Marco et al. (2006) reported that, in Area J, the monumental walls of the Level J-4 temple are fractured in multiple locations both along their strike and perpendicular to it, while noting that “the overlying walls of the EB III temple 4050 are not fractured.” They attributed this pattern to probable “catastrophic horizontal shaking” and classified the event as an earthquake “beyond doubt.” This archaeoseismic evidence is indeed compelling. Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013, Vol. 3:1331) reports that Adams (2013, Vol. 3, Ch. 3, Part III) argued against an earthquake interpretation, attributing the “abandonment of the temple in particular and Megiddo in general to socio-political change.” Finkelstein summarizes the pro and con arguments in a comparative table while nonetheless maintaining that an earthquake was the most likely cause of the observed wall fractures.

Table 39.1 - EB IB Earthquake Theory Arguments, Pro and Con - click on table to open in a new tab - Israel Finkelstein in Adams et al. (2013 Vol. 3:1331)