Megiddo
LeftTel Megiddo from the NorthWest
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
Right
Tel Megiddo from the Southeast
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
Drone photos taken by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023
- Fig. 31.1 - Faults and Epicenters near Meggiddo
from Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 31.1
Location of faults near Megiddo and recent earthquake epicentres in the vicinity of the Carmel Fault. Earthquake data from the Geophysical Institute of Israel
- Y - Yoqne'am
- M - Megiddo
- T - Ta'anach
Marco et. al. (2006) - Fig. 25 Late Iron I destructions
in the southern Levant from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 25
Late Iron I destructions in the southern Levant. A few of these sites, e.g., Shiloh, were devastated slightly earlier, in the middle Iron I, while other sites, e.g., Khirbet Qeiyafa and Tel Miqne/Ekron (Stratum IV), were destroyed a bit later, in the Iron I/II transition
Kleiman et al. (2023)
- Annotated Aerial View of
Tel Megiddo from biblewalks.com
- Annotated Aerial View of
Tel Megiddo from the north from BibleWalks.com
- Unannotated Aerial View of
Tel Megiddo from the north from BibleWalks.com
- Aerial View of Tel Megiddo
from wikipedia
Tel Megiddo with archaeological remains from the Bronze and Iron Ages
Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image
AVRAM GRAICER - wikipedia - CC by SA 3.0 - Aerial View of Tel Megiddo
in 1948 from Loud (1948)
Air View of The Mound
Loud (1948) - Fig. 2 Annotated Aerial View
of Tel Megiddo and Tel Megiddo East from Sapir-Hen et al. (2022)
Fig. 2
The dual site of Megiddo and Tel Megiddo East in the Early Bronze Age Ib.
(Illustration by M. J. Adams)
Sapir-Hen et al. (2022) - Megiddo in Google Earth
Megiddo in Google Earth
click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth - Megiddo on govmap.gov.il
Megiddo on govmap.gov.il
click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il
- Fig. 5.1 - Map of the
mound and excavation areas of the Tel Aviv University expedition from Ussishkin (2018))
Fig. 5.1
Excavation areas of the Tel Aviv University expedition
Ussishkin (2018) - Map of the site and
renewed excavation areas from Stern et al (2008 v. 5)
Megiddo: map of the site, showing excavation areas
Stern et al (2008 v. 5) - Fig. 1 Map of the site
with excavation areas from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 1
Aerial view of Megiddo, looking north, indicating the excavation areas discussed in the article
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023)
- Fig. 5.1 - Map of the
mound and excavation areas of the Tel Aviv University expedition from Ussishkin (2018))
Fig. 5.1
Excavation areas of the Tel Aviv University expedition
Ussishkin (2018) - Map of the site and
renewed excavation areas from Stern et al (2008 v. 5)
Megiddo: map of the site, showing excavation areas
Stern et al (2008 v. 5) - Fig. 1 Map of the site
with excavation areas from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 1
Aerial view of Megiddo, looking north, indicating the excavation areas discussed in the article
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023)
- Plan of Strata
VA-IVB and IVA from Stern et al (1993 v. 3)
Megiddo: plan of the city and main buildings in strata VA-IVB and IVA.
Stern et al (1993 v. 3) - Fig. 15.2 - Plan of
Strata VA-IVB from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 15:2
Plan of Stratum VA-IVB
Ussishkin (2018) - Fig. 18.1 - Plan of
Stratum IVA from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 18:1
Plan of Stratum IVA
Ussishkin (2018) - Fig. 19.3 - Plan of
Stratum III from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 19:3
Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog
Ussishkin (2018) - Fig. 24 Evidence for
the fierce conflagration of Stratum VIA from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 24
Evidence for the fierce conflagration of Stratum VIA at Megiddo; areas with evidence for burials/human remains under collapse are indicated. Though the stratigraphic situation in Area BB is fuzzy, signs of a violent event were found there too.
Kleiman et al. (2023)
- Plan of Strata
VA-IVB and IVA from Stern et al (1993 v. 3)
Megiddo: plan of the city and main buildings in strata VA-IVB and IVA.
Stern et al (1993 v. 3) - Fig. 15.2 - Plan of
Strata VA-IVB from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 15:2
Plan of Stratum VA-IVB
Ussishkin (2018) - Fig. 18.1 - Plan of
Stratum IVA from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 18:1
Plan of Stratum IVA
Ussishkin (2018) - Fig. 19.3 - Plan of
Stratum III from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 19:3
Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog
Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 31.2Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement.
Marco et. al. (2006)
- Fig. 2.5a - Excavation
areas of Schumacher from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 2:5a
The plan of the tell and the excavations prepared by Schumacher
Ussishkin (2018) - Fig. 2.5b - North-South
section of Schumacher from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 2:5b
North-South section prepared by Schumacher
Ussishkin (2018) - Fig. 3.5 - Excavation
areas of Oriental Institute expedition (Univ. of Chicago) from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 3:15
The excavation areas of the Oriental Institute expedition
Ussishkin (2018)
- Fig. 2.5a - Excavation
areas of Schumacher from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 2:5a
The plan of the tell and the excavations prepared by Schumacher
Ussishkin (2018) - Fig. 2.5b -
North-South section of Schumacher from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 2:5b
North-South section prepared by Schumacher
Ussishkin (2018) - Fig. 3.5 - Excavation
areas of Oriental Institute expedition (Univ. of Chicago) from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 3:15
The excavation areas of the Oriental Institute expedition
Ussishkin (2018)
- Fig. 2.5b -
North-South section of Schumacher from Ussishkin (2018)
Fig. 2:5b
North-South section prepared by Schumacher
Ussishkin (2018)
- Fig. 5.2 - Plan of
Level H-9 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.2
Plan of Level H-9
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.8 - Photo of
Level H-9 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.8
General view of Level H-9, looking north.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.4 - South
section of Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.4
South section of Area H (Squares E—F/6).
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.5 - East section
of Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.5
East section of Area H (Squares F/6-9).
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.6 - West section
of Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.6
West section of Area H (Squares E/6-9).
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.7 - Eastern section
of Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.7
Eastern section of Squares E/6-9.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.8 - Photo of
Level H-9 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.8
General view of Level H-9, looking north.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.25 - Plan of Level H-5
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.25
Plan of Level H-5
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.26 - View of Level H-5 looking north
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.26
General View of Level H-5, looking north
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
- Fig. 5.2 - Plan of
Level H-9 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.2
Plan of Level H-9
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.4 - South
section of Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.4
South section of Area H (Squares E—F/6).
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.5 - East section
of Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.5
East section of Area H (Squares F/6-9).
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.6 - West section
of Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.6
West section of Area H (Squares E/6-9).
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.7 - Eastern section
of Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.7
Eastern section of Squares E/6-9.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.8 - Photo of
Level H-9 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.8
General view of Level H-9, looking north.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.25 - Plan of
Level H-5 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.25
Plan of Level H-5
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.26 - View of
Level H-5 looking north from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.26
General View of Level H-5, looking north
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
- Fig. 4.20 - Plan of
Level M-4 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 4.20
Plan of Level M-4.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
- Fig. 4.20 - Plan of
Level M-4 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 4.20
Plan of Level M-4.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
- Fig. 2 Aerial view of
Squares H–I/4–5 in Area Q from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 2
Aerial view of Squares H–I/4–5 in Area Q at the end of the 2016 season, looking north
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 4 Plan of Level
Q-9 of the Late Bronze III from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 4
Plan of Level Q-9 of the Late Bronze III (this phase was revealed only in limited probes below the floors of Level Q-8)
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 6 Plan of Level
Q-8 from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 6
Plan of Level Q-8; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 8 Plan of Level
Q-7b from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 8
Plan of Level Q-7b; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 10 Plan of Level
Q-7a from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 10
Plan of Level Q-7a; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023)
- Fig. 2 Aerial view of
Squares H–I/4–5 in Area Q from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 2
Aerial view of Squares H–I/4–5 in Area Q at the end of the 2016 season, looking north
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 4 Plan of Level
Q-9 of the Late Bronze III from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 4
Plan of Level Q-9 of the Late Bronze III (this phase was revealed only in limited probes below the floors of Level Q-8)
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 6 Plan of Level
Q-8 from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 6
Plan of Level Q-8; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 8 Plan of Level
Q-7b from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 8
Plan of Level Q-7b; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 10 Plan of Level
Q-7a from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 10
Plan of Level Q-7a; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023)
- Fig. 2.6 - Superposition
of temples in the cultic area from Ussishkin (2011)
Fig. 2.6
Diagram showing the superposition of the temples in the cultic area:
- at the bottom, at left – the Stratum XIX temple
- above it, and further to the right – The Great Temple of Stratum XVIII
- above it – the Round Altar (Stratum XVI) and the three Megaron Temples (Stratum XV)
- at the top – the Tower Temple of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages
Ussishkin (2011)
- Fig. 2.6 - Superposition
of temples in the cultic area from Ussishkin (2011)
Fig. 2.6
Diagram showing the superposition of the temples in the cultic area:
- at the bottom, at left – the Stratum XIX temple
- above it, and further to the right – The Great Temple of Stratum XVIII
- above it – the Round Altar (Stratum XVI) and the three Megaron Temples (Stratum XV)
- at the top – the Tower Temple of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages
Ussishkin (2011)
- Fig. 3 Reconstruction
of the Great Temple of Stratum XVIII (Level J-4) from Sapir-Hen et al. (2022)
Fig. 3
Plan of the Great Temple of Level J-4.
(Illustration by M. J. Adams)
Sapir-Hen et al. (2022) - Fig. 2.7 - Reconstruction
of the Great Temple of Stratum XVIII (Level J-4) from Ussishkin (2011)
Fig. 2.7
The Great Temple of Stratum XVIII; a reconstructed plan.
Ussishkin (2011)
- Fig. 3 Reconstruction
of the Great Temple of Stratum XVIII (Level J-4) from Sapir-Hen et al. (2022)
Fig. 3
Plan of the Great Temple of Level J-4.
(Illustration by M. J. Adams)
Sapir-Hen et al. (2022) - Fig. 2.7 - Reconstruction
of the Great Temple of Stratum XVIII (Level J-4) from Ussishkin (2011)
Fig. 2.7
The Great Temple of Stratum XVIII; a reconstructed plan.
Ussishkin (2011)
- Fig. 31.3D - Fractured Temple Walls
from Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3D
In Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured
Marco et. al. (2006) - Fig. 31.3E - Fractured Temple Walls
from Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3E
In Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured
Marco et. al. (2006) - Fig. 31.3F - Fractured Temple Walls
from Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3F
In Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured
Marco et. al. (2006) - Fig. 40.1 - Extension Fractures
in Stone Wall of Level J-4 Temple from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 3)
Figure 40.1
Wall 96/J/1 in Square H-10, looking east. Note fracture along the strike on the edge of the wall.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 3) - Fig. 2.47 - Fractures in Temple 4040
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 2.47
Strike fractures in Temple 4040 Wall 08/J/38.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
- Fig. 31.3H - Extension cracks and
shifted Ashlars in the Late Bronze gate from Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3H
Extension cracks in the Late Bronze gate. Ashlar stones in courses in the middle of the walls (sandwiched between other courses) are fractured in opening mode. Horizontal sliding of the fragments occurred everywhere in the same direction, sub-parallel to N-S trend of the wall (Fig. 31.3h). The gate has no foundations, a fact that could have made it particularly vulnerable to seismic vibrations.
Marco et. al. (2006)
- Fig. 5.3 - Destruction Layers H-5 and H-9
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.3
Southern section of Area H, looking south. The figure is standing on the floor of Level H-9. From bottom: the thick accumulation debris of Level H-9, the floors of Level H-7 and the destruction of Level H-5. (Note the differences in the nature of destruction between Levels H-9 and H-5.)
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.8 - Photo of Level H-9
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.8
General view of Level H-9, looking north.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.9 - Smashed storage jar
and charred beam in Level H-9 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.9
Smashed storage jar lying on the floor of Courtyard 08/H/38 of Level H-9 (note charred beam between mudbricks), looking east.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.10 - Complete storage jar in Level H-9
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.10
A complete storage jar on Paved Floor 06/H/51 in the northwestern part of Courtyard 08/H/38 of Level H-9 (note the depth of City Wall 325), looking east.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.11 - Smashed pottery vessels in Level H-9
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.11
Smashed pottery vessels in the eastern part of Courtyard 08/H/38 with Partition wall 06/H/8, Level H-9, looking east.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 3 Stratum VIA destruction
debris in Area Q from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 3
A typical accumulation of the destruction debris of Stratum VIA. The black line at the bottom of the debris signifies the floor; Square I/2 in Area Q, looking north
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 5 Pottery on the floor of
Level Q-9 from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 5
Restorable vessels on the floor of Level Q-9. On the left, the eastern wall of Schumacher’s Südliches Burgtor; looking north
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 7 Floor of Level Q-8
from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 7
Floor 14/Q/106 of Level Q-8 below remains of Level Q-7, looking north
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 9 Stone pillars in Area Q
from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 9- Two of the three octagonal stone pillars of a possibly small shrine in Square I/4 after the 2014 season (Building 14/ Q/145), looking east (courtesy of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology)
- combined 3D model of Squares I/ 3–4 in Area Q, after the exposure of the third octagonal pillar in the 2016 season
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 11a pavement of Level Q-7a
building from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 11a
The pavement of the new Level Q-7a building erected above Building 14/Q/145, looking north-east; note the third pillar of Building 14/Q/145 on the right side of the photo
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 11b broken stelae originating
from pavement of Building 16/Q/48 from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 11b
one of the broken stelae, which originated from the pavement of Building 16/Q/48
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 12 Level Q-7 (Stratum VIA)
destruction layer from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 12
A view of the destruction of the Level Q-7 (Stratum VIA) city in Squares H/4–5, looking south-east
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 13 Level Q-6b stone monolith
erected above the ruins of the Iron I destruction from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 13
A stone monolith erected in Level Q-6b above the ruins of the Iron I destruction, looking north
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 14 Skeletal reamins
from Stratum VIA destruction in Area Q from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 14
Remains of an individual found in Locus 16/Q/79:
- schematic diagram that shows which skeletal elements were recovered (in grey)
- in situ photo of the individual’s right pelvis and femoral head
- proximal ends of right (on left) and left (on right) radii, showing differential size and colouration
- left (on left) and right (on right) fourth metacarpals, showing differential size and colouration
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 17 Iron blades and stacked
bronze bowls from cache from Locus 12/Q/76 from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 17
The cache from Locus 12/Q/76, which contained iron blades placed beside two stacked bronze bowls filled with additional items
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 21 Burials in Area CC
along with smashed pottery from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 21
Burials in Square Q/10 (Locus 1770) in Area CC (Harrison 2004: fig. 73). Note the relationship between the skeletons on the right, with respect to architecture and the smashed pottery
(courtesy of the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures of the University of Chicago)
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 22 Skeletal remains in
Area K from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 22
Skeletal remains in articulation in Baulk N–O/11 (Locus 04/K/38) in Area K. Note that the initial exposure of the individual was under Locus 04/K/26
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, previously unpublished photo)
Kleiman et al. (2023)
- Fig. 5.26 - View of Level H-5 looking north
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.26
General View of Level H-5, looking north
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.27 - Level H-5 Destruction Layer
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.27
The southern section of Area H with Level H-5 destruction in the centre of the picture (note the sloping down of the Level H-5 floor toward Installation 06 H 14 in the right) and Level H-7 floors, looking south.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.28 - Level H-5 Destruction Debris
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.28
Destruction debris on Floor 98 H 62 of Level H-5, looking west.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
- Fig. 2.12 - Strata VIII-VII Canaanite Gate
before restoration from Ussishkin (2011)
Fig. 2.12
The late Canaanite city-gate (Strata VIII-VII)
Ussishkin (2011) - Old photo of the Canaanite Gate
from Stern et al (1993 v. 3)
LB city gate in area AA.
Stern et al (1993 v. 3)
Table 1.1Summary of Megiddo stratigraphy updated to 2008
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Table 1Stratigraphic correlation between excavated areas at Megiddo
Kleiman et al. (2023)
Table 5.1Updated Stratigraphy of Area H
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Table 2.2Revised and Augmented Stratigraphy of Area J
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
- from Ussishkin (2015)
Table 1The Cultic Compound in the Early Periods
Ussishkin (2015)
Table 2The Six Stages of the Sacred Area during Strata XX-XIV Levels J-1 - J-8
Ussishkin (2015)
Table 4.1The Stratigraphy of Area M
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Table 4.3UPDATED STRATIGRAPHY OF AREA M (REPLACING FINKELSTEIN, USSISHKIN AND DEUTSCH 2006: 80, TABLE 5.1)
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Table 3Radiocarbon dates from Level Q-9 to Q-6b (Boaretto 2022: table 41.1
Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 20The Area Q radiocarbon sequence ((based on the data reported in Boaretto 2022: table 41.1
Kleiman et al. (2023)
- Fig. 31.3D - Fractured Temple Walls
from Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3D
In Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured
Marco et. al. (2006) - Fig. 31.3E - Fractured Temple Walls
from Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3E
In Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured
Marco et. al. (2006) - Fig. 31.3F - Fractured Temple Walls
from Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3F
In Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured
Marco et. al. (2006) - Fig. 40.1 - Extension Fractures
in Stone Wall of Level J-4 Temple from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 3)
Figure 40.1
Wall 96/J/1 in Square H-10, looking east. Note fracture along the strike on the edge of the wall.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 3) - Fig. 2.47 - Fractures in Temple 4040
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 2.47
Strike fractures in Temple 4040 Wall 08/J/38.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Marco et. al. (2006) reported that
in Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f)while
the overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured.They attributed this to probable
catastrophic horizontal shakingand categorized this as an earthquake event that was
beyond doubt. This archaeoseismic evidence is indeed compelling. Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3:1331) reports that Adams in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3 Ch.3 Part III) argues against this interpretation attributing
abandonment of the temple in particular and Megiddo in general to socio-political change.Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3:1331) summarized Pro and Con arguments in the Table below while asserting that an earthquake was likely responsible for the wall fractures.
Table 39.1EB IB Earthquake Theory Arguments, Pro and Con
Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3:1331)
- Fig. 31.3H - Extension cracks and
shifted Ashlars in the Late Bronze gate from Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3H
Extension cracks in the Late Bronze gate. Ashlar stones in courses in the middle of the walls (sandwiched between other courses) are fractured in opening mode. Horizontal sliding of the fragments occurred everywhere in the same direction, sub-parallel to N-S trend of the wall (Fig. 31.3h). The gate has no foundations, a fact that could have made it particularly vulnerable to seismic vibrations.
Marco et. al. (2006)
Marco et. al. (2006) observed extension cracks and shifted Ashlar stones in the Late Bronze Age Gate. The ashlars shifted
sub-parallel to N-S trend of the wall (Fig. 31.3h). They noted that the gate lacked a foundation making it vulnerable to seismic destruction. Unfortunately, this compelling archaeoseismic evidence lacks a reliable terminus ante quem so all that could be said was that this presumed seismic destruction post dates c. 1200 BCE and could have been caused by the ~950 BCE Stratum IVA seismic event. Marco et. al. (2006) also noted that
stone plates in the roof of Schumacher's Chamber f (see Chapter 5) are fractured at 90°. This presumed roof collapse also lacks a reliable terminus ante quem and could be associated with a Late Bronze Age Earthquake or a later event such as the ~950 BCE Stratum IVA seismic event. Kleiman et al. (2023:4) noted that
the destruction of the Late Bronze III city (Stratum VIIA) in the second half of the 12th century BCE was partial and did not lead to radical changes in either the spatial organization of the settlement or its material culture. Kleiman et al. (2023:34) also noted that
to date, signs of destruction were documented mainly in the area of the palace in Area AA and partially in Area M (Level M-6, see Finkelstein 2013a: 234), as well as in the domestic quarter in Area K (Level K-6, see Arie and Nativ 2013).
Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3:1335-1336) seems to suggest that the destruction of Stratum VIIA was due to human agency.
The destruction of Stratum VIA is described by
Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3:1336-1337) as total with evidence in every area excavated
by our team and by our predecessors
including from Levels H-9 and M-4. Kleiman et al. (2023:3)
noted that Megiddo in Stratum VIA was destroyed by a fierce conflagration, followed by a short gap of occupation, radical change in material culture and a cessation of activity in the lower settlement
and that the destruction debris, one of the most reliable stratigraphic anchors at Megiddo — is characterized by a massive accumulation of burnt mudbrick collapse, sometimes over 1 m thick, with
restorable vessels and ash debris
. In Area Q, Kleiman et al. (2023:15) reports
that Level Q-7a, which is equivalent to Stratum VIA, contained Iron I pottery which was sealed from above by Level Q-6b whose ceramic assemblage
exhibits distinctive characteristics of the Iron IIA traditions, such as red slipped
and hand-burnished vessels (Kleiman 2022: 937).
Kleiman et al. (2023:15) noted that
a radiocarbon study published a few years ago [before 2023], which was based on a larger quantity of samples, suggested that the event
[Stratum VIA destruction equivalent to the Level Q-7a destruction] occurred in the range of 985–935 BCE (Toffolo et al. 2014)
while a more recent model puts it [the destruction of Stratum VIA] in the early
10th century BCE (Finkelstein and Piasetzky in press)
.
While Marco et al. 2006
suggested that it was probable but not conclusive
that the destruction of Stratum VIA was caused by an earthquake,
Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3:1336-1337), using the results of radiocarbon dating of 7 nearby sites
along the same approximate time horizon, concluded that that the destruction stemmed from early steps in the rise of a north Israelite territorial
entity — the expansion of the highlanders into the northern valleys.
Kleiman et al. (2023:24) suggested that
the Stratum VIA destruction was caused by human agency and that the available evidence hints that this was probably the culmination of a process which included a siege,
rather than a sudden and unexpected military attack
. Kleiman et al. (2023:19, 22) noted that
over the years, scholars have remained undecided regarding the cause of Megiddo VIA’s destruction
with some favoring an earthquake and others favoring human agency.
- Fig. 5.2 - Plan of Level H-9
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.2
Plan of Level H-9
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.3 - Destruction Layers H-5 and H-9
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.3
Southern section of Area H, looking south. The figure is standing on the floor of Level H-9. From bottom: the thick accumulation debris of Level H-9, the floors of Level H-7 and the destruction of Level H-5. (Note the differences in the nature of destruction between Levels H-9 and H-5.)
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.4 - South section of
Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.4
South section of Area H (Squares E—F/6).
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.5 - East section of
Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.5
East section of Area H (Squares F/6-9).
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.6 - West section of
Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.6
West section of Area H (Squares E/6-9).
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.7 - Eastern section of
Area H from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.7
Eastern section of Squares E/6-9.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.8 - Photo of Level H-9
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.8
General view of Level H-9, looking north.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.9 - Smashed storage jar
and charred beam in Level H-9 from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.9
Smashed storage jar lying on the floor of Courtyard 08/H/38 of Level H-9 (note charred beam between mudbricks), looking east.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.10 - Complete storage jar in Level H-9
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.10
A complete storage jar on Paved Floor 06/H/51 in the northwestern part of Courtyard 08/H/38 of Level H-9 (note the depth of City Wall 325), looking east.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.11 - Smashed pottery vessels in Level H-9
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.11
Smashed pottery vessels in the eastern part of Courtyard 08/H/38 with Partition wall 06/H/8, Level H-9, looking east.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3:1336) reports the following regarding Iron Age stratigraphy in Area H
Area H provides the best stratigraphic sequence for Iron Age Megiddo, with two pre-732 BCE Iron IIB layers (levels H-3 and H-4), four Iron IIA layers (levels H-5 to H-8), one late Iron I layer (level H-9) and at least two early Iron I layers (levels H-10 and H-11, which will be reported on in the next Megiddo report). This system of nine layers (only five were detected by the University of Chicago) covers a time span of ca. 370 years (ca. 1100–732 BCE) with an accumulation of ca. 5.5 m. three of the settlements – levels H-9, H-5 and H-3 – ended in destruction.Eran Arie in Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1:253-256) reported the following about Level H-9:
Level H-9
Level H-9 (Fig. 5.2) was violently destroyed by a fierce fire leaving a thick accumulation of red burnt mudbrick debris. In some places the collapse debris reached over 1 min height (Figs. 5.3-5.5). This red brick debris and the typical pottery retrieved from this phase leave no doubt regarding the correlation between Level H-9 and Stratum VIA of the University of Chicago expedition, dated to the late Iron I. The excellent state of preservation of Level H-9 is manifested by a large number of pottery vessels and small finds.
Due to the narrow dimensions of Area H, the architecture assigned to Level H-9 does not provide a clear layout of a building. It comprises architectural elements that were reconstructed in this report as one unit called Building 08/H/38 (Fig. 5.8).
CENTRAL COURTYARD 08/H/38
Due to its large expanse it is logical to assume that this architectural unit served as a courtyard. Still, two flat stones that probably served as pillar bases, which were found in the western side of this unit, may suggest that it was partly roofed. Several carbonized beams that were found here could have originated from this roof or from the pillars themselves (Fig. 5.9).
While the floor of most of the courtyard was made of beaten earth, two parts of it were paved with fieldstones. The first (06/H/55) located in the southeastern corner of the courtyard, was probably constructed in order to support the weight of Basin 08/H/30 (see below). Above this pavement, a thick phytolith layer was found, identified by Ruth Shahack-Gross (personal communication) as some kind of a mat. The second paved area (06/H/51), which was found in the northwestern part of the courtyard, slopes down toward the south probably due to sinking (Fig. 5.10). It originally abutted Wall 06/H/13 and probably represents a larger floor that was not preserved.
Courtyard 08/H/38 yielded the largest accumulation of finds retrieved from Level H-9. The thick debris of red-fired mudbricks spread all over the courtyard contained dozens of pottery vessels (Fig. 5.11). It is worth mentioning that the southwestern part of the courtyard can be distinguished from its western sector by the character of its finds: a significant number of small vessels in the former versus mostly big storage vessels in the latter (see Chapter 12).
...
It is worth mentioning that below the floors dated to the last destruction of Level H-9 an accumulation of beaten earth floors (ca. 0.20 m thick) was excavated all over the courtyard. These represent the life span of Level H-9. This phenomenon was recognized only in this unit, seemingly also testifying to its function as a courtyard.
- Table 4.1 - The Stratigraphy of Area M
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Table 4.1
The Stratigraphy of Area M
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 4.20 - Plan of Level M-4
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 4.20
Plan of Level M-4.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Norma Franklin in Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) interpreted Area M while noting that her interpretation also took into account
the results of past excavations in this area, mainly Schumacher's.She reported the following on pages 202-203 about the demise of Level M-4:
THE DEMISE OF LEVEL M-4
Level M-4 came to an end in a dramatic destruction, with heavy conflagration. This destruction is the contemporary of Level K-4 (Gadot et al. 2006: 94-101) and Level H-9 (Chapter 5).
There was a marked difference between the burnt mudbrick material deposited over Rooms 04/M/44 and 04/M/55 in Squares AV—AW/27 and the material deposited over the open area in Squares AV/28-29 and AW/28-29. The former featured a thick concentration of (unburnt) mudbrick debris. In Square AW/27 (Locus 04/M/24) there was disturbed mudbrick debris, rock tumble, pottery sherds, and broken fragments of worked basalt, and the Level M-4 walls had been partially robbed of their stones. Square AV/27 featured a similar picture: a north-south robber trench traversed the east side of the square (Locus 04/M/14); it was located over Level M-4 Wall 04/M/5, and possibly represents the robbing of part of the wall's superstructure.
The other squares were covered with a thick layer of burnt mudbrick. For example Loci 00/M/31 and 00/M/33 north and south of Wall 00/M/27, respectively, contained burnt mudbrick debris that appeared to have been deposited, after burning, on the ashy surfaces of Level M-4. Only a few of the burnt mudbricks were in situ, e.g., part of the mudbrick superstructure of Wall 00/M/27.
The most dramatic picture of the conflagration that marked the end of Level M-4 was seen in Square AW/28. The best preserved and most colourful selection of burnt mudbrick debris was revealed here, including whole mudbricks measuring 46 x 30 x 12 cm. Some were black due to carbonized organic material, others ranged from yellow ochre, through burnt sienna to burnt umber. The pile was at its highest in the southeast corner of the square and sloped down to the west and north; on excavation it resembled a veritable cascade of mudbrick (Fig. 4.26). However the `cascade' was in fact a post-occupation level deposit that contained Level M-4 material (see below). The lowest point of the `cascade' cut through the original Level M-4 surface (02/M/71), but the bulk of the burnt material rested on the floor and covered Wall 00/M/27.
- Fig. 1 Map of the site
with excavation areas from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 1
Aerial view of Megiddo, looking north, indicating the excavation areas discussed in the article
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 2 Aerial view of
Squares H–I/4–5 in Area Q from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 2
Aerial view of Squares H–I/4–5 in Area Q at the end of the 2016 season, looking north
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 4 Plan of Level
Q-9 of the Late Bronze III from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 4
Plan of Level Q-9 of the Late Bronze III (this phase was revealed only in limited probes below the floors of Level Q-8)
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 6 Plan of Level
Q-8 from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 6
Plan of Level Q-8; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 8 Plan of Level
Q-7b from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 8
Plan of Level Q-7b; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 10 Plan of Level
Q-7a from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 10
Plan of Level Q-7a; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023)
- Fig. 1 Map of the site
with excavation areas from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 1
Aerial view of Megiddo, looking north, indicating the excavation areas discussed in the article
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 2 Aerial view of
Squares H–I/4–5 in Area Q from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 2
Aerial view of Squares H–I/4–5 in Area Q at the end of the 2016 season, looking north
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 4 Plan of Level
Q-9 of the Late Bronze III from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 4
Plan of Level Q-9 of the Late Bronze III (this phase was revealed only in limited probes below the floors of Level Q-8)
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 6 Plan of Level
Q-8 from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 6
Plan of Level Q-8; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 8 Plan of Level
Q-7b from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 8
Plan of Level Q-7b; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023) - Fig. 10 Plan of Level
Q-7a from Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 10
Plan of Level Q-7a; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition).
Kleiman et al. (2023)
Eran Arie in Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1:270-272) reported on a collapse and destruction layer in Level H-5
which correlates with Stratum VA-IVB.
The most significant evidence for collapse and destruction is located
in the southern parts of the area may testify that a building stood right to the
south of Area H.
Eran Arie in Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1:270-272) noted that
the destruction
of this city was not complete and certain parts of the mound did not show evidence of
destruction by fire (Finkelstein 2009: 117).
Knauf (2002:2) reports that the occupation of Phase H5a [which correlates to Stratum IVA] was
terminated by an earthquake, which cracked the city wall and strewed parts of walls
of these southern buildings all over Area H.
Marco et. al. (2006)
observed that a staircase between the Iron II gate complex and a reservoir was tilted and faulted, a wall in the courtyard of the
Southern Stables tilted to the west, there were fractures in the walls of a Silo (1404), and there were fractures in the limestone bedrock
of Tunnel 1000 of the water system. Although they suggested the most likely candidate for this archaeoseismic evidence was the
~760 BCE Amos Quake, they noted that an inability to establish a terminus ante quem created chronological uncertainty and
opened up the possibility
that the causitive earthquake struck later. The terminus post quem was c. 800 BCE.
- Fig. 5.25 - Plan of Level H-5
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.25
Plan of Level H-5
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.26 - View of Level H-5 looking north
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.26
General View of Level H-5, looking north
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.27 - Level H-5 Destruction Layer
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.27
The southern section of Area H with Level H-5 destruction in the centre of the picture (note the sloping down of the Level H-5 floor toward Installation 06 H 14 in the right) and Level H-7 floors, looking south.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Fig. 5.28 - Level H-5 Destruction Debris
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.28
Destruction debris on Floor 98 H 62 of Level H-5, looking west.
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) - Table 5.1 - Updated Stratigraphy of Area H
from Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Table 5.1
Updated Stratigraphy of Area H
Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3:1336) reports the following regarding Iron Age stratigraphy in Area H
Area H provides the best stratigraphic sequence for Iron Age Megiddo, with two pre-732 BCE Iron IIB layers (levels H-3 and H-4), four Iron IIA layers (levels H-5 to H-8), one late Iron I layer (level H-9) and at least two early Iron I layers (levels H-10 and H-11, which will be reported on in the next Megiddo report). This system of nine layers (only five were detected by the University of Chicago) covers a time span of ca. 370 years (ca. 1100–732 BCE) with an accumulation of ca. 5.5 m. three of the settlements – levels H-9, H-5 and H-3 – ended in destruction.Eran Arie in Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1:270-272) reported the following about Level H-5:
... It is now clear that level H-5 is indeed part of Stratum VA-IVB (Arie, Chapter 13).
Level H-5
Level H-5 (Figs. 5.25-5.26), which is reported here, is equivalent to Knauf's Level H-5a (Knauf 2006: 142). As far as I can judge, there is no evidence for his earlier phases (his Levels H-5b and H-5c). The reconstruction of Finkelstein and Ussishkin (2006: 145) is also inaccurate, as it combined remains of both Levels H-6 and H-5.
During Level H-5, Area H served as an open space devoid of any architectural remains. A plaster floor set with pebbles covered most of the area. Some of the highest stones of Level H-6 walls could be seen on top of this. The level of the floor was 161.00±15 all over the area. The floor was damaged by three large pits. While two pits (98/H/22 and 98/H/63) are related to an intermediate phase between Levels H-4 and H-3 (Petit 2006: 136), the third (00/H/14) was probably dug during the time of Level H-4.
Installation 00/H/4 was probably used for cooking. It was made of three stones; the central one was crumbling since it was exposed to fire. A semicircular installation (00/H/9) was located in the southwestern part of this open space. It is stone-lined and could have been used as a posthole. Another installation (06/H/14) is located in the southwestern part of the area. It was dug to a depth of ca. 70 cm below the floor of Level H-5 and it therefore cuts a Level H-6 floor (this is seen in the southern and western sections of the area). The floor of this installation was paved; it was laid at almost the same elevation as that of the highest floor of the Level H-7 courtyard (Fig. 5.27). Because only a limited part of this installation was uncovered, its function is unknown. It is important to emphasize that in the past this installation was wrongly interpreted as related to either Level H-7 (Knauf 2006: 137) or to Level H-6 (Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2006: 145); this led to a misunderstanding of the relationship between the University of Chicago strata and the Megiddo Expedition levels.
Level H-5 came to its end in a violent destruction. This is best seen in the southern part of the area, where a collapse of big stones, burnt mudbricks, large chunks of charcoal and restorable pottery vessels were found (Fig. 5.28). Evidence for this destruction was also found on the floor of Installation 06/H/14.
CONCLUSION
Level H-5 represents a complete change in the architectural planning of Area H. After many years in which the area comprised domestic buildings surrounded by open courtyards, Area H became an open space that probably functioned as a public area. The gap in elevation between the floors of Level H-6 (ca. 160.40 m) and Level H-5 (ca. 161.00 m) can be explained as a result of the clearing and flattening of the debris originating from the architecture of Level H-6 and the preparation of the area for plastering.
It is logical to assume that this plaster floor and the plaster floor reported by Loud (1948: Fig. 380) in the adjacent Square L6, which are at the same elevation (161.00±15 m), were connected to each other. Loud affiliated this floor with Stratum IVA and according to his plan it abuts City Wall 325. Yet, it seems that Loud's floor could not have abutted the city wall, because today it is clear that Addition 1055, which was reported in Megiddo I (and was affiliated with Stratum III [Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 89]), must have cut this floor from the city wall. Consequently, Loud's floor has to be understood as the continuation of the Level H-5 floor; both are earlier than the construction of City Wall 325. This assumption is strengthened by the fact that Loud (1948: Fig. 388) did not associate any architectural elements with Stratum VA (the equivalent to Level H-5) in Square L6. The large size of this plaster floor (all of Area H and the floor reported by Loud) placed in a public area, may hint that a central government was involved in its construction.
The fact that the most significant evidence for collapse and destruction is located in the southern parts of the area may testify that a building stood right to the south of Area H. A wood sample from this area was recognized as Cedar of Lebanon, hinting at the probable wealth of this building's inhabitants (Liphschitz 2006: 515). The nature of destruction of Level H-5, together with its stratigraphic position and its characteristic pottery, enable its correlation with Stratum VA-IVB. The destruction of this city was not complete and certain parts of the mound did not show evidence of destruction by fire (Finkelstein 2009: 117).
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractured Walls | Site 1
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 3Plan of the Great Temple of Level J-4. (Illustration by M. J. Adams) Sapir-Hen et al. (2022)
Fig. 2.7The Great Temple of Stratum XVIII; a reconstructed plan. Ussishkin (2011) |
|
Figure 31.3D In Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3EIn Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3FIn Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
| Fractured Walls | Site 1
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 3Plan of the Great Temple of Level J-4. (Illustration by M. J. Adams) Sapir-Hen et al. (2022)
Fig. 2.7The Great Temple of Stratum XVIII; a reconstructed plan. Ussishkin (2011) 
Figure 15A suggested reconstruction for Stratum XVIII/Level J-4 Great Temple. JW: Wall 96/1 (with the fractures) is in the lower right (Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015) 
Figure 14The uncovered remains of Stratum XVIII/Level J-4 Great Temple JW: Dotted lines follow the suggested reconstruction in Fig. 15 above. This places fractured wall 96/1 in Square B-11 (Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015) 
Figure 1A plan of Megiddo, showing Area BB and Area J. JW: Round Altar 4017 is the area of interest with the fractured walls (Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015) 
Figure 16The sanctuary of the Great Temple, from the north JW: Use the round altar to find your way in the plans (Photo by P. Shrago; courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015) 
Aerial Shot of the part of the Tel that includes Area Jclick on image to open a magnifiable image in a new tab Drone Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023 (taken from outside the park) |
Level J-4 (Stratum XVIII) |
Figure 40.1 Wall 96/J/1 in Square H-10, looking east. Note fracture along the strike on the edge of the wall. Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 3) |
|
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractured and Shifted Ashlar Stones | Site 3
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3H Extension cracks in the Late Bronze gate. Ashlar stones in courses in the middle of the walls (sandwiched between other courses) are fractured in opening mode. Horizontal sliding of the fragments occurred everywhere in the same direction, sub-parallel to N-S trend of the wall (Fig. 31.3h). The gate has no foundations, a fact that could have made it particularly vulnerable to seismic vibrations. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 2.12The late Canaanite city-gate (Strata VIII-VII) Ussishkin (2011)
LB city gate in area AA. Stern et al (1993 v. 3) Link to 3D scan of Canaanite Gate (east side) Link to 3D scan of Canaanite Gate (west side) |
|
| Fractured Roof Plate | Site 2
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Folding and Liquefaction | Site 4
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3GDistorted and liquefied sand horizon in the western section of the Schumacher trench, excavated in the early 20th century. (Fig. 31.3g). Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
| Fractures | Site 5b
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
Date of Level K-4
|
|
|
| Folded Wall | Site 5a
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3IA warped wall trending 220° in Area K is tilted to both sides 12°-15°. (Fig. 31.3i.) Marco et. al. (2006) 
Figure 2LA deformed, wall in Megiddo, part of a Late Iron Age, 8th century BC building (Marco et al., 2006). Site 10 in Fig. 1 Marco (2008) |
|
| Collapsed Walls | Site 6
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
|
|
Area Q
Fig. 1 Aerial view of Megiddo, looking north, indicating the excavation areas discussed in the article (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 10Plan of Level Q-7a; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023) |
|
Fig. 3 A typical accumulation of the destruction debris of Stratum VIA. The black line at the bottom of the debris signifies the floor; Square I/2 in Area Q, looking north (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 12A view of the destruction of the Level Q-7 (Stratum VIA) city in Squares H/4–5, looking south-east (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023) |
|
| Human Remains | Area Q - Baulk H–I/4 on a floor to the north-east of Building 16/Q/48 of Level Q-7a, directly below the destruction debris (Locus 16/Q/79)
Fig. 1 Aerial view of Megiddo, looking north, indicating the excavation areas discussed in the article (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 10Plan of Level Q-7a; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023) |
|
Fig. 14 Remains of an individual found in Locus 16/Q/79:
(courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition) Kleiman et al. (2023) |
|
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tilted Walls | Site 8
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 15:2Plan of Stratum VA-IVB Ussishkin (2018)
Megiddo: plan of the city and main buildings in strata VA-IVB and IVA.Stern et al (1993 v. 3) |
|
|
|
| Tilted Floor | Site 10
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 15:2Plan of Stratum VA-IVB Ussishkin (2018)
Megiddo: plan of the city and main buildings in strata VA-IVB and IVA.Stern et al (1993 v. 3) |
|
Figure 31.3AThe south-western corner of Palace 6000 (Area L, Squares D/5, E/4-5) is tilted 3°-5° (top dipping to 250°-260° — Fig. 31.3a). In the northern baulk of Squares D-E/4, a white layer which belongs to the palace's floor make-up is also tilted. Immediately to the east, in the northern section of Square E/4, there are two fissures, each about 10-15 cm wide in the same floor make-up. The fissures are filled with grey unconsolidated soil that contains a few ceramic fragments. The white make-up for Floor 98/L/59 and plaster Floor 98/L/120 — both of the Level L-2 stables — are horizontal Marco et. al. (2006) 
Figure 2NAn episode of tilting is exhibited by an angle between tilted stone floor and an overlying horizontal plaster floor in Megiddo. The stratigraphy shows that the tilting postdates the lower and predates the upper floor, but the precise time of construction is archaeologically indistinguishable. Both were built in the Iron Age II (9th century BC). Since the upper floor remained perfectly horizontal in the last 3 millennia we assume that the tilting of its precedent was rapid and exceptional, probably associated with an earthquake (Marco et al., 2006). Site 10 in Fig. 1 Marco (2008) |
|
| Tilted Columns | Site 7
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 15:2Plan of Stratum VA-IVB Ussishkin (2018)
Megiddo: plan of the city and main buildings in strata VA-IVB and IVA.Stern et al (1993 v. 3) |
|
Figure 31.3BA group of six pillars in Building 1A (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 6) are all tilted 8°-11° to the west (265°-295°). (Fig. 31.3b). Marco et. al. (2006) 
Figure 2MLeaning Iron Age II (9th century BC) columns in Megiddo (Marco et al., 2006). The supports at the bottom are modern. Site 10 in Fig. 1 Marco (2008) 
View of the three tilted pillar using digital theodolite with theodolite orinted flat
Digital Theodolite Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023 
View of the three tilted pillar using digital theodolite to estimate tilt on central Pillar. Tilt estimate is 8.2°.
Digital Theodolite Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023 
Tilt direction estimate using iPhone Compass and square wood dowel spanning two of the columns. Direction estimate of Azimuth is 288°.
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023 Link to 3D scan of 3 tilted pillars (Site 7) |
|
| Collapsed Walls | Site 9
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tilted and Faulted Staircase | Site 12
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) 
Figure 389JW: Staircase is upper right - see closeup Loud (1948) 
Figure 389 CloseupLoud (1948)
Fig. 18:1Plan of Stratum IVA Ussishkin (2018) |
|
Figure 31.3CStaircase leading from the Iron II gate complex to a water system reservoir (Loud 1948: Fig. 389, Square H/10) is tilted 9°/000°. The staircase is built on a steep slope. (Fig. 31.3c). Marco et. al. (2006) Link to 3D scan of faulted staircase Link to 3D scan of faulted staircase (closeup) |
|
| Tilted Wall | Site 11
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 18:1Plan of Stratum IVA Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
|
| Fractured bedrock | Site 13
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 18:1Plan of Stratum IVA Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
|
| Fractured Walls | Site 14
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 18:1Plan of Stratum IVA Ussishkin (2018) |
|
Figure 77Stratum III Storage Pit 1414 Lamon and Shipton (1939) |
|
| Destruction and Collapse Layer | Area H
Figure 5.25 Plan of Level H-5 Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Fig. 5.1Excavation areas of the Tel Aviv University expedition Ussishkin (2018)
Megiddo: map of the site, showing excavation areasStern et al (2008 v. 5) |
|
Figure 5.27 The southern section of Area H with Level H-5 destruction in the centre of the picture (note the sloping down of the Level H-5 floor toward Installation 06/H/14 in the right) and Level H-7 floors, looking south. Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.28Destruction debris on Floor 98/H/62 of Level H-5, looking west. Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) |
|
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractured Walls | Site 14
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 19:3Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog Ussishkin (2018) |
|
Figure 77 Stratum III Storage Pit 1414 Lamon and Shipton (1939) |
|
| Tilted Pillar | Site 15
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) 
Figure 72Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B JW: Building 1513 is in top left corner - see closeup Lamon and Shipton (1939) 
Figure 72 Closeup Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B Lamon and Shipton (1939)
Fig. 19:3Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
|
| Tilted and partially collapsed wall | Site 16
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 72Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B JW: Building 1513 is in top left corner - see closeup Lamon and Shipton (1939)
Figure 72 Closeup Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B Lamon and Shipton (1939)
Fig. 19:3Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
|
| Folded Wall | Site 17
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 19:3Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractured Walls | Site 1
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3D In Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3EIn Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3FIn Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
| Fractured Walls | Site 1
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 15A suggested reconstruction for Stratum XVIII/Level J-4 Great Temple. JW: Wall 96/1 (with the fractures) is in the lower right (Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015)
Figure 14The uncovered remains of Stratum XVIII/Level J-4 Great Temple JW: Dotted lines follow the suggested reconstruction in Fig. 15 above. This places fractured wall 96/1 in Square B-11 (Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015)
Figure 1A plan of Megiddo, showing Area BB and Area J. JW: Round Altar 4017 is the area of interest with the fractured walls (Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015)
Figure 16The sanctuary of the Great Temple, from the north JW: Use the round altar to find your way in the plans (Photo by P. Shrago; courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015)
Aerial Shot of the part of the Tel that includes Area Jclick on image to open a magnifiable image in a new tab Drone Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023 (taken from outside the park) |
Level J-4 (Stratum XVIII) |
Figure 40.1 Wall 96/J/1 in Square H-10, looking east. Note fracture along the strike on the edge of the wall. Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 3) |
|
| Fractured and Shifted Ashlar Stones | Site 3
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3H Extension cracks in the Late Bronze gate. Ashlar stones in courses in the middle of the walls (sandwiched between other courses) are fractured in opening mode. Horizontal sliding of the fragments occurred everywhere in the same direction, sub-parallel to N-S trend of the wall (Fig. 31.3h). The gate has no foundations, a fact that could have made it particularly vulnerable to seismic vibrations. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 2.12The late Canaanite city-gate (Strata VIII-VII) Ussishkin (2011) Link to 3D scan of Canaanite Gate (east side) Link to 3D scan of Canaanite Gate (west side) |
|
| Fractured Roof Plate | Site 2
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
|
| Folding and Liquefaction | Site 4
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3G Distorted and liquefied sand horizon in the western section of the Schumacher trench, excavated in the early 20th century. (Fig. 31.3g). Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
| Fractures | Site 5b
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
Date of Level K-4
|
|
|
| Folded Wall | Site 5a
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3I A warped wall trending 220° in Area K is tilted to both sides 12°-15°. (Fig. 31.3i.) Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 2LA deformed, wall in Megiddo, part of a Late Iron Age, 8th century BC building (Marco et al., 2006). Site 10 in Fig. 1 Marco (2008) |
|
| Collapsed Walls | Site 6
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
|
| Tilted Walls | Site 8
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
|
| Tilted Floor | Site 10
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3A The south-western corner of Palace 6000 (Area L, Squares D/5, E/4-5) is tilted 3°-5° (top dipping to 250°-260° — Fig. 31.3a). In the northern baulk of Squares D-E/4, a white layer which belongs to the palace's floor make-up is also tilted. Immediately to the east, in the northern section of Square E/4, there are two fissures, each about 10-15 cm wide in the same floor make-up. The fissures are filled with grey unconsolidated soil that contains a few ceramic fragments. The white make-up for Floor 98/L/59 and plaster Floor 98/L/120 — both of the Level L-2 stables — are horizontal Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 2NAn episode of tilting is exhibited by an angle between tilted stone floor and an overlying horizontal plaster floor in Megiddo. The stratigraphy shows that the tilting postdates the lower and predates the upper floor, but the precise time of construction is archaeologically indistinguishable. Both were built in the Iron Age II (9th century BC). Since the upper floor remained perfectly horizontal in the last 3 millennia we assume that the tilting of its precedent was rapid and exceptional, probably associated with an earthquake (Marco et al., 2006). Site 10 in Fig. 1 Marco (2008) |
|
| Tilted Columns | Site 7
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3B A group of six pillars in Building 1A (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 6) are all tilted 8°-11° to the west (265°-295°). (Fig. 31.3b). Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 2MLeaning Iron Age II (9th century BC) columns in Megiddo (Marco et al., 2006). The supports at the bottom are modern. Site 10 in Fig. 1 Marco (2008)
View of the three tilted pillar using digital theodolite with theodolite orinted flat
Digital Theodolite Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023
View of the three tilted pillar using digital theodolite to estimate tilt on central Pillar. Tilt estimate is 8.2°.
Digital Theodolite Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023
Tilt direction estimate using iPhone Compass and square wood dowel spanning two of the columns. Direction estimate of Azimuth is 288°.
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023 Link to 3D scan of 3 tilted pillars (Site 7) |
|
| Collapsed Walls | Site 9
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
|
| Tilted and Faulted Staircase | Site 12
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 389JW: Staircase is upper right - see closeup Loud (1948)
Figure 389 CloseupLoud (1948) |
|
Figure 31.3C Staircase leading from the Iron II gate complex to a water system reservoir (Loud 1948: Fig. 389, Square H/10) is tilted 9°/000°. The staircase is built on a steep slope. (Fig. 31.3c). Marco et. al. (2006) Link to 3D scan of faulted staircase Link to 3D scan of faulted staircase (closeup) |
|
| Tilted Wall | Site 11
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
|
| Fractured bedrock | Site 13
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
|
| Destruction and Collapse Layer | Area H
Figure 5.25 Plan of Level H-5 Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) |
|
Figure 5.27 The southern section of Area H with Level H-5 destruction in the centre of the picture (note the sloping down of the Level H-5 floor toward Installation 06/H/14 in the right) and Level H-7 floors, looking south. Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.28Destruction debris on Floor 98/H/62 of Level H-5, looking west. Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) |
|
| Fractured Walls | Site 14
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 77 Stratum III Storage Pit 1414 Lamon and Shipton (1939) |
|
| Tilted Pillar | Site 15
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 72Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B JW: Building 1513 is in top left corner - see closeup Lamon and Shipton (1939)
Figure 72 Closeup Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B Lamon and Shipton (1939) |
|
|
|
| Tilted and partially collapsed wall | Site 16
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 72Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B JW: Building 1513 is in top left corner - see closeup Lamon and Shipton (1939)
Figure 72 Closeup Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B Lamon and Shipton (1939) |
|
|
|
| Folded Wall | Site 17
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
- Modified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
Deformation MapModified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
- Modified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
Deformation MapModified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
- Modified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
Deformation MapModified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
- Modified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
Deformation MapModified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
- Modified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
Deformation MapModified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
- Modified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
Deformation MapModified by JW from Fig. 31.2 of Marco et. al. (2006)
-
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractured Walls (Displaced Walls) | Site 1
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 3Plan of the Great Temple of Level J-4. (Illustration by M. J. Adams) Sapir-Hen et al. (2022)
Fig. 2.7The Great Temple of Stratum XVIII; a reconstructed plan. Ussishkin (2011) |
|
Figure 31.3D In Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3EIn Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 31.3FIn Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in several places along their strike (Fig. 31.3d) as well as perpendicular to the strike (Figs. 31.3e-f). The overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
VII+ |
| Fractured Walls (Displaced Walls) | Site 1
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 3Plan of the Great Temple of Level J-4. (Illustration by M. J. Adams) Sapir-Hen et al. (2022)
Fig. 2.7The Great Temple of Stratum XVIII; a reconstructed plan. Ussishkin (2011)
Figure 15A suggested reconstruction for Stratum XVIII/Level J-4 Great Temple. JW: Wall 96/1 (with the fractures) is in the lower right (Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015)
Figure 14The uncovered remains of Stratum XVIII/Level J-4 Great Temple JW: Dotted lines follow the suggested reconstruction in Fig. 15 above. This places fractured wall 96/1 in Square B-11 (Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015)
Figure 1A plan of Megiddo, showing Area BB and Area J. JW: Round Altar 4017 is the area of interest with the fractured walls (Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015)
Figure 16The sanctuary of the Great Temple, from the north JW: Use the round altar to find your way in the plans (Photo by P. Shrago; courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition, the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University) Ussishkin (2015)
Aerial Shot of the part of the Tel that includes Area Jclick on image to open a magnifiable image in a new tab Drone Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023 (taken from outside the park) |
Level J-4 (Stratum XVIII) |
Figure 40.1 Wall 96/J/1 in Square H-10, looking east. Note fracture along the strike on the edge of the wall. Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 3) |
|
VII+ |
-
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractured and Shifted Ashlar Stones (displaced masonry blocks) | Site 3
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3H Extension cracks in the Late Bronze gate. Ashlar stones in courses in the middle of the walls (sandwiched between other courses) are fractured in opening mode. Horizontal sliding of the fragments occurred everywhere in the same direction, sub-parallel to N-S trend of the wall (Fig. 31.3h). The gate has no foundations, a fact that could have made it particularly vulnerable to seismic vibrations. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 2.12The late Canaanite city-gate (Strata VIII-VII) Ussishkin (2011)
LB city gate in area AA. Stern et al (1993 v. 3) Link to 3D scan of Canaanite Gate (east side) Link to 3D scan of Canaanite Gate (west side) |
|
VIII+ |
| Fractured Roof Plate (displaced walls) | Site 2
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
VII+ |
-
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Folding and Liquefaction | Site 4
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3G Distorted and liquefied sand horizon in the western section of the Schumacher trench, excavated in the early 20th century. (Fig. 31.3g). Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
VII+ |
| Fractures (penetrative fractures) | Site 5b
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
Date of Level K-4
|
|
VI+ | |
| Folded Wall | Site 5a
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
Figure 31.3I A warped wall trending 220° in Area K is tilted to both sides 12°-15°. (Fig. 31.3i.) Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 2LA deformed, wall in Megiddo, part of a Late Iron Age, 8th century BC building (Marco et al., 2006). Site 10 in Fig. 1 Marco (2008) |
|
VII+ |
| Collapsed Walls | Site 6
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
VIII+ | |
|
Area Q
Fig. 1 Aerial view of Megiddo, looking north, indicating the excavation areas discussed in the article (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 10Plan of Level Q-7a; shaded walls signify elements built in a previous occupational phase and reused (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023) |
|
Fig. 3 A typical accumulation of the destruction debris of Stratum VIA. The black line at the bottom of the debris signifies the floor; Square I/2 in Area Q, looking north (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023)
Fig. 12A view of the destruction of the Level Q-7 (Stratum VIA) city in Squares H/4–5, looking south-east (courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition). Kleiman et al. (2023) |
|
|
-
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tilted Walls | Site 8
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 15:2Plan of Stratum VA-IVB Ussishkin (2018)
Megiddo: plan of the city and main buildings in strata VA-IVB and IVA.Stern et al (1993 v. 3) |
|
|
VI+ | |
| Tilted Floor | Site 10
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 15:2Plan of Stratum VA-IVB Ussishkin (2018)
Megiddo: plan of the city and main buildings in strata VA-IVB and IVA.Stern et al (1993 v. 3) |
|
Figure 31.3A The south-western corner of Palace 6000 (Area L, Squares D/5, E/4-5) is tilted 3°-5° (top dipping to 250°-260° — Fig. 31.3a). In the northern baulk of Squares D-E/4, a white layer which belongs to the palace's floor make-up is also tilted. Immediately to the east, in the northern section of Square E/4, there are two fissures, each about 10-15 cm wide in the same floor make-up. The fissures are filled with grey unconsolidated soil that contains a few ceramic fragments. The white make-up for Floor 98/L/59 and plaster Floor 98/L/120 — both of the Level L-2 stables — are horizontal Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 2NAn episode of tilting is exhibited by an angle between tilted stone floor and an overlying horizontal plaster floor in Megiddo. The stratigraphy shows that the tilting postdates the lower and predates the upper floor, but the precise time of construction is archaeologically indistinguishable. Both were built in the Iron Age II (9th century BC). Since the upper floor remained perfectly horizontal in the last 3 millennia we assume that the tilting of its precedent was rapid and exceptional, probably associated with an earthquake (Marco et al., 2006). Site 10 in Fig. 1 Marco (2008) |
|
VIII+ |
| Tilted Columns (treated like tilted walls) | Site 7
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 15:2Plan of Stratum VA-IVB Ussishkin (2018)
Megiddo: plan of the city and main buildings in strata VA-IVB and IVA.Stern et al (1993 v. 3) |
|
Figure 31.3B A group of six pillars in Building 1A (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 6) are all tilted 8°-11° to the west (265°-295°). (Fig. 31.3b). Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 2MLeaning Iron Age II (9th century BC) columns in Megiddo (Marco et al., 2006). The supports at the bottom are modern. Site 10 in Fig. 1 Marco (2008)
View of the three tilted pillar using digital theodolite with theodolite orinted flat
Digital Theodolite Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023
View of the three tilted pillar using digital theodolite to estimate tilt on central Pillar. Tilt estimate is 8.2°.
Digital Theodolite Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023
Tilt direction estimate using iPhone Compass and square wood dowel spanning two of the columns. Direction estimate of Azimuth is 288°.
Photo by Jefferson Williams on 27 April 2023 Link to 3D scan of 3 tilted pillars (Site 7) |
|
VI+ |
| Collapsed Walls | Site 9
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006) |
|
|
VIII+ |
-
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tilted and Faulted Staircase (Fractures folds and popups on pavements) | Site 12
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 389JW: Staircase is upper right - see closeup Loud (1948)
Figure 389 CloseupLoud (1948) |
|
Figure 31.3C Staircase leading from the Iron II gate complex to a water system reservoir (Loud 1948: Fig. 389, Square H/10) is tilted 9°/000°. The staircase is built on a steep slope. (Fig. 31.3c). Marco et. al. (2006) Link to 3D scan of faulted staircase Link to 3D scan of faulted staircase (closeup) |
|
VI+ |
| Tilted Wall | Site 11
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 18:1Plan of Stratum IVA Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
VI+ | |
| Fractured bedrock (fractures, folds, and popups on irregular pavements) | Site 13
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 18:1Plan of Stratum IVA Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
VI+ | |
| Fractured Walls (displaced wallls ?) | Site 14
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 18:1Plan of Stratum IVA Ussishkin (2018) |
|
Figure 77 Stratum III Storage Pit 1414 Lamon and Shipton (1939) |
|
VII+ |
| Destruction and Collapse Layer (collapsed walls) | Area H
Figure 5.25 Plan of Level H-5 Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Fig. 5.1Excavation areas of the Tel Aviv University expedition Ussishkin (2018)
Megiddo: map of the site, showing excavation areasStern et al (2008 v. 5) |
|
Figure 5.27 The southern section of Area H with Level H-5 destruction in the centre of the picture (note the sloping down of the Level H-5 floor toward Installation 06/H/14 in the right) and Level H-7 floors, looking south. Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1)
Figure 5.28Destruction debris on Floor 98/H/62 of Level H-5, looking west. Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1) |
|
VIII+ |
the destruction of this city was not complete and certain parts of the mound did not show evidence of destruction by fire (Finkelstein 2009: 117).The fractured bedrock lacks a reliable terminus ante quem and may not have been fractured by seismic activity. If it was fractured by seismic activity, one would expect city-wide collapse as it suggests an Intensity of IX or higher. If Level H-5 destruction was due to an earthquake, this evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).
-
Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
| Effect(s) | Location | Dating Info | Image(s) | Description | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractured Walls (displaced walls ?) | Site 14
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 19:3Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog Ussishkin (2018) |
|
Figure 77 Stratum III Storage Pit 1414 Lamon and Shipton (1939) |
|
VII+ |
| Tilted Pillar (treated as a tilted wall) | Site 15
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 72Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B JW: Building 1513 is in top left corner - see closeup Lamon and Shipton (1939)
Figure 72 Closeup Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B Lamon and Shipton (1939)
Fig. 19:3Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
VI+ | |
| Tilted and partially collapsed wall | Site 16
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Figure 72Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B JW: Building 1513 is in top left corner - see closeup Lamon and Shipton (1939)
Figure 72 Closeup Plan of Area A, Stratum III (cf. Fig, 115) Numbers in parentheses belong to Stratum III B Lamon and Shipton (1939)
Fig. 19:3Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
VIII+ | |
| Folded Wall | Site 17
Fig. 31.2 Location map of deformed structures at Megiddo. Arrows indicate direction of shaking. Stars mark deformation that cannot be associated with a particular sense of movement. Marco et. al. (2006)
Fig. 19:3Plan of Stratum III, after Ze'ev Herzog Ussishkin (2018) |
|
|
VII+ |
