persian	586-332 BCE	‎
Early Hellenistic	332-167 BCE	‎
Late Hellenistic	167-37 BCE	‎
Early Roman	37 BCE - 132 CE	‎
Herodian	37 BCE - 70 CE	‎
Late Roman	132-324 CE	‎
Byzantine	324-638 CE	‎
Early Arab	638-1099 CE	Umayyad & Abbasid‎
Crusader & Ayyubid	1099-1291 CE	‎
Late Arab	1291-1516 CE	Fatimid & Mameluke‎
Ottoman	1516-1917 CE	‎

Time periods from Meyers et al (1997)

Phase	Dates	Variants
Early Bronze IA-B	3400-3100 BCE	‎
Early Bronze II	3100-2650 BCE	‎
Early Bronze III	2650-2300 BCE	‎
Early Bronze IVA-C	2300-2000 BCE	Intermediate Early-Middle Bronze, Middle Bronze I‎
Middle Bronze I	2000-1800 BCE	‎Middle Bronze IIA
Middle Bronze II	1800-1650 BCE	‎Middle Bronze IIB‎
Middle Bronze III	1650-1500 BCE	‎‎Middle Bronze IIC
Late Bronze IA	1500-1450 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIB	1450-1400 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIA	1400-1300 BCE	‎
Late Bronze IIB	1300-1200 BCE	‎
Iron IA	1200-1125 BCE	‎
Iron IB	1125-1000 BCE	‎
Iron IC	1000-925 BCE	Iron IIA‎
Iron IIA	925-722 BCE	Iron IIB‎
Iron IIB	722-586 BCE	‎Iron IIC
Iron III	586-520 BCE	Neo-Babylonian‎
Early Persian	520-450 BCE	‎
Late Persian	450-332 BCE	‎
Early Hellenistic	332-200 BCE	‎
Late Hellenistic	200-63 BCE	‎
Early Roman	63 BCE - 135 CE	‎
Middle Roman	135-250 CE	‎
Late Roman	250-363 CE	‎
Early Byzantine	363-460 CE	‎
Late Byzantine	460-638 CE	‎
Early Arab	638-1099 CE	‎
Crusader & Ayyubid	1099-1291 CE	‎
Late Arab	1291-1516 CE	‎
Ottoman	1516-1917 CE	‎

Comparative global chronology of the Neolithic Period

from wikipedia

BC	Europe	Egypt	Syria Levant	Anatolia	Khabur	Sinjar Mountains Assyria	Middle Tigris	Low Mesopotamia	Iran (Khuzistan)	Iran	Indus/ India	China
11000												Early Pottery (18,000 BC)
10000			Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Gesher Mureybet (10,500 BC)
9000			Jericho Tell Abu Hureyra
8000			Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Jericho Tell Aswad	Göbekli Tepe Çayönü Aşıklı Höyük								Initial Neolithic (Pottery) Nanzhuangtou (8500–8000 BC)
7000		Egyptian Neolithic Nabta Playa (7500 BC)	Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Jericho Tell Aswad	Çatalhöyük (7500–5500) Hacilar (7000 BC)	Tell Sabi Abyad Bouqras	Jarmo				Ganj Dareh Chia Jani Ali Kosh	Mehrgarh I
6500	Neolithic Europe Franchthi Sesklo		Pre-Pottery Neolithic C ('Ain Ghazal)		Pottery Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad Bouqras	Pottery Neolithic Jarmo			Chogha Bonut	Teppe Zagheh	Mehrgarh I	Pottery Neolithic Peiligang (7000–5000 BC)
6000	Pottery Neolithic Sesklo Dimini		Pottery Neolithic Yarmukian (Sha'ar HaGolan)		Pottery Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad Bouqras	Pottery Neolithic Jarmo		Pottery Neolithic Ubaid 0 (Tell el-'Oueili)	Pottery Neolithic Chogha Mish	Pottery Neolithic Sang-i Chakmak	Pottery Neolithic Lahuradewa Mehrgarh II Mehrgarh III
5600	Pottery Neolithic Sesklo Dimini	Faiyum A	Amuq A		Halaf Halaf-Ubaid	Umm Dabaghiya	Samarra (6000–4800 BC)	Pottery Neolithic Ubaid 0 (Tell el-'Oueili)	Tepe Muhammad Djafar	Tepe Sialk
5200	Linear Pottery culture (5500–4500 BC)	Faiyum A	Amuq B	Hacilar Mersin 24–22		Hassuna		Ubaid 1 (Eridu 19–15) Ubaid 2 (Hadji Muhammed) (Eridu 14–12)	Susiana A	Yarim Tepe Hajji Firuz Tepe
4800		Pottery Neolithic Merimde	Amuq C	Hacilar Mersin 22–20		Hassuna Late Gawra 20			Tepe Sabz	Kul Tepe Jolfa
4500		Pottery Neolithic Merimde	Amuq D	Gian Hasan Mersin 19–17	Ubaid 3	Ubaid 3 (Gawra) 19–18	Ubaid 3		Khazineh Susiana B
3800		Badarian Naqada	Amuq D	Gian Hasan Mersin 19–17	Ubaid 4
		Succeeded by: Historical Ancient Near East

End of PPNA Earthquake - ~7500 BCE

Figures, Tables, Sections, and Photos

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Tables

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 2 - Earthquake-Induced Damage from Archaeological Reports for PPNB (7,500–6,000 BCE) - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Discussion

Alfonsi (2012:646) noted that evidence of a major shaking effect was documented at the end of PPNA (i.e., at approximately 7,500 B.C.) at different sections of the site from earlier excavations. Alfonsi (2012:646) continued adding that a wide spread collapse of the encircling town wall was associated to a sudden major disaster directly attributed to an earthquake (Kenyon, 1957, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1986).

References

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

THE TELL ES-SULTAN: TECTONIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING

from Alfonsi et al. (2012:640,643)

The ancient town of Jericho is located within the DST fault zone (Fig. 1). The DST is approximately a 1,000-km-long, north–south-striking, left lateral fault system of the active boundary between the Arabian and African plates (e.g., Garfunkel et al., 1981). The DST shows relatively low level of activity in modern time, but larger-magnitude seismic events were documented in the historical reports (Guidoboni et al., 1994; Ambraseys, 2009). One of the main fault strands of the transform zone system is the Jericho fault bounding the Dead Sea basin on the west side (Reches and Hoexter, 1981; Gardosh et al., 1990). A linear escarpment at approximately 6 km south east of modern Jericho is thought to be the surface expression of the Jericho fault on land (Begin, 1974; Lazar et al., 2010). The 1927 earthquake with an M 6.2 (Ben-Menahem et al., 1976; Shapira et al., 1993) is the most recent event that caused widespread damage and casualties in the modern Jericho settlement. The revised 1927 epicenter is approximately 30 km south of the Jericho site (Avni et al., 2002; Fig. 1). Direct evidence of this event at the historical site of Jericho has not been reported by the post earthquake expeditions in the archaeological stratigraphy. Instead, archaeological traces suggest earth quake devastation back in time (Table 1).

The separation of earthquake-related damages in the archaeological layers of Jericho was made possible by the intrinsic characters of the site resulting in the classical Tell structure, where subsequent archaeological levels firmly seal the preceding occupation soils. When the village experienced destruction, there was no possibility, or need, to remove the debris completely, and the inhabitants continued to build on top of the ruins. The superposed archaeological layers in the last 11,000 yr constitute the artificial hill of the ancient Jericho up to about 10 m above the surrounding ground level (Fig. 2). This setting prevents buried and older archaeological levels from severe damaging associated to the younger shaking events.

Town wall encircling the inhabited quarters and the monumental public structures, such as the Neolithic tower (Fig. 2), appeared since the PPNA (8,500–7,500 B.C.), testifying to the presence of an organized social community. The favorable geographical position of the Oasis of Jericho and the environmental conditions are the cause of the continuous occupation of the area. Indeed, the presence of perennial water springs and the climate favored the persistent occupation of Tell es-Sultan from the Natufian (ca. 11,000 B.C.) up to the Iron Age (ca. 1,200 B.C.), with a flourishing occupation during the Neolithic stages. The artifacts of the Neolithic masonry and buildings are made on massive mudstone boulders and on sun-dried brick constructions. These constructions are vulnerable, and local collapses may occur even without earthquakes. Hence, it is critical that the archaeoseismic analysis of the deformation identifies a specific cause to the observed damage, that is, earthquake, fire, flash flood, or deliberate destruction (Marco, 2008).

ARCHAEOSEISMIC OBSERVATIONS IN THE PPNB STRATA

from Alfonsi (2012:643-645)

Figure 2 and Table 2 present a set of features recognized as seismically induced effects at Tell es-Sultan in the archaeological PPNB period (7,500–6,000 B.C.). Both the map and the table were based on our review of the archaeological documents, including the analysis of the stratigraphy, that enhance seismic shaking activities undefined in number and timing. We excluded in the map damage caused by human invasions, structural collapses, fires, or natural hazards other than earthquake. Although the distribution in the map does not reflect the complete damaged field of the Tell, it gives significant information on the nature and extension of the damage itself. Furthermore, when this picture is framed in a chronological context, it allows inferring the time–space occurrence of the individual elements (see the section Time Constraints on the PPNB Earthquakes Occurrence).

In the following paragraphs, we describe the significant damage elements, although more than one effect coexist at several points, that is, a set of fractures associated to major collapse and human skeletons trapped under the fallen structures. In general, the observed fractures appeared to the excavators as well-preserved open elements while removing the fillings. No calcification of the fracture was observed to be prevented by the climate of the Jericho area. The fractures did not result from lateral spreading because

the weight loading the fractured layers is not so high
the observed fractures are always accompanied with other features in an extended deformed area
most of them occur in the flat central sector of the Tell.

Widespread devastation of original structures was observed in the west side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone A). Here, human skeletons were found underneath collapsed building walls (Fig. 2, points 1 and 2; Fig. 3b). The houses were completely dismembered in the collapse, and strengthening and rebuilding followed on the same plans. Figure 3c shows the complete collapse of a wall that fell in one piece northward (Fig. 2, point 3; Table 2). The occurrence of a pervasive fracture was also documented, and based on our reconstruction, its strike was northeast—southwest (point 4). The houses were rebuilt, and Kenyon (1981) suggested that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake destruction (see also Table 2).

The layers of PPNB appear intensively damaged also at the northeastern side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone B). Also, here, coseismic open fractures are clearly documented (points 9, 15, and 8). We used the original pictures and sections to define the position and orientation of these fractures and then to determine the relative movement along their trace. Figure 3a is a top view of a set of open fractures crossing the floor and the walls of a courtyard of a house. The set is composed of at least three segments reaching a minimum visible extent of 3 m, with a mean direction of 085° and an opening of approximately 20 cm. Figure 3d shows one of the major fractures at the Neolithic Tell. The marked fractures displace artifacts of different materials and shapes (walls and floors) and maintain a constant direction (040°), suggesting a tectonic origin, for at least 5 m (the original plans are in the Archives of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, UK). The upper termination of the fractures in the wall, according to the archaeoseismic stratigraphic section in Figure 4, is within layer X, that is, the upper terminus of the PPNB period. Another interesting feature concerning the studied earthquakes is shown in Figure 3f, where both a profound fracture and human remains are found. Garstang and Garstang (1948) noted that the head of the skeleton to the right is severed from the body, giving the illusion of decapitation. However, in fact, the cause for the head displacement was a fracture. The excavation further downward revealed a continuous few-centimeter open fracture across the floor, indicating an earthquake that gave this illusion. Nur and Burgess (2008) suggested a right lateral offset between the ribs and skull position of the skeleton. We measured a relative lateral movement of a few centimeters. Based on different marker points, such as the cervical bone versus the spinal column (Fig. 3f, circled part), the offset could be also interpreted as left lateral. A small step is apparent on the right side of the photo, suggesting minor vertical offset with east side down. Placing the two images and then the fractures of Figure 3d and 3f within the log of Figure 4, we noted two parallel fractures about 3 m apart. The main fracture affects the lower part of layer X, belonging to the younger stage of the PPNB period. The deformation observed within layer X extends for about 30 m along the section, affecting floors, house walls, and human remains (Fig. 4). A group of human skeletons was also found not in burial position, whose deaths may be attributed to sudden events such as collapse and destruction (Fig. 4, point 11).

TIME CONSTRAINTS ON THE PPNB EARTHQUAKES OCCURRENCE

from Alfonsi (2012:645-646)

In Figure 4, we project the stratigraphic position of the seismically induced deformation observed at zones A and B (Fig. 4, dashed boxes and referred points). Once placed in archaeological correlation, the highly deformed layers at different sites of excavations allow a definition of the temporal sequence of the events.

The fracturing at point 9 (zone A) was interpreted as a shaking effect acting in the first half of the PPNB period. The effects observed at points 4 and 2 (zone B) occurred within layers of the same time interval. Hence, we assumed that all these shaking effects resulted from the same seismic event (Fig. 4, green stars). The position of the event horizon relative to the archaeological periodization suggests the occurrence of the event at about 7,000 B.C., well after the beginning of the PPNB period. The only radiocarbon age from the deformed layer at the early stage of PPNB, consistent with the archaeological periodization and of good quality, is 7,683–7,484 B.C. (calibrated age, 2σ range; sample BM-1320, 8;540 65 B.P.; Kenyon, 1981); this age would predate the event (Fig. 4, zone A, square MI).

A younger event was recognized through the analysis of points 3, 15, and 16 from zones A and B of the map (Fig. 4, red stars). The effects were observed within layers dated to the end of the PPNB. In particular, the fracture of point 15 partially crosses the layers of the latest PPNB period, marked with Roman number X (Fig. 4), and it is sealed by the undisturbed portion of the same layer and successive layer IX (beginning of PPA, i.e., well after 6,000 B.C.). These observations constrain the occurrence of the second seismic shaking of the studied period approximately 6,000 B.C., and not later.

In summary,we isolated two deformation events related to seismic shaking. We identified their event horizons: The older event is set within the first half of the PPNB period, that is 7,500–7,000 B.C., and the younger one, close to the upper time limit of the PPNB, that is, approximately 6,000 B.C. The two events were separated by undisturbed archaeological strata, including rebuilding phases, that were marked as stage XIV in zone B by Kenyon (1981)and corresponded to layers XII–XIII of Garstang and Garstang (1948), matching the first half of the PPNB period.

EARTHQUAKES FINDINGS

Events Recognition

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Our interpretation of the archaeological observations provides the isolation of two deformation events striking the Tell es Sultan in the 7,500–6,000 B.C. interval (PPNB), the younger event approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one likely at approximately 7,000 B.C. We attribute the deformation to earthquakes. We further interpret the absence of other damages within the PPNB as evidence that no other major earthquakes affected the Tell during this interval of time. The two PPNB events are not cited in the archaeological literature of the region. Historical earthquakes were evidenced from trenching by Lazar et al. (2010) and Reches and Hoexter (1981) and from lake seismites analysis by Kagan et al. (2011) (see Fig. 1 for location). More than 30 km south of the Jericho site, evidence for earthquake occurrence within our time interval was reported by Enzel et al. (2000), who described faulting and liquefaction features on fan-delta sequence associated with the activity of the Jericho fault between 9,500 and 7,000 yr B.P. Migowski et al. (2004) inferred that the older seismites (~5,000–7,000 B.C.) in their laminated sedimentary cores (see Fig. 1 for location) can be correlated with the disturbances of Enzel et al. (2000). The authors cannot correlate their older records to any earthquake, because the current dataset of archaeoseismological and paleoseismological literature lack of clear earthquake determination back to ~6;000 B.P. At least two deformed layers in the Migowski’s sequence between 5,600 and 6,800 B.C. possibly correlate with our seismic events. Further evidence for seismic events in the time interval analyzed in this work comes also from damaged speleothems at the Soreq and Har-Tuv caves, nearly 40 km west of Tell es-Sultan (Fig. 1), where earthquake evidence at ~8:6 ka has been found (Braun et al., 2009).

In this context, the earthquakes' timings defined in this work, that is, the two Neolithic events at ~7;000 and 6,000 B.C., represent an independent check for the earthquake occurrences reconstructed with different approaches and for correlation among different records.

Earthquake Shaking Recurrence at Tell es-Sultan

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Our results show that Tell es-Sultan was seismically shaken twice in 1,000–1,500 yr, most probably 1,000 yr, by damaging earthquakes. Moreover, at Jericho, evidence of a major shaking effect was documented at the end of PPNA (i.e., at approximately 7,500 B.C.) at different sections of the site. A wide spread collapse of the encircling town wall was associated to a sudden major disaster directly attributed to an earthquake (Kenyon, 1957, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1986). Assuming this interpretation credible and placing it as the immediate antecedent earthquake of the two events recognized in this work, we infer a rough average recurrence interval for earthquake shaking at the site of 750 yr (two interevents in 1,500 yr, 7,500–6,000 B.C.). Although this estimate refers to seismic shaking in a limited period at Tell es-Sultan, in which the seismic sources are unknown, it falls in the range of previously published recur rence values in a comparable time window for the Dead Sea area. Migowski et al. (2004) defined an earthquake recur rence interval of 500 yr for the period 8,000–5,500 B.C. from paleoseismites within the Dead Sea. Also accounting for a larger time window, the average repeat time for strong earth quakes (M ≥6.5) based on paleoseismological, archaeological, and seismological studies in the fault system of the Dead Sea basin, converges to ~500 yr during the past 60,000 yr (Hamiel et al., 2009 and references therein).

Implications for the Earthquakes Source

from Alfonsi (2012:646-647)

Solely on the basis of our data, we cannot determine the faults responsible for the prehistorical recognized earthquakes. However, a reconstruction of the active fault system of the DST in the area of Tell es-Sultan (Shamir et al., 2005) and the observed young scarps indicate that the system includes the main approximately north–south-trending left lateral Jericho fault to the east and the broad zone of distributed faults west of it (Fig. 5). One of these latter, the northeast–southwest-trending Nuweime fault bounds the area of Tell es-Sultan (Begin, 1974; Shamir et al., 2005). The right lateral normal motion is attributed to this fault based on current seismicity (Shamir, 2006).

A morphological step is observed along the southeastern margin of theTell (Fig. 5, picture), and its southern and northern extension traces the position of the Nuweime fault. Paleo seismic investigation could impose tighter constraints on the activity of the Nuweime fault. In a seismic context, the activity of the Nuweime fault would contribute to the vulnerability of theTell area, being one of the possible faults responsible for the seismic shaking damages at the Tell and surrounding region.

CONCLUSIONS

from Alfonsi (2012:647)

The merging of archeological and geological data in the area of Tell es-Sultan leads us to the following conclusions:

Two events damaged parts of Tell es-Sultan in the PPNB. The youngest event occurred approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one at approximately 7,000 B.C., separated by an ~1,000-yr interval.

Considering an older event documented at the end of the PPNA (approximately 7,500 B.C.), we infer a rough average recurrence interval for damaging earthquakes at Tell es-Sultan of 750 yr. This value is comparable with other estimates from analysis of different records of seismic features in the area.

The Nuweime active fault that bounds the Tell is a plausible source for local seismic shaking, contributing to the vulnerability of the area.

This case study highlights the possibility to cover lack of information on the prehistory of a seismically prone area through the analysis of archaeological documentations of past expeditions as precious source for archaeoseismic investigators.

Finally, the more extended is the reconstruction of the seismic history at a site, the more reliable is the seismic hazard estimation affecting the population and the cultural heritage. This is particularly crucial in the case of Jericho, often called “the oldest city in the world,” where past archaeological records are one of the possibilities to investigate such prehistorical events, especially when original data vanish with time.

PPNB Earthquake 1 - ~7000 BCE

Figures, Tables, Sections, and Photos

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Tables

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 2 - Earthquake-Induced Damage from Archaeological Reports for PPNB (7,500–6,000 BCE) - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photos

Fig. 1 Oblique Aerial View

Figure 1

General view of the site of Tell es-Sultan, from the south.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

of Tell es-Sultan from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 3a Coseismic Effects

Figure 3a

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3b Coseismic Effects

Figure 3b

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3c Coseismic Effects

Figure 3c

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3d Coseismic Effects

Figure 3d

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3e Coseismic Effects

Figure 3e

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(e) The Garstang excavation as appears today (same shot position). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3f Coseismic Effects

Figure 3f

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Discussion

Alfonsi (2012:645) recognized points 2, 4, and 9 (Fig. 2 and 4 and Table 2) to be caused by the same seismic event which they dated, based on archaeological stratigraphy, to 7500-7000 BCE. Although radiocarbon was available, it did not prove helpful. Due to the presence of a separate seismic event (End of PPNA Earthquake) dated to ~7500 BCE, Alfonsi (2012) presented a date of ~7000 BCE for PPNB Earthquake 1 in most of their paper.

References

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

THE TELL ES-SULTAN: TECTONIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING

from Alfonsi (2012:640,643)

The ancient town of Jericho is located within the DST fault zone (Fig. 1). The DST is approximately a 1,000-km-long, north–south-striking, left lateral fault system of the active boundary between the Arabian and African plates (e.g., Garfunkel et al., 1981). The DST shows relatively low level of activity in modern time, but larger-magnitude seismic events were documented in the historical reports (Guidoboni et al., 1994; Ambraseys, 2009). One of the main fault strands of the transform zone system is the Jericho fault bounding the Dead Sea basin on the west side (Reches and Hoexter, 1981; Gardosh et al., 1990). A linear escarpment at approximately 6 km south east of modern Jericho is thought to be the surface expression of the Jericho fault on land (Begin, 1974; Lazar et al., 2010). The 1927 earthquake with an M 6.2 (Ben-Menahem et al., 1976; Shapira et al., 1993) is the most recent event that caused widespread damage and casualties in the modern Jericho settlement. The revised 1927 epicenter is approximately 30 km south of the Jericho site (Avni et al., 2002; Fig. 1). Direct evidence of this event at the historical site of Jericho has not been reported by the post earthquake expeditions in the archaeological stratigraphy. Instead, archaeological traces suggest earth quake devastation back in time (Table 1).

The separation of earthquake-related damages in the archaeological layers of Jericho was made possible by the intrinsic characters of the site resulting in the classical Tell structure, where subsequent archaeological levels firmly seal the preceding occupation soils. When the village experienced destruction, there was no possibility, or need, to remove the debris completely, and the inhabitants continued to build on top of the ruins. The superposed archaeological layers in the last 11,000 yr constitute the artificial hill of the ancient Jericho up to about 10 m above the surrounding ground level (Fig. 2). This setting prevents buried and older archaeological levels from severe damaging associated to the younger shaking events.

Town wall encircling the inhabited quarters and the monumental public structures, such as the Neolithic tower (Fig. 2), appeared since the PPNA (8,500–7,500 B.C.), testifying to the presence of an organized social community. The favorable geographical position of the Oasis of Jericho and the environmental conditions are the cause of the continuous occupation of the area. Indeed, the presence of perennial water springs and the climate favored the persistent occupation of Tell es-Sultan from the Natufian (ca. 11,000 B.C.) up to the Iron Age (ca. 1,200 B.C.), with a flourishing occupation during the Neolithic stages. The artifacts of the Neolithic masonry and buildings are made on massive mudstone boulders and on sun-dried brick constructions. These constructions are vulnerable, and local collapses may occur even without earthquakes. Hence, it is critical that the archaeoseismic analysis of the deformation identifies a specific cause to the observed damage, that is, earthquake, fire, flash flood, or deliberate destruction (Marco, 2008).

ARCHAEOSEISMIC OBSERVATIONS IN THE PPNB STRATA

from Alfonsi (2012:643-645)

Figure 2 and Table 2 present a set of features recognized as seismically induced effects at Tell es-Sultan in the archaeological PPNB period (7,500–6,000 B.C.). Both the map and the table were based on our review of the archaeological documents, including the analysis of the stratigraphy, that enhance seismic shaking activities undefined in number and timing. We excluded in the map damage caused by human invasions, structural collapses, fires, or natural hazards other than earthquake. Although the distribution in the map does not reflect the complete damaged field of the Tell, it gives significant information on the nature and extension of the damage itself. Furthermore, when this picture is framed in a chronological context, it allows inferring the time–space occurrence of the individual elements (see the section Time Constraints on the PPNB Earthquakes Occurrence).

In the following paragraphs, we describe the significant damage elements, although more than one effect coexist at several points, that is, a set of fractures associated to major collapse and human skeletons trapped under the fallen structures. In general, the observed fractures appeared to the excavators as well-preserved open elements while removing the fillings. No calcification of the fracture was observed to be prevented by the climate of the Jericho area. The fractures did not result from lateral spreading because

the weight loading the fractured layers is not so high
the observed fractures are always accompanied with other features in an extended deformed area
most of them occur in the flat central sector of the Tell.

Widespread devastation of original structures was observed in the west side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone A). Here, human skeletons were found underneath collapsed building walls (Fig. 2, points 1 and 2; Fig. 3b). The houses were completely dismembered in the collapse, and strengthening and rebuilding followed on the same plans. Figure 3c shows the complete collapse of a wall that fell in one piece northward (Fig. 2, point 3; Table 2). The occurrence of a pervasive fracture was also documented, and based on our reconstruction, its strike was northeast—southwest (point 4). The houses were rebuilt, and Kenyon (1981) suggested that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake destruction (see also Table 2).

The layers of PPNB appear intensively damaged also at the northeastern side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone B). Also, here, coseismic open fractures are clearly documented (points 9, 15, and 8). We used the original pictures and sections to define the position and orientation of these fractures and then to determine the relative movement along their trace. Figure 3a is a top view of a set of open fractures crossing the floor and the walls of a courtyard of a house. The set is composed of at least three segments reaching a minimum visible extent of 3 m, with a mean direction of 085° and an opening of approximately 20 cm. Figure 3d shows one of the major fractures at the Neolithic Tell. The marked fractures displace artifacts of different materials and shapes (walls and floors) and maintain a constant direction (040°), suggesting a tectonic origin, for at least 5 m (the original plans are in the Archives of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, UK). The upper termination of the fractures in the wall, according to the archaeoseismic stratigraphic section in Figure 4, is within layer X, that is, the upper terminus of the PPNB period. Another interesting feature concerning the studied earthquakes is shown in Figure 3f, where both a profound fracture and human remains are found. Garstang and Garstang (1948) noted that the head of the skeleton to the right is severed from the body, giving the illusion of decapitation. However, in fact, the cause for the head displacement was a fracture. The excavation further downward revealed a continuous few-centimeter open fracture across the floor, indicating an earthquake that gave this illusion. Nur and Burgess (2008) suggested a right lateral offset between the ribs and skull position of the skeleton. We measured a relative lateral movement of a few centimeters. Based on different marker points, such as the cervical bone versus the spinal column (Fig. 3f, circled part), the offset could be also interpreted as left lateral. A small step is apparent on the right side of the photo, suggesting minor vertical offset with east side down. Placing the two images and then the fractures of Figure 3d and 3f within the log of Figure 4, we noted two parallel fractures about 3 m apart. The main fracture affects the lower part of layer X, belonging to the younger stage of the PPNB period. The deformation observed within layer X extends for about 30 m along the section, affecting floors, house walls, and human remains (Fig. 4). A group of human skeletons was also found not in burial position, whose deaths may be attributed to sudden events such as collapse and destruction (Fig. 4, point 11).

TIME CONSTRAINTS ON THE PPNB EARTHQUAKES OCCURRENCE

from Alfonsi (2012:645-646)

In Figure 4, we project the stratigraphic position of the seismically induced deformation observed at zones A and B (Fig. 4, dashed boxes and referred points). Once placed in archaeological correlation, the highly deformed layers at different sites of excavations allow a definition of the temporal sequence of the events.

The fracturing at point 9 (zone A) was interpreted as a shaking effect acting in the first half of the PPNB period. The effects observed at points 4 and 2 (zone B) occurred within layers of the same time interval. Hence, we assumed that all these shaking effects resulted from the same seismic event (Fig. 4, green stars). The position of the event horizon relative to the archaeological periodization suggests the occurrence of the event at about 7,000 B.C., well after the beginning of the PPNB period. The only radiocarbon age from the deformed layer at the early stage of PPNB, consistent with the archaeological periodization and of good quality, is 7,683–7,484 B.C. (calibrated age, 2σ range; sample BM-1320, 8;540 65 B.P.; Kenyon, 1981); this age would predate the event (Fig. 4, zone A, square MI).

A younger event was recognized through the analysis of points 3, 15, and 16 from zones A and B of the map (Fig. 4, red stars). The effects were observed within layers dated to the end of the PPNB. In particular, the fracture of point 15 partially crosses the layers of the latest PPNB period, marked with Roman number X (Fig. 4), and it is sealed by the undisturbed portion of the same layer and successive layer IX (beginning of PPA, i.e., well after 6,000 B.C.). These observations constrain the occurrence of the second seismic shaking of the studied period approximately 6,000 B.C., and not later.

In summary,we isolated two deformation events related to seismic shaking. We identified their event horizons: The older event is set within the first half of the PPNB period, that is 7,500–7,000 B.C., and the younger one, close to the upper time limit of the PPNB, that is, approximately 6,000 B.C. The two events were separated by undisturbed archaeological strata, including rebuilding phases, that were marked as stage XIV in zone B by Kenyon (1981)and corresponded to layers XII–XIII of Garstang and Garstang (1948), matching the first half of the PPNB period.

EARTHQUAKES FINDINGS

Events Recognition

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Our interpretation of the archaeological observations provides the isolation of two deformation events striking the Tell es Sultan in the 7,500–6,000 B.C. interval (PPNB), the younger event approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one likely at approximately 7,000 B.C. We attribute the deformation to earthquakes. We further interpret the absence of other damages within the PPNB as evidence that no other major earthquakes affected the Tell during this interval of time. The two PPNB events are not cited in the archaeological literature of the region. Historical earthquakes were evidenced from trenching by Lazar et al. (2010) and Reches and Hoexter (1981) and from lake seismites analysis by Kagan et al. (2011) (see Fig. 1 for location). More than 30 km south of the Jericho site, evidence for earthquake occurrence within our time interval was reported by Enzel et al. (2000), who described faulting and liquefaction features on fan-delta sequence associated with the activity of the Jericho fault between 9,500 and 7,000 yr B.P. Migowski et al. (2004) inferred that the older seismites (~5,000–7,000 B.C.) in their laminated sedimentary cores (see Fig. 1 for location) can be correlated with the disturbances of Enzel et al. (2000). The authors cannot correlate their older records to any earthquake, because the current dataset of archaeoseismological and paleoseismological literature lack of clear earthquake determination back to ~6;000 B.P. At least two deformed layers in the Migowski’s sequence between 5,600 and 6,800 B.C. possibly correlate with our seismic events. Further evidence for seismic events in the time interval analyzed in this work comes also from damaged speleothems at the Soreq and Har-Tuv caves, nearly 40 km west of Tell es-Sultan (Fig. 1), where earthquake evidence at ~8:6 ka has been found (Braun et al., 2009).

In this context, the earthquakes' timings defined in this work, that is, the two Neolithic events at ~7;000 and 6,000 B.C., represent an independent check for the earthquake occurrences reconstructed with different approaches and for correlation among different records.

Earthquake Shaking Recurrence at Tell es-Sultan

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Our results show that Tell es-Sultan was seismically shaken twice in 1,000–1,500 yr, most probably 1,000 yr, by damaging earthquakes. Moreover, at Jericho, evidence of a major shaking effect was documented at the end of PPNA (i.e., at approximately 7,500 B.C.) at different sections of the site. A wide spread collapse of the encircling town wall was associated to a sudden major disaster directly attributed to an earthquake (Kenyon, 1957, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1986). Assuming this interpretation credible and placing it as the immediate antecedent earthquake of the two events recognized in this work, we infer a rough average recurrence interval for earthquake shaking at the site of 750 yr (two interevents in 1,500 yr, 7,500–6,000 B.C.). Although this estimate refers to seismic shaking in a limited period at Tell es-Sultan, in which the seismic sources are unknown, it falls in the range of previously published recur rence values in a comparable time window for the Dead Sea area. Migowski et al. (2004) defined an earthquake recur rence interval of 500 yr for the period 8,000–5,500 B.C. from paleoseismites within the Dead Sea. Also accounting for a larger time window, the average repeat time for strong earth quakes (M ≥6.5) based on paleoseismological, archaeological, and seismological studies in the fault system of the Dead Sea basin, converges to ~500 yr during the past 60,000 yr (Hamiel et al., 2009 and references therein).

Implications for the Earthquakes Source

from Alfonsi (2012:646-647)

Solely on the basis of our data, we cannot determine the faults responsible for the prehistorical recognized earthquakes. However, a reconstruction of the active fault system of the DST in the area of Tell es-Sultan (Shamir et al., 2005) and the observed young scarps indicate that the system includes the main approximately north–south-trending left lateral Jericho fault to the east and the broad zone of distributed faults west of it (Fig. 5). One of these latter, the northeast–southwest-trending Nuweime fault bounds the area of Tell es-Sultan (Begin, 1974; Shamir et al., 2005). The right lateral normal motion is attributed to this fault based on current seismicity (Shamir, 2006).

A morphological step is observed along the southeastern margin of theTell (Fig. 5, picture), and its southern and northern extension traces the position of the Nuweime fault. Paleo seismic investigation could impose tighter constraints on the activity of the Nuweime fault. In a seismic context, the activity of the Nuweime fault would contribute to the vulnerability of theTell area, being one of the possible faults responsible for the seismic shaking damages at the Tell and surrounding region.

CONCLUSIONS

from Alfonsi (2012:647)

The merging of archeological and geological data in the area of Tell es-Sultan leads us to the following conclusions:

Two events damaged parts of Tell es-Sultan in the PPNB. The youngest event occurred approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one at approximately 7,000 B.C., separated by an ~1,000-yr interval.

Considering an older event documented at the end of the PPNA (approximately 7,500 B.C.), we infer a rough average recurrence interval for damaging earthquakes at Tell es-Sultan of 750 yr. This value is comparable with other estimates from analysis of different records of seismic features in the area.

The Nuweime active fault that bounds the Tell is a plausible source for local seismic shaking, contributing to the vulnerability of the area.

This case study highlights the possibility to cover lack of information on the prehistory of a seismically prone area through the analysis of archaeological documentations of past expeditions as precious source for archaeoseismic investigators.

Finally, the more extended is the reconstruction of the seismic history at a site, the more reliable is the seismic hazard estimation affecting the population and the cultural heritage. This is particularly crucial in the case of Jericho, often called “the oldest city in the world,” where past archaeological records are one of the possibilities to investigate such prehistorical events, especially when original data vanish with time.

PPNB Earthquake 2 - ~6000 BCE

Figures, Tables, Sections, and Photos

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Tables

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 2 - Earthquake-Induced Damage from Archaeological Reports for PPNB (7,500–6,000 BCE) - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photos

Fig. 1 Oblique Aerial View

Figure 1

General view of the site of Tell es-Sultan, from the south.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

of Tell es-Sultan from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 3a Coseismic Effects

Figure 3a

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3b Coseismic Effects

Figure 3b

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3c Coseismic Effects

Figure 3c

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3d Coseismic Effects

Figure 3d

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3e Coseismic Effects

Figure 3e

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(e) The Garstang excavation as appears today (same shot position). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3f Coseismic Effects

Figure 3f

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Discussion

Alfonsi (2012:645-646) recognized points 3, 15, and 16 From Zones A and B to be caused by the same seismic event which they dated, based on archaeological stratigraphy, to ~6000 BCE. Although radiocarbon was available, it did not prove helpful.

References

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

THE TELL ES-SULTAN: TECTONIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING

from Alfonsi (2012:640,643)

The ancient town of Jericho is located within the DST fault zone (Fig. 1). The DST is approximately a 1,000-km-long, north–south-striking, left lateral fault system of the active boundary between the Arabian and African plates (e.g., Garfunkel et al., 1981). The DST shows relatively low level of activity in modern time, but larger-magnitude seismic events were documented in the historical reports (Guidoboni et al., 1994; Ambraseys, 2009). One of the main fault strands of the transform zone system is the Jericho fault bounding the Dead Sea basin on the west side (Reches and Hoexter, 1981; Gardosh et al., 1990). A linear escarpment at approximately 6 km south east of modern Jericho is thought to be the surface expression of the Jericho fault on land (Begin, 1974; Lazar et al., 2010). The 1927 earthquake with an M 6.2 (Ben-Menahem et al., 1976; Shapira et al., 1993) is the most recent event that caused widespread damage and casualties in the modern Jericho settlement. The revised 1927 epicenter is approximately 30 km south of the Jericho site (Avni et al., 2002; Fig. 1). Direct evidence of this event at the historical site of Jericho has not been reported by the post earthquake expeditions in the archaeological stratigraphy. Instead, archaeological traces suggest earth quake devastation back in time (Table 1).

The separation of earthquake-related damages in the archaeological layers of Jericho was made possible by the intrinsic characters of the site resulting in the classical Tell structure, where subsequent archaeological levels firmly seal the preceding occupation soils. When the village experienced destruction, there was no possibility, or need, to remove the debris completely, and the inhabitants continued to build on top of the ruins. The superposed archaeological layers in the last 11,000 yr constitute the artificial hill of the ancient Jericho up to about 10 m above the surrounding ground level (Fig. 2). This setting prevents buried and older archaeological levels from severe damaging associated to the younger shaking events.

Town wall encircling the inhabited quarters and the monumental public structures, such as the Neolithic tower (Fig. 2), appeared since the PPNA (8,500–7,500 B.C.), testifying to the presence of an organized social community. The favorable geographical position of the Oasis of Jericho and the environmental conditions are the cause of the continuous occupation of the area. Indeed, the presence of perennial water springs and the climate favored the persistent occupation of Tell es-Sultan from the Natufian (ca. 11,000 B.C.) up to the Iron Age (ca. 1,200 B.C.), with a flourishing occupation during the Neolithic stages. The artifacts of the Neolithic masonry and buildings are made on massive mudstone boulders and on sun-dried brick constructions. These constructions are vulnerable, and local collapses may occur even without earthquakes. Hence, it is critical that the archaeoseismic analysis of the deformation identifies a specific cause to the observed damage, that is, earthquake, fire, flash flood, or deliberate destruction (Marco, 2008).

ARCHAEOSEISMIC OBSERVATIONS IN THE PPNB STRATA

from Alfonsi (2012:643-645)

Figure 2 and Table 2 present a set of features recognized as seismically induced effects at Tell es-Sultan in the archaeological PPNB period (7,500–6,000 B.C.). Both the map and the table were based on our review of the archaeological documents, including the analysis of the stratigraphy, that enhance seismic shaking activities undefined in number and timing. We excluded in the map damage caused by human invasions, structural collapses, fires, or natural hazards other than earthquake. Although the distribution in the map does not reflect the complete damaged field of the Tell, it gives significant information on the nature and extension of the damage itself. Furthermore, when this picture is framed in a chronological context, it allows inferring the time–space occurrence of the individual elements (see the section Time Constraints on the PPNB Earthquakes Occurrence).

In the following paragraphs, we describe the significant damage elements, although more than one effect coexist at several points, that is, a set of fractures associated to major collapse and human skeletons trapped under the fallen structures. In general, the observed fractures appeared to the excavators as well-preserved open elements while removing the fillings. No calcification of the fracture was observed to be prevented by the climate of the Jericho area. The fractures did not result from lateral spreading because

the weight loading the fractured layers is not so high
the observed fractures are always accompanied with other features in an extended deformed area
most of them occur in the flat central sector of the Tell.

Widespread devastation of original structures was observed in the west side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone A). Here, human skeletons were found underneath collapsed building walls (Fig. 2, points 1 and 2; Fig. 3b). The houses were completely dismembered in the collapse, and strengthening and rebuilding followed on the same plans. Figure 3c shows the complete collapse of a wall that fell in one piece northward (Fig. 2, point 3; Table 2). The occurrence of a pervasive fracture was also documented, and based on our reconstruction, its strike was northeast—southwest (point 4). The houses were rebuilt, and Kenyon (1981) suggested that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake destruction (see also Table 2).

The layers of PPNB appear intensively damaged also at the northeastern side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone B). Also, here, coseismic open fractures are clearly documented (points 9, 15, and 8). We used the original pictures and sections to define the position and orientation of these fractures and then to determine the relative movement along their trace. Figure 3a is a top view of a set of open fractures crossing the floor and the walls of a courtyard of a house. The set is composed of at least three segments reaching a minimum visible extent of 3 m, with a mean direction of 085° and an opening of approximately 20 cm. Figure 3d shows one of the major fractures at the Neolithic Tell. The marked fractures displace artifacts of different materials and shapes (walls and floors) and maintain a constant direction (040°), suggesting a tectonic origin, for at least 5 m (the original plans are in the Archives of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, UK). The upper termination of the fractures in the wall, according to the archaeoseismic stratigraphic section in Figure 4, is within layer X, that is, the upper terminus of the PPNB period. Another interesting feature concerning the studied earthquakes is shown in Figure 3f, where both a profound fracture and human remains are found. Garstang and Garstang (1948) noted that the head of the skeleton to the right is severed from the body, giving the illusion of decapitation. However, in fact, the cause for the head displacement was a fracture. The excavation further downward revealed a continuous few-centimeter open fracture across the floor, indicating an earthquake that gave this illusion. Nur and Burgess (2008) suggested a right lateral offset between the ribs and skull position of the skeleton. We measured a relative lateral movement of a few centimeters. Based on different marker points, such as the cervical bone versus the spinal column (Fig. 3f, circled part), the offset could be also interpreted as left lateral. A small step is apparent on the right side of the photo, suggesting minor vertical offset with east side down. Placing the two images and then the fractures of Figure 3d and 3f within the log of Figure 4, we noted two parallel fractures about 3 m apart. The main fracture affects the lower part of layer X, belonging to the younger stage of the PPNB period. The deformation observed within layer X extends for about 30 m along the section, affecting floors, house walls, and human remains (Fig. 4). A group of human skeletons was also found not in burial position, whose deaths may be attributed to sudden events such as collapse and destruction (Fig. 4, point 11).

TIME CONSTRAINTS ON THE PPNB EARTHQUAKES OCCURRENCE

from Alfonsi (2012:645-646)

In Figure 4, we project the stratigraphic position of the seismically induced deformation observed at zones A and B (Fig. 4, dashed boxes and referred points). Once placed in archaeological correlation, the highly deformed layers at different sites of excavations allow a definition of the temporal sequence of the events.

The fracturing at point 9 (zone A) was interpreted as a shaking effect acting in the first half of the PPNB period. The effects observed at points 4 and 2 (zone B) occurred within layers of the same time interval. Hence, we assumed that all these shaking effects resulted from the same seismic event (Fig. 4, green stars). The position of the event horizon relative to the archaeological periodization suggests the occurrence of the event at about 7,000 B.C., well after the beginning of the PPNB period. The only radiocarbon age from the deformed layer at the early stage of PPNB, consistent with the archaeological periodization and of good quality, is 7,683–7,484 B.C. (calibrated age, 2σ range; sample BM-1320, 8;540 65 B.P.; Kenyon, 1981); this age would predate the event (Fig. 4, zone A, square MI).

A younger event was recognized through the analysis of points 3, 15, and 16 from zones A and B of the map (Fig. 4, red stars). The effects were observed within layers dated to the end of the PPNB. In particular, the fracture of point 15 partially crosses the layers of the latest PPNB period, marked with Roman number X (Fig. 4), and it is sealed by the undisturbed portion of the same layer and successive layer IX (beginning of PPA, i.e., well after 6,000 B.C.). These observations constrain the occurrence of the second seismic shaking of the studied period approximately 6,000 B.C., and not later.

In summary,we isolated two deformation events related to seismic shaking. We identified their event horizons: The older event is set within the first half of the PPNB period, that is 7,500–7,000 B.C., and the younger one, close to the upper time limit of the PPNB, that is, approximately 6,000 B.C. The two events were separated by undisturbed archaeological strata, including rebuilding phases, that were marked as stage XIV in zone B by Kenyon (1981)and corresponded to layers XII–XIII of Garstang and Garstang (1948), matching the first half of the PPNB period.

EARTHQUAKES FINDINGS

Events Recognition

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Our interpretation of the archaeological observations provides the isolation of two deformation events striking the Tell es Sultan in the 7,500–6,000 B.C. interval (PPNB), the younger event approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one likely at approximately 7,000 B.C. We attribute the deformation to earthquakes. We further interpret the absence of other damages within the PPNB as evidence that no other major earthquakes affected the Tell during this interval of time. The two PPNB events are not cited in the archaeological literature of the region. Historical earthquakes were evidenced from trenching by Lazar et al. (2010) and Reches and Hoexter (1981) and from lake seismites analysis by Kagan et al. (2011) (see Fig. 1 for location). More than 30 km south of the Jericho site, evidence for earthquake occurrence within our time interval was reported by Enzel et al. (2000), who described faulting and liquefaction features on fan-delta sequence associated with the activity of the Jericho fault between 9,500 and 7,000 yr B.P. Migowski et al. (2004) inferred that the older seismites (~5,000–7,000 B.C.) in their laminated sedimentary cores (see Fig. 1 for location) can be correlated with the disturbances of Enzel et al. (2000). The authors cannot correlate their older records to any earthquake, because the current dataset of archaeoseismological and paleoseismological literature lack of clear earthquake determination back to ~6;000 B.P. At least two deformed layers in the Migowski’s sequence between 5,600 and 6,800 B.C. possibly correlate with our seismic events. Further evidence for seismic events in the time interval analyzed in this work comes also from damaged speleothems at the Soreq and Har-Tuv caves, nearly 40 km west of Tell es-Sultan (Fig. 1), where earthquake evidence at ~8:6 ka has been found (Braun et al., 2009).

In this context, the earthquakes' timings defined in this work, that is, the two Neolithic events at ~7;000 and 6,000 B.C., represent an independent check for the earthquake occurrences reconstructed with different approaches and for correlation among different records.

Earthquake Shaking Recurrence at Tell es-Sultan

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Our results show that Tell es-Sultan was seismically shaken twice in 1,000–1,500 yr, most probably 1,000 yr, by damaging earthquakes. Moreover, at Jericho, evidence of a major shaking effect was documented at the end of PPNA (i.e., at approximately 7,500 B.C.) at different sections of the site. A wide spread collapse of the encircling town wall was associated to a sudden major disaster directly attributed to an earthquake (Kenyon, 1957, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1986). Assuming this interpretation credible and placing it as the immediate antecedent earthquake of the two events recognized in this work, we infer a rough average recurrence interval for earthquake shaking at the site of 750 yr (two interevents in 1,500 yr, 7,500–6,000 B.C.). Although this estimate refers to seismic shaking in a limited period at Tell es-Sultan, in which the seismic sources are unknown, it falls in the range of previously published recur rence values in a comparable time window for the Dead Sea area. Migowski et al. (2004) defined an earthquake recur rence interval of 500 yr for the period 8,000–5,500 B.C. from paleoseismites within the Dead Sea. Also accounting for a larger time window, the average repeat time for strong earth quakes (M ≥6.5) based on paleoseismological, archaeological, and seismological studies in the fault system of the Dead Sea basin, converges to ~500 yr during the past 60,000 yr (Hamiel et al., 2009 and references therein).

Implications for the Earthquakes Source

from Alfonsi (2012:646-647)

Solely on the basis of our data, we cannot determine the faults responsible for the prehistorical recognized earthquakes. However, a reconstruction of the active fault system of the DST in the area of Tell es-Sultan (Shamir et al., 2005) and the observed young scarps indicate that the system includes the main approximately north–south-trending left lateral Jericho fault to the east and the broad zone of distributed faults west of it (Fig. 5). One of these latter, the northeast–southwest-trending Nuweime fault bounds the area of Tell es-Sultan (Begin, 1974; Shamir et al., 2005). The right lateral normal motion is attributed to this fault based on current seismicity (Shamir, 2006).

A morphological step is observed along the southeastern margin of theTell (Fig. 5, picture), and its southern and northern extension traces the position of the Nuweime fault. Paleo seismic investigation could impose tighter constraints on the activity of the Nuweime fault. In a seismic context, the activity of the Nuweime fault would contribute to the vulnerability of theTell area, being one of the possible faults responsible for the seismic shaking damages at the Tell and surrounding region.

CONCLUSIONS

from Alfonsi (2012:647)

The merging of archeological and geological data in the area of Tell es-Sultan leads us to the following conclusions:

Two events damaged parts of Tell es-Sultan in the PPNB. The youngest event occurred approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one at approximately 7,000 B.C., separated by an ~1,000-yr interval.

Considering an older event documented at the end of the PPNA (approximately 7,500 B.C.), we infer a rough average recurrence interval for damaging earthquakes at Tell es-Sultan of 750 yr. This value is comparable with other estimates from analysis of different records of seismic features in the area.

The Nuweime active fault that bounds the Tell is a plausible source for local seismic shaking, contributing to the vulnerability of the area.

This case study highlights the possibility to cover lack of information on the prehistory of a seismically prone area through the analysis of archaeological documentations of past expeditions as precious source for archaeoseismic investigators.

Finally, the more extended is the reconstruction of the seismic history at a site, the more reliable is the seismic hazard estimation affecting the population and the cultural heritage. This is particularly crucial in the case of Jericho, often called “the oldest city in the world,” where past archaeological records are one of the possibilities to investigate such prehistorical events, especially when original data vanish with time.

Earthquake - ~2800 BCE (Early Bronze II)

Nigro (2008:87 n. 30) suggested that there is seismic destruction evidence at Tell es-Sultan in Jericho in ~2800 BCE (Early Bronze II) while citing Kenyon (1957: 175-176, pl. 37a), Kenyon (1981:373, pls. 200-201, 343a) and Nigro (2006c:359-361, 372-373). Nigro (2008:87 n. 30) also pointed to destructions in

Megiddo - Such a conflagration apparently caused by an earthquake is attested to also at Megiddo (Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Peersmann 2006, 49-50)
‘Ai (Callaway 1980, 147; 1993, 42)
Khirbet ez-Zeraqon - phase 3 (EB II) ends in a fierce conflagration (Douglas 2007, 27-28), though it is not surely ascribable to an earthquake.

End of PPNA Earthquake - ~7500 BCE

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls	different sections of the site Figure 2 Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas. Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ Nigro (2016)		Alfonsi (2012:646) noted that evidence of a major shaking effect was documented at the end of PPNA (i.e., at approximately 7,500 B.C.) at different sections of the site from earlier excavations. Alfonsi (2012:646) continued adding that a wide spread collapse of the encircling town wall was associated to a sudden major disaster directly attributed to an earthquake (Kenyon, 1957, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1986)

PPNB Earthquake 1 - ~7000 BCE

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Skeletons beneath collapse	Point 2 (Kenyon's Trench 1) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3b Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - DI, XVII A FI xxxi, DI xlii, DII xxx–xxxi Overlying the surface of stage XVII is a further bricky fill. Since this is succeed by new building in the whole excavated area, it presumably indicates a major stage of destruction and decay…;. In this part of DI and over the whole FI there was a bricky fill…; the filling represents a destruction and decay level…;it contained a remarkable number of bodies, at least thirty…the bodies were for the most part found simply in the mass of the fill, with no observable evidence of any graves…; the complete body lies on the plastered floor position prone as if in the position in which the individual collapse…;. The examination of skeletal remains, provide no evidence of wounds…;.A more probable explanation is that a large number of the inhabitants were killed as a result of an earthquake…;. - Kenyon (1981:77–78) Widespread devastation of original structures was observed in the west side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone A). Here, human skeletons were found underneath collapsed building walls (Fig. 2, points 1 and 2; Fig. 3b). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)
Surface fracturing	Point 4 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)		Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Square M, stage XI, phases lxiv–lxvia A substantial crack in section J—K…; may indicate that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake. - Kenyon (1981:243) The occurrence of a pervasive fracture was also documented, and based on our reconstruction, its strike was northeast—southwest (point 4). - - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)
Surface fracturing Major Collapse	Point 9 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3a Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Squares E’s stage XIII, phase liv This phase would seem to have followed a major collapse of the preceding building in the western range, resulting in the accumulation of a thick layer of debris, which was traced back within the house. The crack in the floor levels, which was clearly visible in the phase xlvii at courtyard level, could be traced in the stratification key to this level, and is probably associated to the collapse. It is tempting to regard it as an earthquake crack (fault), but Professor Zeuner did not consider this probable, as the base of the crack did not continue downwards.” - Kenyon (1981:298) The fracturing at point 9 (zone A) was interpreted as a shaking effect acting in the first half of the PPNB period. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644) Figure 3a is a top view of a set of open fractures crossing the floor and the walls of a courtyard of a house. The set is composed of at least three segments reaching a minimum visible extent of 3 m, with a mean direction of 085° and an opening of approximately 20 cm. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)

PPNB Earthquake 2 - ~6000 BCE

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls Collapsed artifacts	Point 3 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3c Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Original picture from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - FI, Stage XXIII–XXIV, FI xxxvii–xxxviii, DI xlvi-xlvii, DII xxxiv–xxxv The buildings of this stage were seriously damaged by an earthquake. The clearest evidence of this came from then north end of square FI. Here wall 102 collapsed outwards (northwards) in one piece, sheering off at the level of the central room to the south. - Kenyon (1981:87-88) The houses were completely dismembered in the collapse, and strengthening and rebuilding followed on the same plans. Figure 3c shows the complete collapse of a wall that fell in one piece northward (Fig. 2, point 3; Table 2). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)
Surface fracturing	Point 15 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3d Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Garstang’s excavation level X–XIm To these common cause of decay there should be added the effects of earthquakes, visible traceable at certain of these levels where great fissures appear through walls and floors. These were, however, exceptional, and their trace are generally quite marked. - Garstang and Garstang (1948:58) *Alfonsi et al. (2012) list the page as 46 The layers of PPNB appear intensively damaged also at the northeastern side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone B). Also, here, coseismic open fractures are clearly documented (points 9, 15, and 8). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644) the fracture of point 15 partially crosses the layers of the latest PPNB period, marked with Roman number X (Fig. 4), and it is sealed by the undisturbed portion of the same layer and successive layer IX (beginning of PPA, i.e., well after 6,000 B.C.). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:645) Figure 3d shows one of the major fractures at the Neolithic Tell. The marked fractures displace artifacts of different materials and shapes (walls and floors) and maintain a constant direction (040°), suggesting a tectonic origin, for at least 5 m (the original plans are in the Archives of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, UK). The upper termination of the fractures in the wall, according to the archaeoseismic stratigraphic section in Figure 4, is within layer X, that is, the upper terminus of the PPNB period. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)
Skeletons Surface Fracturing	Point 16 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3f Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Great Garstang’s level XI In the other case a man’s head was found that have been completely severed from his body, as may be seen in our photograph on Plate IXb; but as the excavation continued we noticed a continuous fissure across the floor of the room and running up the walls, telling of an earthquake which by a remarkable coincidence has subsequently produced this curious illusion of decapitation - Garstang and Garstang (1948:62) *Alfonsi et al. (2012) list the page as 51 Another interesting feature concerning the studied earthquakes is shown in Figure 3f, where both a profound fracture and human remains are found. Garstang and Garstang (1948) noted that the head of the skeleton to the right is severed from the body, giving the illusion of decapitation. However, in fact, the cause for the head displacement was a fracture. The excavation further downward revealed a continuous few-centimeter open fracture across the floor, indicating an earthquake that gave this illusion. Nur and Burgess (2008) suggested a right lateral offset between the ribs and skull position of the skeleton. We measured a relative lateral movement of a few centimeters. Based on different marker points, such as the cervical bone versus the spinal column (Fig. 3f, circled part), the offset could be also interpreted as left lateral. A small step is apparent on the right side of the photo, suggesting minor vertical offset with east side down. Placing the two images and then the fractures of Figure 3d and 3f within the log of Figure 4, we noted two parallel fractures about 3 m apart. The main fracture affects the lower part of layer X, belonging to the younger stage of the PPNB period. The deformation observed within layer X extends for about 30 m along the section, affecting floors, house walls, and human remains (Fig. 4). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644-645)

End of PPNA Earthquake - ~7500 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls	different sections of the site Figure 2 Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas. Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ Nigro (2016)		Alfonsi (2012:646) noted that evidence of a major shaking effect was documented at the end of PPNA (i.e., at approximately 7,500 B.C.) at different sections of the site from earlier excavations. Alfonsi (2012:646) continued adding that a wide spread collapse of the encircling town wall was associated to a sudden major disaster directly attributed to an earthquake (Kenyon, 1957, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1986)	VIII+

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

PPNB Earthquake 1 - ~7000 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Skeletons beneath collapse	Point 2 (Kenyon's Trench 1) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3b Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - DI, XVII A FI xxxi, DI xlii, DII xxx–xxxi Overlying the surface of stage XVII is a further bricky fill. Since this is succeed by new building in the whole excavated area, it presumably indicates a major stage of destruction and decay…;. In this part of DI and over the whole FI there was a bricky fill…; the filling represents a destruction and decay level…;it contained a remarkable number of bodies, at least thirty…the bodies were for the most part found simply in the mass of the fill, with no observable evidence of any graves…; the complete body lies on the plastered floor position prone as if in the position in which the individual collapse…;. The examination of skeletal remains, provide no evidence of wounds…;.A more probable explanation is that a large number of the inhabitants were killed as a result of an earthquake…;. - Kenyon (1981:77–78) Widespread devastation of original structures was observed in the west side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone A). Here, human skeletons were found underneath collapsed building walls (Fig. 2, points 1 and 2; Fig. 3b). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	VIII+
Surface fracturing	Point 4 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)		Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Square M, stage XI, phases lxiv–lxvia A substantial crack in section J—K…; may indicate that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake. - Kenyon (1981:243) The occurrence of a pervasive fracture was also documented, and based on our reconstruction, its strike was northeast—southwest (point 4). - - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	?
Surface fracturing Major Collapse	Point 9 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3a Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Squares E’s stage XIII, phase liv This phase would seem to have followed a major collapse of the preceding building in the western range, resulting in the accumulation of a thick layer of debris, which was traced back within the house. The crack in the floor levels, which was clearly visible in the phase xlvii at courtyard level, could be traced in the stratification key to this level, and is probably associated to the collapse. It is tempting to regard it as an earthquake crack (fault), but Professor Zeuner did not consider this probable, as the base of the crack did not continue downwards.” - Kenyon (1981:298) The fracturing at point 9 (zone A) was interpreted as a shaking effect acting in the first half of the PPNB period. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644) Figure 3a is a top view of a set of open fractures crossing the floor and the walls of a courtyard of a house. The set is composed of at least three segments reaching a minimum visible extent of 3 m, with a mean direction of 085° and an opening of approximately 20 cm. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	? VIII+

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

PPNB Earthquake 2 - ~6000 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls Collapsed artifacts	Point 3 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3c Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - FI, Stage XXIII–XXIV, FI xxxvii–xxxviii, DI xlvi-xlvii, DII xxxiv–xxxv The buildings of this stage were seriously damaged by an earthquake. The clearest evidence of this came from then north end of square FI. Here wall 102 collapsed outwards (northwards) in one piece, sheering off at the level of the central room to the south. - Kenyon (1981:87-88) The houses were completely dismembered in the collapse, and strengthening and rebuilding followed on the same plans. Figure 3c shows the complete collapse of a wall that fell in one piece northward (Fig. 2, point 3; Table 2). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	VIII+ VIII+?
Surface fracturing	Point 15 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3d Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Garstang’s excavation level X–XIm To these common cause of decay there should be added the effects of earthquakes, visible traceable at certain of these levels where great fissures appear through walls and floors. These were, however, exceptional, and their trace are generally quite marked. - Garstang and Garstang (1948:58) *Alfonsi et al. (2012) list the page as 46 The layers of PPNB appear intensively damaged also at the northeastern side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone B). Also, here, coseismic open fractures are clearly documented (points 9, 15, and 8). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644) the fracture of point 15 partially crosses the layers of the latest PPNB period, marked with Roman number X (Fig. 4), and it is sealed by the undisturbed portion of the same layer and successive layer IX (beginning of PPA, i.e., well after 6,000 B.C.). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:645) Figure 3d shows one of the major fractures at the Neolithic Tell. The marked fractures displace artifacts of different materials and shapes (walls and floors) and maintain a constant direction (040°), suggesting a tectonic origin, for at least 5 m (the original plans are in the Archives of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, UK). The upper termination of the fractures in the wall, according to the archaeoseismic stratigraphic section in Figure 4, is within layer X, that is, the upper terminus of the PPNB period. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	?
Skeletons (indicating collapsed walls) Surface Fracturing	Point 16 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3f Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Great Garstang’s level XI In the other case a man’s head was found that have been completely severed from his body, as may be seen in our photograph on Plate IXb; but as the excavation continued we noticed a continuous fissure across the floor of the room and running up the walls, telling of an earthquake which by a remarkable coincidence has subsequently produced this curious illusion of decapitation - Garstang and Garstang (1948:62) *Alfonsi et al. (2012) list the page as 51 Another interesting feature concerning the studied earthquakes is shown in Figure 3f, where both a profound fracture and human remains are found. Garstang and Garstang (1948) noted that the head of the skeleton to the right is severed from the body, giving the illusion of decapitation. However, in fact, the cause for the head displacement was a fracture. The excavation further downward revealed a continuous few-centimeter open fracture across the floor, indicating an earthquake that gave this illusion. Nur and Burgess (2008) suggested a right lateral offset between the ribs and skull position of the skeleton. We measured a relative lateral movement of a few centimeters. Based on different marker points, such as the cervical bone versus the spinal column (Fig. 3f, circled part), the offset could be also interpreted as left lateral. A small step is apparent on the right side of the photo, suggesting minor vertical offset with east side down. Placing the two images and then the fractures of Figure 3d and 3f within the log of Figure 4, we noted two parallel fractures about 3 m apart. The main fracture affects the lower part of layer X, belonging to the younger stage of the PPNB period. The deformation observed within layer X extends for about 30 m along the section, affecting floors, house walls, and human remains (Fig. 4). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644-645)	VIII+ ?

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

References

Articles and Books

Alfonsi, L., et al. (2012). "Archaeoseismic Evidence of Two Neolithic (7,500–6,000 B.C.) Earthquakes at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho, Dead Sea Fault." Seismological Research Letters 83(4): 639-648.

Kenyon, Kathleen M. “Excavations at Jericho.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 84, no. 1/2, 1954, pp. 103–10. - at JSTOR

Nigro, L. (2016) TELL ES-SULTAN 2015 A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:1

Wilkinson, John with Joyce Hill and W. F. Ryan (1988) Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099-1185, London, 1988 - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

Excavation Reports

Garstang

Garstang, John (1933) "Jericho: City and Necropolis." Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19 (1932): 3-22, 35-54; 20 (1933): 3-42; 21 (1934): 99-136; 22 (1935): 143-168 ; 23 (1936): 67-76.

Garstang, John, and J. B, E. Garstang. The Story of Jericho. 2d ed. London, 1948. - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

Kenyon

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Digging Up Jericho. London, 1957. - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 1, The Tombs Excavated in 1952-54. London, i960. - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 2, The Tombs Excavated in 1955-58. London, 1965. - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 3, The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. Part 1 Text Edited by Thomas A, Holland. London, 1981. - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 3, The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. Part 2 Plates Edited by Thomas A, Holland. London, 1981.

Kenyon, Kathleen M. , and Thomas A. Holland. Excavations at. Jericho, vol. 4, The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London, 1982. - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

Kenyon, Kathleen M. , and Thomas A. Holland. Excavations at Jericho, vol. 5, The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, 1983. - can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org

La Sapienza Italian-Palestinian

Nigro, L. ed. (2006) ROSAPAT 01 TELL ES-SULTAN/GERICO (in Italian)

Nigro, L. and Taha, H ed. (2006) ROSAPAT 02 TELL ES-SULTAN/JEERICO IN THE CONTEXT OF THE JORDAN VALLEY

Nigro, L. ed. (2007) ROSAPAT 04 BYBLOS AND JERICHO IN THE EARLY BRONZE I Social dynamics and cultural interactions, Proceedings of the International Workshop held in Rome on March 6th 2007 by Rome “La Sapienza” University

Nigro, L. (ed.) (2010) ROSAPAT 05 TELL ES-SULTAN /JERICHO in the Early Bronze II (3000-2700 BC): the rise of an early Palestinian city A synthesis of the results of four archaeological expeditions

Open Access Publications of "La Sapienza" Expedition to Palestine & Jordan

Websites

John Garstang’s Excavations at Jericho at garstangmuseum.wordpress.com

Researching Jericho by Bryant G. Wood PhD at Associates for Biblical Research - apologist site - differing chronology

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

Early Periods

Main publications

E. Sellin and C. Watzinger, Jericho, Leipzig 1913

J. Garstang, The Story of Jericho, rev. ed., London 1948.

Other studies

Conder-Kitchener, SWP 3, 224-226

J. Garstang, AAA 19 (1932), 3-22, 35-54

20 (1933), 3-42

21 (1934), 99-136

22(1935), 143-168

23 (1936), 67-76

I. Ben-Dor,ibid., 77-90

G. M. Fitzgerald, ibid., 91-100

E. B. Banning and B. F. Byrd, Pali!orient 15/1 (1989), 154-160

0. Bar-Yosef, ibid., 57-63.

Kenyon Excavation Reports

Main publications

K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho 1, The Tombs Excavated in 1952-1954, London 1960

ibid. 2: The Tombs Excavated in 1955-1958, London 1965

ibid. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell(text and pls.), London 1981

id. and T. A. Holland, ibid. 4: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds, London 1982

id., ibid. 5: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds, London 1983

K. M. Kenyon, Digging up Jericho, London 1957

H. J. Franken, In Search of the Jericho Potters: Ceramics from the Iron Age and from the Neolithicum (North Holland Ceramic Studies in Archaeology 1), Amsterdam 1974

P. Bienkowski, Jericho in the Late Bronze Age, Warminster 1986.

Other studies

K. M. Kenyon, PEQ 83 (1951), 101-138

84 (1952), 62-82

85 (1953), 81-96

86 (1954), 45 63

87 (1955), 108-117

88 (1956), 67-82

92 (1960), 88-113

id., Jericho 1-3 (Review), Bibliotheca Orienta/is 41 (1984), 486-489

id., Jericho 4-5 (Reviews), ZDPV 83 (1967), 88-89.- RIAL 19 (1982), 205-206.-23 (Review Supplement 1986-1987), 38-42.-Antiquity 57 (1983), 222-223.-61 (1987), 341-343.-Biblica 64 (1983), 573-574.- IEJ 33 (1983), 144-146.-Syria 60 (1983), 189-190.-63 (1986), 161-163

id., Archaeology 20 (1967), 268-275

id., Archaeological Discoveries in the Holy Land, New York 1967, 19-28

id., Archaeology and Old Testament Study (ed. D. W. Thomas), Oxford 1967, 264 275

id., ADAJ 16 (1971), 5-30

F. E. Zeuner, PEQ 86 (1954), 64-68

87 (1955), 70-86, 119-128

90 (1958), 52-55

I. W. Cornwall, ibid. 88 (1956), 110-124

P. C. Hammond, RASOR 147 (1957), 37-39

id., PEQ 89 (1957), 68-69

M. Wheeler, Walls of Jericho, London 1958

D. Kirkbride, PEQ 92 (1960), 114 119

R. L. Cleveland, RASOR 163 (1961), 30-36

K. Branigan, PEQ 99 (1967), 99-100

M. Hopf, The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals (eds. P. Ucko and G. Dimbleby), London 1969, 355-359

J. Kaplan, JNES 28 (1969), 197-199

R. North, Proc., 5th World Congress of Jewish Studies. 1969, Jerusalem 1971, 35-49

id., SHAJ 1 (1982), 59-66

J. Clutton-Brock, Levant 3 (1971), 41-55

id. (and H.-P. Verpmann), Journal of Archaeological Science 1 (1974), 261-274

id., Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45 (1979), 135-157

J.D. Frierman, IEJ2l (1971), 212-216

E. B. Smick, Orient and Occident (C. H. Gordon Fest.), Kevelaer 1973, 177-180

E. Strouhal, Palt!orient 1 (1973), 231-247

N. Avigad, Archaeology (Israel Pocket Library), Jerusalem 1974, 113-121

H. J. Franken, (Reviews), PEQ 109 (1977), 58.-Antiquity 54 (1980), 62-63

D.P. Williams, "An Examination of Middle Bronze Age II Typology and Sequence Dating in Palestine, with Particular Reference to the Tombs of Jericho and Fara (South)" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of London 1975)

H. M. Weippert, ZDPV 92 (1976), 105-148

J. A. Callaway, Sunday School Lesson Illustrator 3 (1977), 24-32

P. Dorell, Archaeology in the Levant (K. M. Kenyon Fest.), Warminster 1978, 11-18

F. Godfrey, Holy LandReview4(l978), 35-47

J. Bury, Kadath43 (1981), 21-29

J. A. Soggin, EI16 (1982), 215*-217*

J. Zias, RASOR 246 (1982), 55-58

J. R. Bartlett, Jericho (Cities of the Biblical World), Guildford 1982

id., ibid. (Reviews), Antiquity 57 (1983), 160-162. BA 47 (1984), 60-62. - BAR 10/6 (1984), 9

R. G. Boling, BA 46 (1983), 115-116

American Archaeology in the Mideast, 125-128

E. Pennels, BA 46 (1983), 57-61

T. Shay, TA 10 (1983), 26-37

id., BASOR273 (1989), 85-86

G. R. H. Wright, MDOG 115 (1983), 9-14

id.,Journal of Prehistoric Religion 2 (1988) 51-56

D. B. Merkes, Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 23 (1984), 5-34

0. Bar-Yosef, Current Anthropology 27 (1986), 157-162

P. Bienkowski (Reviews), PEQ 119 (1987), 72. - AJA 92 (1988), 444-445.-RIAL 25 (1988), 99-102. -JNES47 (1988), 189-190.-VT38 (1988),490-492. Bibliotheca Orienta/is 48 (1991), 649-651

id., Levant 21 (1989), 169-179

id., BAR 16/5 (1990), 45-46

K. Prag, RASOR 264 (1986), 61-72

G. Palumbo, ibid. 267 (1987), 43-59

R. Chapman, BAlAS 6 (1986 1987), 29-33

Y. Garfinkel, Pali!orient 13/1 (1987), 69-76

M. Broshi, BAlAS 7 (1987-1988), 3-7

B. F. Byrd and E. B. Banning, Paleorient 14/1 (1988), 65-72

T. Noy, The Israel Museum Journa/7 (1988), 109 112

Weippert 1988 (Ortsregister)

D. Gheva and M. Louhivouri, BAlAS 8 (1988-1989), 49-63

D. Ussishkin, ibid., 85-90

id., RASOR 276 (1989), 29-53

E. Braun, PEQ 121 (1989), 1-43

P. T. Crocker, Buried History 26 (1990), 100-104

27 (1991), 5-11

M. Roaf, Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East, New York 1990, 32-35

L. E. Stager, EI21 (1990), 83*-88*

B. G. Wood, BAR 16/2 (1990), 44-58

16/5 (1990) 45-49

MdB 69 (1991), 3-28

P. R. S. Moorey, A Century of Biblical Archaeology, Cambridge 1991, 94-99

R. Sparks, Mediterranean Archaeology 4 (1991), 45-54.

Bibliography from Meyers et. al. (1997)

Bar-Yosef, Ofer. "The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation." Current Anthropology 27 (1986): 157-162 .

Bienkowski, Piotr. Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster, 19S6. The most comprehensive treatment to date of the Late Bronze Age at Jericho, based on the excavated material of both Garstang and Kenyon.

Bienkowski, Piotr. "Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age." Biblical Archaeology Review 16.5 (1990): 45-46, 69. Recent archaeological treatments of Jericho and tlie "Joshua problem."

Finkelstein, Israel. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem, 1988. Recent treatment of different theories concerning the evidence for the Israelite settlement in Canaan,

Franken, Hendrichs J. In Search of the Jericho Potters: Ceramics from the Iron Age and from the Neolithicum. Amsterdam, 1974. The best technical study of the manufacture of Iron Age Israelite pottery.

Garstang, John. "Jericho: City and Necropolis." Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19 (1932): 3-22, 35-54; 20 (1933): 3-42; 21 (1934): 99-136; 22 (1935): 143-168 ; 23 (1936): 67-76. Final scientific reports on the Garstang expedition to Jericho.

Garstang, John, and J. B, E. Garstang. The Story of Jericho. 2d ed. London, 1948. The best general discussion of Garstang's excavations; well illustrated.

Holland, Thomas A. "Jericho." In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, pp. 723-737, 739-740. New York, 1992. The author's previous and most up-to-date general discussion of the archaeological finds from the Kenyon expedition, with fuller bibliography.

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Digging Up Jericho. London, 1957. The most comprehensive general discussion of the archaeology and history of Jericho relating primarily to the author's excavations; well illustrated.

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 1, The Tombs Excavated in 1952-54. London, i960. Final excavation report.

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 2, The Tombs Excavated in 1955-58. London, 1965. Final excavation report.

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 3, The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. 2 vols. Edited by Thomas A, Holland. London, 1981. Final excavation report with detailed plans, sections, and photographs of the occupation phases, as well as specialist reports on radiocarbon dates and the human skeletal remains.

Kenyon, Kathleen M. , and Thomas A. Holland. Excavations at. Jericho, vol. 4, The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London, 1982. Final excavation report, which includes drawings of the key pottery forms from each period and specialist reports on various objects.

Kenyon, Kathleen M. , and Thomas A. Holland. Excavations at Jericho, vol. 5, The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, 1983. Final excavation report, which includes drawings of pottery forms from each phase of occupation and specialist reports on various objects, studies of plant, charcoal, and animal remains, and additional radiocarbon dates for Jericho.

Warren, Charles. "Note on the Mounds at Jericho." Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1 (1869): 209-210.

Weippert, Helga, and Manfred Weippert. "Jericho in der Eisenzeit." Zeitschrift des Deulschen Paldstina-Vereins 92 (1976): 105-148 .

Weippert, Manfred. The Settlement, of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: A Critical Survey of the Recent Scholarly Debate. London, 1971 . Standard reference work for assessing the Israelite "peaceful invasion" theory of Canaan.

Wood, Bryant G. "Dating Jericho's Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts." Biblical Archaeology Review 16.5 (1990): 45, 47-49, 68-69. Must be used cautiously with regard to Bienkowski's 1990 rebuttal.

Bibliographic Guide to Jericho

from Nigro (2016)

More than a century of excavations have resulted in a significant number of publications. Excavation reporst were published by the Austro-German Expedition (E. Sellin and C. Watzinger, Jericho. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Leipzig 1913), the first British Expedition (Garstang actually published a series of article in the journal Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, and a popular book: J. Garstang and J. B. E. Garstang, The Story of Jericho, London 1948). K. M. Kenyon produced a series of monumental reports published by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem: Excavations at Jericho, vol. I (London 1960) and II (1965) dedi cated to the necropolis, vol. III, with stratigraphy and architecture [edited by Th. Holland] (1981), while pottery and finds and their typological assessment followed in the postume volumes vol. IV (1982) and V (1983) edited by Holland. A synthesis of her view is presented in the book Digging Up Jericho (1957), while other detailed information was made available in a series of articles mainly in the journal Palestine Exploration Quarterly.

The Italian-Palestinian Expedition has published five volumes on Jericho in the series Quaderni di Gerico and ROSAPAT (avail able online at the website: www.lasapienzatojericho.it): vol. 1 – on the Proto-Urban village; vol. 2 – proceedings of a conference dedicated to the site rehabilitation and tourist valorization; vol. 4 – comparing Jericho and Byblos in the 4th millennium b.c.e.; 5 - matching all available data on the earliest city of the Early Bronze II and describing the rise of the “oldest city of the world;” vol. 7 – a catalogue of 103 archaeological sites in the Jericho Oasis, with bibliographic references for each of them. Interim reports have been published in the journals: Scienze dell’Antichità and Vicino Oriente which are also available online. A comprehensive book was edited by H. Taha and A. Qleibo (Jericho, a Living History. Ten Thousand Years of Civilization, Jerusalem: Studio Alpha 2010).

A useful archaeological synthesis with a thorough presentation of the Biblical material can be found in John Bartlett’s Jericho of 1982, published at Guilford by Lutterworth Press.

Wikipedia pages

Jericho

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

Tell es-Sultan

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

'Ein es-Sultan (Elisha's Well)

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab