Go to top

Incense Road Quake

Early 2nd century CE

by Jefferson Williams









Introduction & Summary

At the beginning of the second century CE, the Nabataeans controlled a profitable and likely somewhat secretive trade route. Frankincense and myrrh, harvested in South Arabia, and products from India and the Horn of Africa were transported by camel up the Arabian Peninsula to port cities such as Gaza where they were shipped and sold all over the Mediterranean. The transport route the camel caravans followed is known as the Incense Road . The way stations along that route were oases of prosperity in the middle of the harsh desert. Partly in order to control this trade, Rome annexed Nabataea in 106 CE. Around the same time, a powerful earthquake apparently struck their province. There is no clear mention of this earthquake in any known literary sources. The Nabataeans produced almost no surviving literature of their own. Rather, the evidence for this earthquake was discovered by a young Archaeologist named Ken Russell by examining excavation reports for the way station towns and cities that were along the Incense Road.

Textual Evidence

Text (with hotlink) Original Language Biographical Info Religion Date of Composition Location Composed Notes
Chronicon by Eusebius Greek translated to Latin by Jerome
Biography

Christian Early 4th century CE Caesarea Short passage stating that Nicopolis and Caesarea were ruined in an earthquake. Dates earthquake to 1 July 129 CE to 30 June 130 CE.
The Babylonian Talmud Hebrew, Aramaic
Background

Jewish 3rd-8th centuries CE Iraq Three enigmatic passages in Megilla 3a, Baba Metzia 59 B, and Hullin 59 B of the Babylonian Talmud indicate that there may have been an earthquake and possible tsunami experienced in Yavne, perhaps in the years before 115 CE. A seismic exegesis for some of these Talmudic references is apparently discussed in Krauss (1914).
Chronography by Elias of Nisibis Syriac and Arabic
Biography

Church of the East Early 11th c. Nusaybin, Turkey Short passage stating that In that year there was an earthquake: Nicopolis and Caesarea were overthrown. Cites his source as the Chronological Canon of Andronicus. Guidoboni et al (1994) opined that Elias' ultimate source was Eusebius' account. Dates earthquake to 1 Oct. 126 to 30 Sept. 127 CE.
Silence of the Sources
Text (with hotlink) Original Language Biographical Info Religion Date of Composition Location Composed Notes
Chronicon by Eusebius

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English translation of Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius Chronicon Book Two

Nicopolis and Caesarea were ruined in an earthquake

Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius Chronicon Book Two

Nicopolis et Caesarea terraemotu conciderunt.

English translation of Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius Chronicon Book Two - embedded



Chronology
Year Reference Corrections Notes
1 July 129 CE to 30 June 130 CE first year of the 227th Olympiad none Calculated with CHRONOS
Seismic Effects Locations Discussion

Ambraseys (2009) suggests that Eusebius was not referring to Nicopolis and Caesarea in Palestine but to two similarly named cities - Nicopolis and NeoCaesarea - in the Anatolian province of Pontus. Ambraseys (2009) also suggests that Eusebius' date is approximately correct. As Nicopolis and Caesarea were popular city names at that time, Ambraseys (2009) was able to name two other pairs of like named cities in other parts of the Roman Empire but he preferred the northeastern Anatolian pair because they were larger, better known, and close to the active North Anatolian Fault.

Russell (1985) suggests that rather than being geographically incorrect, Eusebius may have been chronologically wrong. Eusebius, a long term resident and possibly a native son of Caesarea as well as perhaps the most famous "historian" of his time, could very well have been aware of earthquakes that struck the area in the distant past. Using an unknown source(s) and writing 200 + years after the event, he may have merely got his date wrong. Chronology is, after all, often the first victim of textual and oral transmission. Although Russell (1985) does not propose a reason why Eusebius’ sources may have gotten the date wrong, one possibility is that his source(s) may have reported an earthquake that occurred during Hadrian's rule when in fact the earthquake occurred during the rule of Trajan - Hadrian's predecessor. If one changes Eusebius' date for the earthquake from Hadrian's 13th – 14th year (130/131 CE) to Trajan's 13th – 14th year (111/112 CE), one arrives at a date which is within the 4 year time span (110 – 114 CE) Russell (1985) proposed for the date of the early 2nd century CE Incense Road Earthquake. Prior to Eusebius innovation of creating an annalistic and tabular Chronicon, dates in historical texts were typically counted in regnal years (Roger Pearse's Preface to online edition of Chronicon at tertullian.org).

However, upon closer inspection, Russell (1985)'s proposed date for the alleged early 2nd century CE (110 – 114 CE) Earthquake rests on shaky ground. The 110 CE date comes from excavations at Masada where Netzer (1991:655), in one of the final excavation reports, states that a great earthquake [] destroyed most of the walls on Masada sometime during the 2nd to 4th centuries CE. This time span is not nearly as precise as 110 CE. The 114 CE date comes from Petra where a monumental commemorative arch was dedicated to Trajan late in 114 CE (Kirkbride 1960: 120). While Russell (1985) attributes this dedication to appreciation of post earthquake rebuilding in Petra financed at least in part by Imperial funds, the original excavator Kirkbride attributed the dedication to completion of some part of the Via Traiana Nova Road - a road whose building began soon after the Romans annexed Arabia Petraea in 106 CE.

Thus, it is entirely possibly that Eusebius got the locations and approximate date correct.

Online Versions and Further Reading
References

The Babylonian Talmud

Background

Background

Background specific to the Incense Road Quake

Salamon et al (2010) noted that Shalem (1956), using Judaic sources, suggested that the coast between Caesarea and Yavne was hit by a tsunami around 115 AD. Salamon et. al. (2011) offered a quote from Karcz et al (1987) regarding those Judaic sources as follows : “Talmudic references are not specific neither in time nor location, but Yavne may have been affected”. Karcz (personal communication, 2014) indicated that the Judaic sources come from the Babylonian Talmud. They are

  • Megilla 3a
  • Baba Metzia 59 B
  • Hullin 59 B
Taken together, these three passages suggest that there may have been an earthquake and possible tsunami experienced in Yavne in the years before 115 AD. A seismic exegesis for some of these Talmudic references is apparently discussed in Krauss (1914).

Excerpts, Chronology, Seismic Effects, Locations, and Notes
Megilla 3a

Excerpts

In Megilla 3a, a passage describing an earthquake can be found

English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud Megilla 3a (Soncino)

§ The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Yirmeya, or Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Aramaic translation of the Torah [i.e. Targum Onkelos] used in the synagogues was composed by Onkelos the convert based on the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Aramaic translation of the Prophets [i.e. Targum of the Prophets] was composed by Yonatan ben Uzziel based on a tradition going back to the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The Gemara relates that when Yonatan ben Uzziel wrote his translation, Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs [parsa] by four hundred parasangs1 [1463 km.], and a Divine Voice [Bath Kol] emerged and said: Who is this who has revealed My secrets to mankind?

Yonatan ben Uzziel stood up on his feet and said: I am the one who has revealed Your secrets to mankind through my translation. However, it is revealed and known to You that I did this not for my own honor, and not for the honor of the house of my father, but rather it was for Your honor that I did this, so that discord not increase among the Jewish people. In the absence of an accepted translation, people will disagree about the meaning of obscure verses, but with a translation, the meaning will be clear.

And Yonatan ben Uzziel also sought to reveal a translation [i.e. a Targum] of the Writings, but a Divine Voice [Bath Kol] emerged and said to him: It is enough for you that you translated the Prophets. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that he was denied permission to translate the Writings? Because it has in it a revelation of the end, when the Messiah will arrive. The end is foretold in a cryptic manner in the book of Daniel, and were the book of Daniel translated, the end would become manifestly revealed to all.

Footnotes

1 A parasang is a Persian mile. There are differing accounts of the exact distance of a parasang. Karcz (2004) states that this is 4000 yards which is in approximate agreement with other estimates. Using the reckoning of Karcz (2004), 400 parasangs equals to 1463 km. Although 400 parasangs by 400 parasangs does seem like an impossible distance, this is not necessarily a reason to reject this account. The ancient sources frequently exaggerate when it come to numbers and this is particularly the case in religious/spiritual literature. In addition 400 parasangs may be a symbolic number and/or a euphemism for a wide area. 400 parasangs was also used in a Talmudic account to describe the extent of the Pig on the Wall Quake.

Megilla 3a - Hebrew

4 וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל תּוֹרָה — אוּנְקְלוֹס הַגֵּר אֲמָרוֹ מִפִּי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל נְבִיאִים — יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל אֲמָרוֹ מִפִּי חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי, וְנִזְדַּעְזְעָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת פַּרְסָה עַל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת פַּרְסָה. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: מִי הוּא זֶה שֶׁגִּילָּה סְתָרַיי לִבְנֵי אָדָם?

5 עָמַד יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁגִּלִּיתִי סְתָרֶיךָ לִבְנֵי אָדָם, גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנֶיךָ שֶׁלֹּא לִכְבוֹדִי עָשִׂיתִי, וְלֹא לִכְבוֹד בֵּית אַבָּא, אֶלָּא לִכְבוֹדְךָ עָשִׂיתִי, שֶׁלֹּא יִרְבּוּ מַחֲלוֹקֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

6 וְעוֹד בִּיקֵּשׁ לְגַלּוֹת תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל כְּתוּבִים, יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: דַּיֶּיךָּ! מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית בֵּיהּ קֵץ מָשִׁיחַ

William Davidson Translation of Babylonian Talmud - Megilla 3a - English and Hebrew - embedded

  • see starting with § The Gemara cites another ruling
  • from sefaria


Chronology

Jonathan ben Uzziel was a Rabbinic sage who survived the Roman siege of Jerusalem and relocated to the town of Yavne where Yohanan ben Zakkai founded a school of halakha (Jewish religious law) in 70 CE. Jonathan wrote Targum of the Prophets in the second century CE while in Yavne. It is unclear if the passage above contains a memory of an earthquake but if it does, it’s date is not specific; occurring sometime early in the second century CE.

Seismic Effects
  • Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs [parsa] by four hundred parasangs1
Footnotes

1 A parasang is a Persian mile. There are differing accounts of the exact distance of a parasang. Karcz (2004) states that this is 4000 yards which is in approximate agreement with other estimates. Using the reckoning of Karcz (2004), 400 parasangs equals to 1463 km. Although 400 parasangs by 400 parasangs does seem like an impossible distance, this is not necessarily a reason to reject this account. The ancient sources frequently exaggerate when it come to numbers and this is particularly the case in religious/spiritual literature. In addition 400 parasangs may be a symbolic number and/or a euphemism for a wide area. 400 parasangs was also used in a Talmudic account to describe the extent of the Pig on the Wall Quake.

Locations
  • Eretz Yisrael

Baba Metzia 59 B

Excerpts

Baba Metzia 59 B may contain a description of a seismic sea wave or tsunami which if related to the earthquake of Megilla 3a, may provide some dating information.

English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud Baba Metzia 59 B (Soncino)

§ 9 And even Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin at Yavne, the head of the Sages who were responsible for the decision to ostracize Rabbi Eliezer, was coming on a boat at the time, and a large wave swelled over him and threatened to drown him. Rabban Gamliel said: It seems to me that this is only for the sake of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, as God punishes those who mistreat others. Rabban Gamliel stood on his feet and said: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that neither was it for my honor that I acted when ostracizing him, nor was it for the honor of the house of my father that I acted; rather, it was for Your honor, so that disputes will not proliferate in Israel. In response, the sea calmed from its raging.

The Gemara further relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was the sister of Rabban Gamliel. From that incident forward, she would not allow Rabbi Eliezer to lower his head and recite the taḥanun prayer, which includes supplication and entreaties. She feared that were her husband to bemoan his fate and pray at that moment, her brother would be punished. A certain day was around the day of the New Moon, and she inadvertently substituted a full thirty-day month for a deficient twenty-nine-day month, i.e., she thought that it was the New Moon, when one does not lower his head in supplication, but it was not. Some say that a pauper came and stood at the door, and she took bread out to him. The result was that she left her husband momentarily unsupervised.

When she returned, she found him and saw that he had lowered his head in prayer. She said to him: Arise, you already killed my brother. Meanwhile, the sound of a shofar emerged from the house of Rabban Gamliel to announce that the Nasi had died. Rabbi Eliezer said to her: From where did you know that your brother would die? She said to him: This is the tradition that I received from the house of the father of my father: All the gates of Heaven are apt to be locked, except for the gates of prayer for victims of verbal mistreatment.

Baba Metzia 59 B - Hebrew

9 ואף ר"ג היה בא בספינה עמד עליו נחשול לטבעו אמר כמדומה לי שאין זה אלא בשביל ר"א בן הורקנוס עמד על רגליו ואמר רבונו של עולם גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי עשיתי ולא לכבוד בית אבא עשיתי אלא לכבודך שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל נח הים מזעפו

10 אימא שלום דביתהו דר"א אחתיה דר"ג הואי מההוא מעשה ואילך לא הוה שבקה ליה לר"א למיפל על אפיה ההוא יומא ריש ירחא הוה ואיחלף לה בין מלא לחסר איכא דאמרי אתא עניא וקאי אבבא אפיקא ליה ריפתא

אשכחתיה דנפל על אנפיה אמרה ליה קום קטלית לאחי אדהכי נפק שיפורא מבית רבן גמליאל דשכיב אמר לה מנא ידעת אמרה ליה כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא כל השערים ננעלים חוץ משערי אונאה

William Davidson Translation of Babylonian Talmud - Baba Metzia 59 B - English and Hebrew - embedded

  • see starting with And even Rabban Gamliel
  • from sefaria


Chronology

Tana refers to the Tannaim; Rabbinic sages working from approximately 10-220 CE whose views are recorded in the Mishnah. Included among the Tannaim were Rabbi Gamaleil or more specifically Gamaliel II (who may have died right before the Kitos War of 115-117 CE or he may have died later on - e.g., in 137 CE) and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus who was Gamaliel II’s brother in law and also was one of the Tannaim. Gamaliel II’s and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus both resided in Yavne at the time of this account which based on the passage above could have occurred soon before Gamaliel II’s death. Thus, if the passage above does refer to an actual seismic sea wave, it’s date could be sometime before 115 CE (or 136 CE).

Seismic Effects
  • possible tsunami - a large wave swelled over him and threatened to drown him
Locations
  • offshore Yavne
Notes
Giant Waves in the Talmud

Galili et al (2021:19) note that the wave in this passage was “nahshol she-bayam” (in Hebrew: a giant wave in the sea). They also discussed references to giant waves in the Talmud

The wave mentioned by Rabban Gamliel could have been any wave induced by a storm at sea. In fact, references to giant waves abound in the Talmud, and a brief scan of this rich corpus demonstrates that such mentions are mostly included either for producing rules and regulations for a maritime society accustomed to sailing (e.g., Bava Kamma 116b:7), or for setting a fantastic natural scene in order to deliver a message of faith or wisdom which has no intention or need to remain loyal to historical events (e.g., Yoma 38a:2).

The date of Gamaliel II’s death

Research continues on this. I have yet to find a definitive answer.

Hullin 59 B

Excerpts

Hullin 59 B recounts what are obviously heavily redacted and embellished passages concerning a series of conversations between the Roman Emperor (possibly Hadrian who visited the area in 130 CE) and R. Joshua b. Hananiah. Only the first two passages recalling encounters between R. Joshua b. Hananiah and the Emperor are repeated below.

English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud Hullin 59 B (Soncino)

§ The Gemara recounts: The Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: Your God is compared to a lion, as it is written: “The lion has roared1 , who will not fear” (Amos 3:8). But if so, what is His greatness? A cavalryman can kill a lion. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: God is not compared to that lion which a cavalryman can kill. Rather, God is compared to the lion of Bei Ila’ei. The emperor said to him: I ask that you show it to me. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You cannot see it. The emperor said to him: Truly, I wish to see it. Rabbi Yehoshua prayed for mercy, and the lion of Bei Ila’ei set off from its place of origin toward Rome.

When it was four hundred parasangs2 away from Rome, it roared once, and all the pregnant women miscarried, and the wall of Rome fell. When it was three hundred parasangs away, it roared another time, and all the men’s front and back teeth fell out from fear. And even he, the emperor, fell from his throne to the ground. The emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua: I beg you, pray for mercy with regard to it, that it should go back to the place from which it came. Rabbi Yehoshua prayed for mercy with regard to it, and it returned to the place from which it came.

Footnotes

1 The "lion hath roared" in the passage above alludes to the prophetic book of Amos which starts with reference to an earthquake perhaps likening it to a lion's roar and two chapters later continues with several lines of poetry again mentioning the lions roar.

2 A parasang is a Persian mile. There are differing accounts of the exact distance of a parasang. Karcz (2004) states that this is 4000 yards which is in approximate agreement with other estimates. Using the reckoning of Karcz (2004), 400 parasangs equals to 1463 km. Although 400 parasangs by 400 parasangs does seem like an impossible distance, this is not necessarily a reason to reject this account. The ancient sources frequently exaggerate when it come to numbers and this is particularly the case in religious/spiritual literature. In addition 400 parasangs may be a symbolic number and/or a euphemism for a wide area. 400 parasangs was also used in a Talmudic account to describe the extent of the Pig on the Wall Quake.

Hullin 59 B - Hebrew

9 אמר ליה קיסר לר' יהושע בן חנניה אלהיכם כאריה מתיל דכתיב (עמוס ג, ח) אריה שאג מי לא יירא מאי רבותיה פרשא קטיל אריא אמר ליה לאו כהאי אריא מתיל כאריא דבי עילאי מתיל אמר ליה בעינא דמיחזית ליה ניהלי אמר ליה לא מצית חזית ליה אמר ליה איברא חזינא ליה בעא רחמי אתעקר מדוכתיה

10 כי הוה מרחיק ארבע מאה פרסי ניהם חד קלא אפילו כל מעברתא ושורא דרומי נפל אדמרחק תלת מאה פרסי ניהם קלא אחרינא נתור ככי ושיני דגברי ואף הוא נפל מכורסייא לארעא א"ל במטותא מינך בעי רחמי עליה דלהדר לדוכתיה בעא רחמי עליה ואהדר ליה לאתריה

William Davidson Translation of Babylonian Talmud - Hullin 59 B - English and Hebrew - embedded

  • see starting with The Gemara recounts: The Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua
  • from sefaria


Chronology

Since Roman Emperor Hadrian visited Judea and the Galilee in 130 CE, some have dated this encounter between Hadrian and R. Joshua b. Hananiah to that time.

Seismic Effects
  • When it was four hundred parasangs away from Rome, it roared once, and all the pregnant women miscarried, and the wall of Rome fell. When it was three hundred parasangs away, it roared another time, and all the men’s front and back teeth fell out from fear. And even he, the emperor, fell from his throne to the ground.
Locations
  • ?

Notes
Misc. Notes

Targum Jonathan

Jewish Encyclopedia entry on Targum Jonathan

Moed Katan 27a discusses the death of Gamaliel II

There was an incident in which the Nasi Rabban Gamliel the Elder died, and once his body left the opening of his house, Rabbi Eliezer said to the members of the household: Overturn your beds. And once the tomb was sealed with the grave cover, Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Overturn your beds. They then said to him: We already overturned them in accordance with the Elder, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer.

מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁמֵּת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כְּפוּ מִטּוֹתֵיכֶם. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּסְתַּם הַגּוֹלֵל, אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כְּפוּ מִטּוֹתֵיכֶם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כְּבָר כָּפִינוּ עַל פִּי זָקֵן.
Gamaliel II is mentioned in many passages here

Chronographia by Elias of Nisibis

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English from Delaporte (1910)

An 438 - In that year there was an earthquake: Nicopolis and Caesarea were overthrown. From the Chronological Canon of Andronicus.

French from Delaporte (1910) - embedded



Chronology
Date Reference Corrections Notes
1 Oct. 126 to 30 Sept. 127 CE A.G. 438 none Calculated using CHRONOS.
Seismic Effects Locations Sources
Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Silence of the Sources

The seismicity of the Arava and Negev is severely under reported during this time; presumably due to the low population density and nomadic lifestyles of many of its inhabitants. While the Nabataeans left inscriptions on buildings, there is very little extant written Nabataean literature. This has to be a consideration when confronting the lack of corroborating historical information about the Incense Road Quake and many other earthquakes with epicenters in the South Dead Sea or the Arava. Also, there is no source in the second century AD which provides such a wealth of information regarding events in Judea as Josephus (37 AD - ~100 AD) did for the first century AD. Russell (1985) further notes that Cassius Dio (155 – 235 AD), an important source for information in the Roman empire during this time, failed to record two significant earthquakes (in ~106 AD and ~122 AD) in Anatolia during the reigns of Trajan (98 – 117 AD) and Hadrian (117 -138 AD) and that the only earthquake he did record during their reigns was the Trajan Quake in Antioch in 115 AD possibly because Trajan was nearly killed by it.

Archaeoseismic Evidence

Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Introduction n/a n/a n/a
Jerash - Introduction n/a n/a n/a
Jerash - North Gate unlikely to possible Russell (1985) speculated that a civic dedication found from the north gate of Jerash may reflect imperial aid Roman Emperor Trajan supplied to aid reconstruction after a disastrous earthquake. Kraeling (1938:47) dated construction of the new north gate of Jerash to 115 CE based on a dedicatory inscription. Kraeling (1938:401) discovered the inscription in 6 fragments which once reassembled referred to Trajan as the savior and founder of the city. However, Kraeling (1938:47) attributed the dedication to the improvement of the roads out of Jerash; in particular the Road to Pella which enabled direct connections to the coastal cities of Caesarea and Ptolemais (aka Acre). This contention may be supported by the plan of the north gate whose northern face is angled towards Pella. If the Incense Road Earthquake was caused by a fault break on the Araba fault, seismic damage at Jerash would likely have been light.
Heshbon possible ≥ 8
Stratum 14 Earthquake (Mitchel, 1980) - 1st century BCE - 2nd century CE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caesarea possible 6-7
Late 1st/ Early 2nd century CE Earthquake

Using ceramics, Reinhardt and Raban (1999) dated a high energy subsea deposit inside the harbor at Caesarea to the late 1st / early 2nd century CE. This, along with other supporting evidence, indicated that the outer harbor breakwater must have subsided around this time. They attributed the subsidence to seismic activity.

L4 — Destruction Phase

The first to second century A.D. basal rubble unit (L4) was found on the carbonate cemented sandstone bedrock (locally known as kurkar) and was characteristic of a high-energy water deposit (Fig. 2 ). The rubble was framework supported with little surrounding matrix and composed mainly of cobble-sized material, which was well rounded, heavily encrusted (e.g., bryozoans, calcareous algae), and bored (Lithophaga lithophaga, Cliona) on its upper surface. The rubble had variable lithologies including basalts, gabbros, and dolomites, all of which are absent on the Israeli coastal plain and were likely transported to the site as ship ballast (probably from Cyprus). The surrounding matrix was composed of shell material (mainly Glycymeris insubricus), pebbles, and coarse sand. The pottery sherds found in this unit were well rounded, encrusted, and dated to the first to second century A.D. The date for this unit and its sedimentological characters clearly records the existence of high-energy conditions within the inner harbor about 100-200 yr after the harbor was built. This evidence of high-energy water conditions indicates that the outer harbor breakwaters must have been severely degraded by this time to allow waves to penetrate the inner confines of the harbor (Fig. 3, A and B).

Indication of the rapid destruction of the outer harbor breakwaters toward the end of the first century A.D. is derived from additional data recovered from the outer harbor. In the 1993 season, a late first century A.D. shipwreck was found on the southern submerged breakwater. The merchant ship was carrying lead ingots that were narrowly dated to A.D. 83-96 based on the inscription "IMP.DOMIT.CAESARIS.AUG.GER." which refers to the Roman Emperor Domitianus (Raban, 1999). The wreck was positioned on the harbor breakwater, indicating that this portion of the structure must have been submerged to allow a ship to run-up and founder on top (Raban, 1999; Fig. 3B). Because Josephus praised the harbor in grand terms and referred to it as a functioning entity around A.D. 75-79, and yet portions of the breakwater were submerged by A.D. 83-96, we conclude that there was a rapid deterioration and submergence of the harbor, probably through seismic activity.
Later they suggested that the subsidence had a neotectonic origin.
Evidence for neotectonic subsidence of the harbor has been reinforced by separate geologic studies (stratigraphic analysis of boreholes, Neev et al., 1987; seismic surveys, Mart and Perecman, 1996) that recognize faults in the shallow continental shelf and in the proximity of Caesarea; one fault extends across the central portion of the harbor. However, obtaining precise dates for movement along the faults is difficult. Archaeological evidence of submergence can be useful for dating and determining the magnitude of these events: however, at Caesarea the evidence is not always clear.
Neotectonic subsidence is unlikely. As pointed out by Dey et al(2014), the coastline appears to have been stable for the past ~2000 years with sea level fluctuating no more than ± 50 cm, no pronounced vertical displacement of the city's Roman aqueduct (Raban, 1989:18-21), and harbor constructions completed directly on bedrock showing no signs of subsidence. However, Reinhardt and Raban (1999) considered more realistic possibilities for submergence of harbor installations such as seismically induced liquefaction, storm scour, and tsunamis.
The submergence of the outer harbor break-waters at the end of the first century A.D. could have also been due to seismic liquefaction of the sediment. Excavations have shown that the harbor breakwaters were constructed on well-sorted sand that could have undergone liquefaction with seismic activity. In many instances the caissons are tilted (15°-20° from horizontal; Raban et al., 1999a) and at different elevations, which could be due to differential settling (area K; Fig. 1). However, the tilting could also be due to undercutting by current scour from large-scale storms (or tsunamis) and not exclusively seismic activity. Our data from the inner harbor cannot definitively ascribe the destruction of the harbor at the end of the first century A.D. to a seismic event, although some of the data support this conclusion. However, regardless of the exact mechanism, our sedimentological evidence from the inner harbor and the remains of the late first century A.D. shipwreck indicate that the submergence of the outer breakwater occurred early in the life of the harbor and was more rapid and extensive than previously thought.
Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) examined and dated cores taken seaward of the harbor and identified 2 tsunamite deposits (see Tsunamogenic Evidence) including one which dates to to the 1st-2nd century CE. Although, it is tempting to correlate the 1st-2nd century CE tsunamite deposits of Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) to the L4 destruction phase identified in the harbor ( Reinhardt and Raban, 1999), the chronologies presented by Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) suffer from some imprecision due to the usual paucity of dating material that one encounters with cores. Further, the harbor subsidence and breakwater degradation dated by Reinhardt and Raban (1999) may not have been caused by seismic activity. If it was related to seismic activity, the early 2nd century CE Incense Road Quake is a better candidate than the 115 CE Trajan Quake because it would have produced higher intensities in Caesarea.

Fritsch and Ben-Dor (1961) reported the following from an early underwater exploration of Caesarea's harbor.
At the very deepest spot where the airlift penetrated, beneath huge stone blocks which teetered precariously above the divers' heads, was uncovered a large wooden beam. Beneath its protective cover the divers found the only whole amphora of our dig. This proved to be a second century Roman vessel. The fact that it was found under the tumbled beam and masonry would indicate that these things were catapulted into the sea at the same time. Since there is a strong earthquake recorded in the area of Caesarea in the year A.D. 130, it may possibly be that the harbor installations of Herod were destroyed at that time.

Other finds recovered from the original bottom, now under fifteen feet of sand, included numerous sherds of second century amphorae, corroded bronze coins, ivory hairpins, colorful bits of glass and other objects of the Roman period. Two objects were of special significance. One was a small lead baling seal with a standing winged figure. It has a pinpoint hole near its center, and a rather deep, depressed line on the back of it, as though made by a wire.3

The other object was probably the most important thing discovered at Caesarea this past summer. It was a small commemorative coin or medal made of an unidentified alloy, about the size of a ten-cent piece, with two holes drilled through it as if it might have been worn as a pendant. Upon the face of it there is the representation of the entrance to a port flanked by round stone towers surmounted by statues. Arches border the jetty on either side of the towers, and two sailing vessels are about to enter the harbor. Two letters, KA, may well be the abbreviation for the word Caesarea. The other side of the coin shows the figure of a male with a long beard and a tail like a dolphin, with a mace-like object in his hand. Coin experts who have seen this piece agree that it is unique, and that it undoubtedly depicts the ancient port of Caesarea. It may have been issued to commemorate some important occasion at Caesarea in the first or second century A.D.

Footnotes

3. This object may be an amulet, the winged figure representing Horus, the Egyptian sun god who wards off lurking evils. Cf. E.A.W. Budge, Amulets and Superstitions (London, 1930) 166. A close examination of the original piece, however, leads one to conclude that it is a baling seal.

Masada possible ≥ 8 Masada may be subject to seismic amplification due to a topographic or ridge effect as well as a slope effect for those structures built adjacent to the site's steep cliffs.
2nd - 4th century CE Earthquake

Netzer (1991:655) reports that a great earthquake [] destroyed most of the walls on Masada sometime during the 2nd to 4th centuries CE.

In an earlier publication, Yadin (1965:30) noted that the Caldarium was filled as a result of earthquakes by massive debris of stones. Yadin concluded that the finds on the floors of the bath-house represent the last stage in the stay of the Roman garrison at Masada. The stationing of a Roman Garrison after the conquest of Masada in 73 or 74 CE was reported by Josephus in his Book The Jewish War where he says in Book VII Chapter 10 Paragraph 1

WHEN Masada was thus taken, the general left a garrison in the fortress to keep it, and he himself went away to Caesarea; for there were now no enemies left in the country, but it was all overthrown by so long a war.
Yadin (1965:36)'s evidence for proof of the stationing of the Roman garrison follows:
We have clear proof that the bath-house was in use in the period of the Roman garrison - in particular, a number of "vouchers" written in Latin and coins which were found mainly in the ash waste of the furnace (locus 126, see p. 42). Of particular importance is a coin from the time of Trajan, found in the caldarium, which was struck at Tiberias towards the end of the first century C.E.*
The latest coin discovered from this occupation phase was found in one of the northern rooms of Building VII and dates to 110/111 CE (Yadin, 1965:119)**. Yadin (1965:119) interpreted this to mean that, this meant that the Roman garrison stayed at Masada at least till the year 111 and most probably several years later. Russell (1985) used this 110/111 coin as a terminus post quem for the Incense Road Earthquake while using a dedicatory inscription at Petra for a terminus ante quem of 114 CE.

Footnotes

*Yadin (1965:118) dated this coin to 99/100 CE - This would be coin #3808 - Plate 77 - Locus 104 - Caldrium 104 - Square 228/F/3

**perhaps this is coin #3786 which dates to 109/110 CE - Plate 77 - Locus 157 - Building 7 Room 157 - Square 208/A/10

Khirbet Tannur possible ≥ 8 End of Period I Earthquake - 1st half of 2nd century CE - Glueck (1965:92) found Altar-Base I from Period I severely damaged probably by an earthquake which may have precipitated the rebuild that began Period II. McKenzie et al (2013:47) dated Period II construction, which would have occurred soon after the End of Period I earthquake, to the first half of the 2nd century CE. McKenzie et al (2002:50) noted that a bowl found underneath paving stones that were put in place soon before Period II construction dates to the late first century CE along with two other bowls which date to the first half of the second century CE. This pottery and comparison to other sites led them to date Period II construction to the first half of the second century CE.
Emmaus/Nicopolis no evidence There is no evidence that I am aware of
Aqaba/Eilat - Introduction n/a n/a n/a
Aqaba - Aila probable ≥ 8 Earthquake VII - Nabatean/Early Roman - Early 2nd century CE - Earthquake VII was dated to the second century CE from Nabatean pottery found in the collapse layer and the layer below. There is a question whether the collapse layer was caused by human agency or earthquake destruction. The Romans annexed Nabatea in 106 CE and the authors noted that there is debate about the degree of Nabataean resistance to the annexation that might have resulted in destruction by human agency in this period (Bowersock 1983: 78-82; Parker 1986: 123-24; Fiema 1987; Freeman 1996). Nonetheless, Thomas et al (2007) noted that a complete section of collapsed wall might suggest earthquake destruction.
Petra - Introduction n/a n/a n/a
Petra - el-Katute possible ≥ 7 1st century CE Destruction - Parr (1960:129) reports a partial destruction of interior walls from a building outside of the "monumental structure" at Katute. A tentative 71 CE terminus ante quem for the date of destruction is suggested from numismatics.

Parr, P. J. (1960:129), reported the following from excavations at Trench I in Katute:
Only in two restricted areas, both outside the building, have the original floors been reached, and until more evidence is forthcoming the date of its construction must remain uncertain. But from the secondary surfaces within the building, some of them laid down after the partial destruction of the interior walls, a series of coins gives a firm date for the latest occupation of the structure. Of eight coins so far studied, two are of Malichus II and Shaqilath II (c. A.D. 40-71), five are of Rabbel II and Gamilath (A.D. 71-106, but late in the period, since Gamilath is Rabbel's second consort), and one is of Rabbel with either Shaqilath or Gamilath, this being uncertain. The significance of these coins is increased when it is noted that four of Rabbel II and Gamilath come from the same layer of make-up beneath one of the secondary floors. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the building was in use at the end of the 1st century A.D., and probably right up until the Roman conquest of A.D. 106, though the apparent lack of Roman Imperial coins suggests that it soon feel out of use then. Judging from the fact that the secondary surfaces from which the coins come in some cases seal the first destruction levels of the building, a date in the first half of the 1st century A.D. for its construction is not, perhaps, unlikely. An earlier date than this for the rebuilding of the main wall is precluded by the discovery of a coin of Aretas IV and Shaqilath I (c. 9 B.C-A.D. 40) in a level immediately underlying the construction level associated with that rebuilding.
Petra - Temple of the Winged Lions possible ≥ 7 Early 2nd century CE Earthquake - see Area I near the Temple of the Winged Lions.
Petra - Near Temple of the Winged Lions possible ≥ 7
Early 2nd Century CE Earthquake

Erickson-Gini and Tuttle (2017)'s analysis suggests that, although early 2nd century CE earthquake evidence is present in Petra and other sites of the Nabateans, some of Russell (1985)'s phasing was off by up to a couple of centuries. Some excerpts follow:

The conclusions to be presented here include a revision of the dating of the Early House in Area I and the ceramic assemblages uncovered its antechamber and the upper and lower levels of the structure to the late 2nd and early 3rd c. CE when the structure was abandoned. This revised dating is supported by evidence from other parts of the AEP excavations such as the Painters' Workshop and important find spots near the temple that are presented in this paper as well as material from other parts of the Provincia Arabia in the post-annexation period.
...
The use of a revised ceramic chronology in dating these assemblages will undoubtedly prove to be controversial, however we believe that such a revision is long overdue and is in itself an important tool for the re-examination of the phasing of structures and occupational layers in Petra and other sites in the Provincia Arabia, the vast majority of which have been erroneously dated to the later 1st to early 2nd c. CE.
...
In 1977, Russell prepared a tentative phasing of the stratigraphy in Area I. The final phasing prepared by him in 1978 indicates the presence of twenty archaeological phases (Phases XX—I) and the remains of successive domestic structures of the Early Roman (pre-annexation, i.e., the Roman annexation of Nabataea in 106 CE), Middle Roman (post-annexation) and Byzantine periods. He designated these structures the "Early House", the "Middle House", and the "Late House".
...
The earliest archaeological material discovered in Area I, uncovered below the earliest architectural remains and in ancient falls, dates to the Hellenistic period. The latest material belongs to an overlying cemetery that Russell dated to the Late Byzantine or Early Islamic periods.
...
As we shall see below, the abandonment of the Early House in Area I and abandoned hoards in rooms of the Temple of the Winged Lions complex were probably the result of an epidemic that occurred sometime in the 3rd c. rather than the early 2nd c. earthquake as claimed by Russell.
...

EVIDENCE OF AN EARTHQUAKE EVENT IN THE EARLY SECOND CENTURY CE

Russell's misreading of the archaeological evidence led him to attribute the end of the occupation of the Early House in Phase XV to earthquake destruction that he dated to 113/114 CE based on the discovery of the single coin found in the antechamber, a brass sestertius commemorating Trajan's alimenta italiae endowment dated to the period between 103 and 117 CE, together with the hoard of unguentaria and other ceramic vessels (Russell, 1985:40-41). Although the Early House was not destroyed and abandoned by an earthquake in the early 2nd c., evidence of earthquake damage is discernible with the renovations that took place in its final occupation in Phase XVI.
...
Subsequent research carried out in several sites
64 Evidence of an earthquake at Petra in the late first or early 2nd c. CE has been uncovered by
  • Kirkbride and Parr at Petra (Kirkbride 1960: 118-19; Parr 1960: 129
  • Joukowsky and Basile 2001: 50) and more recently in the ez-Zantur excavations Kolb and Keller 2002: 286; Grawehr 2007: 399)
Evidence of the event has also been uncovered in sites in the surrounding region at:
  • Aqaba (Dolinka 2003: 30-32, Fig. 14)
  • 'En Yotvata (Erickson-Gini 2012a)
  • Moyat 'Awad and Shdar Ramon (Cohen 1982: 243-44; Erickson-Gini and Israel 2013: 45)
  • 'En Rahel (Korjenkov and Erickson-Gini 2003)
  • Mezad Mahmal (Erickson-Gini 2011)
  • Mampsis (Negev 1971: 166; Erickson-Gini 2010: 47)
  • Oboda (Erickson-Gini, in press)
  • Horvat Hazaza (Erickson-Gini, in press).
However, with regard to Khirbet Tannur, in light of the final publication and re-evaluation of Nelson Glueck's excavation by J.S. McKenzie et. al. (2013), his claim that Altar 3 was built in wake of earthquake damage of the early 2nd c. (termed the 113-114 CE earthquake) appears to be untenable due to the re-dating of Period 2 at the site to the first half of the 2nd c. CE (Mckenzie 2013: 137).
, including Petra itself, indicate that an early 2nd c. earthquake did indeed take place (Erickson-Gini 2010:47) 65. An examination of the records and photographs of the western side of the Temple of the Winged Lions complex also reveals evidence of earthquake damage that precedes that of the 363 CE earthquake. This evidence includes the blockage of doorways with architectural fragments that appear to have been derived from the temple, for instance in Area III.8 (SU 113; W2; Aug. 2, 1977), that were also used in the construction of the pavement in WII.1W. Revetments adding support to walls were photographed in Area III.7 (AEP 83900). In addition, a hoard of vessels of the late 1st c. BCE and first half of the 1st c. CE was discovered in the AEP 2000 season in a spot next to the eastern corridor in Area III.10 (SU 19). This assemblage of restorable vessels included several plain fineware, carinated bowls that correspond to later forms of Schmid's Gruppe 5 dated to the second half of the 1st c. BCE (2000 AEP RI. 41), (2000: Abb. 41) together with early forms of his Gruppe 6 dated to the 1st c. CE (2000 AEP RI. 11), (2000: Abb. 50) and two early painted ware bowls (2000 AEP RI. 42) corresponding to Schmid's Dekorgruppe 2a (2000: Abbs. 80=81) dated to the end of the 1st c. BCE and early 1st c. CE. 66 In spite of the presence of these early vessels, the AEP 2000 season finds registries records nearly all of them as dating to 363 CE.
...
Russell was correct in dating the early form of the Early House (Phase XVII) to the 1st c. ceramic vessels of that period
...
The Early House was obviously renovated, prior to its final form in Phase XVI, similar to other buildings discovered in Petra. Some Nabataean communities, such as Mampsis and Oboda, underwent a wave of new construction in the newly-organized Roman Province of Arabia while sites such as 'En Rahel and 'En Yotvata were destroyed and never re-built. Renovations in wake of structural damage evident in structures in many sites in the years following the annexation, as well as the construction of new buildings, point to a widespread earthquake event in southern Transjordan and the Negev in the early 2nd c. CE. The event may have influenced or even prompted the Roman annexation that occurred soon afterwards. At Petra, the Early House was not destroyed at that time but rather it was renovated and occupied until the early 3rd c. when it was abandoned, possibly in the wake of an epidemic.
...

Conclusions

The primary issue concerning the Early House is the date and manner of its abandonment. An outstanding difficulty in Russell's phasing in Area I is the two hundred year period between the renovations that supposedly took place in the Early House in the early 2nd c. CE (Phase XVI) and the construction of the Middle House in the early 4th c. CE (Phase XII). This gap in the archaeological record is largely artificial and can be attributed to the fact that a single coin was used to date the critical ceramic assemblage found in Room 2 (antechamber) of the Early House (SU 176, 800, 803) to the very beginning of the 2nd c. Rather than its destruction by earthquake in the early 2nd c., the body of evidence points to its abandonment sometime in the early 3rd c. similar to sites along the Petra—Gaza road.

Petra - The Great Temple possible ≥ 8 Phase VI Earthquake - Early 2nd century CE - Joukowsky and Basile (2001:50), using a different phasing than Joukowsky (2009), discussed archeoseismic evidence from the early 2nd century CE at the Great Temple.
Dated to the mid-second century, Nabataean-Roman Phase IV follows a minor collapse when the uppermost course of the propylaea stairs was built to provide access to the Lower Temenos, and when the Lower Temenos east cryptoportico, which may have seen collapse, was filled in.
Petra - Pool Complex possible ≥ 8
Pre Phase III Earthquake - early 2nd century CE

Renovations during Phase III dated to the early 2nd century CE may have been a response to seismic damage most of which may have been cleared by renovations. The re-use of building elements may be reflective of this response. It should be noted that these building elements could have come from another structure - for example the nearby Great Temple where Joukowsky and Basile (2001:50) report an early 2nd century CE earthquake in Phase VI.

Bedal (2003:74) estimated an early 2nd century CE terminus post quem for the start of Phase III based on pottery found associated with various structures that were part of the renovations.

According to the refined pottery sequence from ez-Zantur, the type 3c Nabataean painted ware was produced in a brief span of time, between ca.100 and 106/114 CE. Based on this pottery evidence, it is possible to assign the floor bedding and by direct association the bridge with a terminus post quem of the early 2nd century CE.
...
However, a single rim sherd also found embedded in the floor mortar (Fig. 18) may be more closely identified with a type 4 painted bowl from ez-Zantur, dated post-106/114 CE (Schmid 1996:166, 208, abb. 704), in which case the Phase II renovations in the Pool-Complex must be dated to a period following the annexation of Petra into the Roman Empire.

Petra - ez Zantur possible ≥ 7
Early 2nd century CE Earthquake - Debated Chronology

Kolb (2002:260) reported on excavations of a large residential structure (i.e. the mansion) in ez-Zantur in Petra. They dated the earliest phase of the structure to the 20's CE based on fragments of Nabatean fine wares, dating to 20-70/90 CE, found in the mortar below the opus sectile flooring in rooms 1,10, and 17 as well as in the plaster bedding of the painted wall decorations in room 1. Earthquake induced structural damage led to a remodeling phase which was dated to the early decades of the 2nd century CE (Kolb, 2002:260-261). A terminus post quem of 103-106 CE for the remodel was provided by a coin struck under King Rabbel II found in some rough plaster (rendering coat) in Room 212 of site EZ III (Kolb, 1998:263).

Erickson-Gini, T. and C. Tuttle (2017) propose re-dating the relevant ez-Zantur phasing to later dates.

A re-examination of the Zantur fineware chronology by the writer has revealed that it contains a number of serious difficulties.25 The main difficulties in the Zantur chronology center on Phase 3, which covers most of the 1st through 3rd c. CE. Zantur Phase 3 is divided into three sub-phases: 3a (20-80 CE), 3b (80-100 CE) and 3c (100-150 CE). The dating of Phase 3 is based on a very small amount of datable material, for example, the main table showing the datable material (Schmid 2000: Abb. 420) shows that no coins were available to date either Phase 3a or Phase 3c. Moreover, the earliest sub-phase, 3a, was vastly underrepresented.26 At Zantur, there appears to be little justification for the beginning dates for either Phase 3b (80 CE) or 3c (100 CE) or their terminal dates (100 CE and 150 CE respectively). No `clean' loci, i.e., sealed contexts, were offered to prove the dating of Phases 3b and 3c and the contexts are mixed with both earlier (3b) and later (3c) material (ibid., 184). This raises the question as to why a terminal date of 100 CE was fixed for Sub-phase 3b. The coin evidence for Sub-phase 3b is scanty and some of the coins could date as late as 106 CE while there is a discrepancy between the dates of the coins and the imported wares, many of which date later than 100 or 106 CE. In order to date Phase 3 in Zantur, there was a heavy dependence an a very small quantity of imported fineware sherds, mainly ESA. Of the forms used, Hayes 56 is listed in both Phase 3b and 3c (ibid.) and since this particular form dates later than 150 CE (Hayes 1985: 39) the majority of the forms and motifs of both sub-phases 3b and 3c should be assigned to the later 2nd and early 3rd centuries. with its purported range of 60 years.

Footnotes

25 "Problems and Solutions in the Dating of Nabataean Pottery of the Roman Period," presented on February 20, 2014 in the 2nd Roundtable "Roman Pottery in the Near East" in Amman, Jordan on the premises of the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR).

26 In the words of the report: "Unfortunately, so far only a few homogeneous FKs (find spots/loci) have been registered with fineware exclusively from Phase 3a. After all, if the Western Terra Sigillata form, Conspectus 20, 4 from FK 1122 (Abb. 420, 421 Nr. 43) accurately reflects the duration of Phase 3a, we can thus estimate [the period] as from 20 to 70/80 CE" (Schmid 2000: 38).

Grawehr M. (2007:399) described a destruction layer at a bronze workshop at ez-Zantur
Room 33 is the work-shop proper. This is indicated by the finds that were encountered in a thick and seemingly undisturbed destruction layer, sealed by the debris of the rooms arched roof. While any indication for the cause of this destruction evades us, the dating of the event is clear. Through the evidence of the coins an the floor we arrive at a terminus post quem of 98 AD. As there is plenty of fine ware in the destruction level, belonging to Schmid's phase 3b, but none of phase 3c, which according to him starts ±100 AD, the destruction must have taken place at the end of the first or early in the second century AD.
Kolb B. and Keller D. (2002:286) also discussed archeoseismic evidence at ez-Zantur
Stratigraphic excavation in square 86/AN unexpectedly brought useful data on the history of the mansion' s construction phases and destruction. The ash deposit in Abs. 2 with FK 3524 and 3533 provided clear indications as to the final destruction in 363. A further chronological "bar line" — a some-what vaguely defined construction phase 2 in various parts of the terrace in the late first or second century AD — received clear confirmation in the form of a thin layer of ash. The lamp and glass finds from the associated FK 3546 date homogeneously from the second century AD, and confirm the assumption of a moderately severe (not historically documented) earthquake that led to the structural repairs observed in various places and the renewal of a number of interior decorations.

Petra - Wadi Sabra Theater Phase 3 earthquake - 2nd - 3rd century CE - Tholbecq et al (2019) report that various clues suggest that the theater underwent violent destruction during this phase. This happened no later than the 3rd century CE.
Avdat/Oboda possible
Early 2nd century earthquake

Erickson-Gini, T. (2014) described the early 2nd century earthquake as follows:

There is indirect evidence of a more substantial destruction in the early 2nd century CE in which residential structures from the earliest phase of the Nabataean settlement east of the late Roman residential quarter were demolished and used as a source of building stone for later structures. Destruction from this earthquake is well attested particularly nearby at Horvat Hazaza, and along the Petra to Gaza road at Mezad Mahmal, Sha'ar Ramon, Mezad Neqarot and Moyat `Awad, and at `En Rahel in the Arava as well as at Mampsis (Korjenkov and Erickson-Gini 2003).
Erickson-Gini and Israel (2013) added
Evidence of an early second-century CE earthquake is found at other sites along the Incense Road at Nahal Neqarot, Sha'ar Ramon, and particularly at the head of the Mahmal Pass where an Early Roman Nabataean structure collapsed (Korjenkov and Erickson-Gini 2003; Erickson-Gini 2011). There is ample evidence of the immediate reconstruction of buildings at Moyat ‘Awad, Sha'ar Ramon, and Horvat Dafit. However, this does not seem to be the case with the Mahmal and Neqarot sites.
Erickson-Gini and Israel (2013) discussed seismic damage at Moyat ‘Awad due to this earthquake
The Early Roman phase of occupation in the site ended with extensive damage caused by an earthquake that took place shortly before the Roman annexation of the region in 106 CE (Korjenkov and Erickson-Gini 2003). The building in Area C and the kiln works were destroyed, and the cave dwellings were apparently abandoned as well. Reconstruction was required in parts of the fort. At this time, deposition from its floors was removed and thrown outside of the fort and a new bath as well as heating were constructed in its interior. Along its eastern exterior and lower slope, rooms were added. Thus, the great majority of the finds from inside the fort and its ancillary rooms date to the latest phase of its occupation in the Late Roman, post-annexation phase, the latest coins of which date to the reign of Elagabalus (219–222 CE).

Mampsis possible Deciphering chronology at Mampsis has unfortunately been problematic.
Before the First Earthquake - Early 2nd century CE earthquake

Russell (1985) cited Negev (1971:166) for evidence of early second century earthquake destruction at Mamphis. Negev (1971) reports extensive building activity in Mamphis in the early second century AD obliterating much of the earlier and smaller infrastructure. However, neither a destruction layer nor an earthquake is mentioned. Citing Erickson-Gini (1999) and Erickson-Gini (2001), Korzhenkov and Erickson-Gini (2003) cast doubt on Russell (1985)'s assertion of archeoseismic damage at Mamphis stating that recent research indicates a continuation of occupation throughout the 1st and 2nd cent. A.D.. Continuous occupation could indicate that seismic damage was limited rather than absent.

Moje Awad possible ≥ 8 End of Early Roman Phase earthquake - early 2nd century CE - Erickson-Gini and Israel (2013) discussed the early 2nd century earthquake at Moje Awad as follows:
The Early Roman phase of occupation in the site ended with extensive damage caused by an earthquake that took place shortly before the Roman annexation of the region in 106 CE ( Korzhenkov and Erickson-Gini, 2003). The building in Area C and the kiln works were destroyed, and the cave dwellings were apparently abandoned as well. Reconstruction was required in parts of the fort. At this time, deposition from its floors was removed and thrown outside of the fort and a new bath as well as heating were constructed in its interior. Along its eastern exterior and lower slope, rooms were added.
No photos of destruction were supplied and it is unclear if earthquake destruction was inferred from rebuilding evidence or if actual damaged structures were observed. Likewise, it is not clear how Erickson-Gini and Israel (2013) dated this earthquake to shortly before Roman annexation in 106 CE. If the pre 106 CE date is based on rebuilding evidence, it would seem that the earthquake is dated no more precisely than early second century CE.
Sha'ar Ramon possible Erickson-Gini and Israel (2013:41-42) report that evidence was found for an early 2nd century CE earthquake at Sha'ar Ramon perhaps based on rebuilding evidence as they state that there is ample evidence of the immediate reconstruction of buildings at Moyat Awad, Sha'ar Ramon, and Horvat Dafit.
Neqarot Fort possible ≥ 8 Erickson-Gini (2012) claims that Nahal Neqarot contains early 2nd century CE earthquake destruction evidence. Erickson-Gini and Israel (2013) allude to collapsed structures at Nahal Neqarot that were left unrepaired. Supporting evidence was not presented. Supporting evidence may be in Erickson-Gini (2010)
Ein Rahel probable ≥ 8
Early 2nd Century CE Earthquake

Korzhenkov and Erickson-Gini (2003) describe archeoseismic evidence for an early second century CE earthquake as follows:

In the surrounding casemate rooms the latest occupational phase (dating to the early 2nd cent. A.D.) was sealed by the collapse of the upper floor of the fort. Sections excavated in these rooms revealed clear collapse of the ceiling of the lower floor and the upper floor debris sealed by the upper floor roof. The ceiling and roof of the structure were made from woven organic matting and mud and were supported by wooden beams.

A rich ceramic assemblage was discovered in the fort as well as extensive organic finds and included reed-matting and wooden beams, almond shells, nuts and olive and dates stones. Several wooden lice combs and other wooden objects were found in excellent condition, as well as many shreds of textiles and leather. Two camel bones were found bearing inscriptions in black ink in the Nabataean script.
Shamir (1999) examined the textiles, basketry and cordage and reported that
Preserved by the arid climate, the perishables from `En Rahel include about 300 textile and basketry fragments, cordage, spindle whorls and needles. The Early Roman date of the material, provided by its archaeological context, differs slightly from its radiocarbon dating [1] (Carmi and Segal 1995:55).

[1] In the fall of 1991, a brown goat-hair textile fragment from L13, Basket 129 was submitted to I. Carmi and D. Segal at the 14C laboratory of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in order to verify the archaeological conclusions. Their results suggest the fabric was manufactured in the Roman period:

Sample d14C d13C yrs BP* Calendaric Age**
RT-1596 -209.2 ± 3.9 -15.95 1885 ± 40 82-204 CE
* Conventional radiocarbon years before 1950.
** Calculated using CALIB 3 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993).


Note by Jefferson Williams : The calendaric age reported in Carmi and Segal 1995:55 is a bit different (and earlier)

Sample d14C d13C yrs BP* Calendaric Age**
RT-1596 -209.2 ± 3.9 -15.95 1885 ± 40 66-145 CE (87%), 165-186 CE (13%)
* Conventional radiocarbon years before 1950.
** Calculated using CALIB 3 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993).


Korzhenkov and Erickson-Gini (2003) estimated Intensity of 8-9, epicenter in vicinity of the site in WNW or ESE (~125 degrees) direction. The proximity of the Arava Fault led them to consider ESE more likely

Mezad Mahmal possible ≥ 8
Early 2nd century CE earthquake

Erickson-Gini (2011) excavated 6 meters west of the fort and found remains which appear to belong to an Early Roman Nabataean caravan station destroyed in the early second century CE by an earthquake. They described what they found as follows:

Pottery found in the excavation of the building shows that it was founded in the mid-first century CE and continued to be used until sometime in the early second century CE, when it was evidently destroyed in an earthquake (Fig. 7 ). Wall 1 appears to have collapsed northward (Fig. 8 ) and the remains of a cooking pot (Fig. 10:8) in L601, next to the tabun (F-1), had broke and was partially spread eastward next to the interior of W1. Tabun F-1 contained small rocks and a number of potsherds, including an early type of a Gaza wine jar (Fig. 10:11) that is dated to the first–third centuries CE. Other diagnostic potsherds included parts of Nabataean painted ware bowls (Fig. 9:1–8), an Eastern Sigilatta ware bowl (Fig. 10:1), undecorated cups and bowls (Fig. 10:2–5, 7), Nabataean rouletted ware (Fig. 10:6), Nabataean cooking pot (Fig. 10:9), Roman carinated cooking pot (Fig. 10:10), jars (Fig. 10:12, 13), Nabataean strainer jugs (Fig. 10:14, 15) and a fragment of a Roman lamp with a decorated discus (Fig. 10:16).

Visual investigation of the area north of the early structure shows traces of possible wall lines and other rooms. However, no plan of this structure can be determined without carrying out further excavations. It may be assumed, on the basis of the 2004 excavation, that rooms were situated around an open courtyard. The structure was badly damaged by an earthquake and appears to have been stripped of masonry stones nearly to its foundation.
...
In addition to excavations in the early building, the exterior sides of the Roman fort along the eastern, northern and part of the western side, were excavated to facilitate restoration work on the structure (L101/L102, L103, L201 and L801). A deep probe along the northeastern corner of the structure (L103) was excavated down to bedrock. In the foundation trench near bedrock a diagnostic fragment of a Late Roman-Nabataean debased painted ware bowl (Fig. 9:9) was found. The structure showed signs of earthquake damage along its northern wall (L201) and the center of this wall had collapsed northward. A section of collapse at this point of the wall was preserved and left unexcavated.

The current excavation confirmed the discovery that the Mezad Mahmal fort is a Roman and not a Nabataean fort, as has generally been assumed. The fort was constructed in the later half of the second century CE in the Late Roman period. It appears to belong to a Roman military initiative of constructing tower forts in the Severan period elsewhere along the Petra–Gaza road, such as the fort of Horbat Qazra and Mezad Neqarot. Other forts of this type and period are known at Horbat Haluqim (‘Atiqot 11 [ES]:34–50) and Horbat Dafit (ESI 3:16–17). The primary discovery in this season was the remains of the Nabataean caravan station of the first century CE, situated at the head of the pass. This structure, which apparently contained a number of rooms located around a central courtyard, was destroyed in a seismic event in the early second century CE and subsequently, was probably abandoned.

'En Ziq possible Erickson-Gini (2012) reports that at the site of ’En Ziq in the Nahal Zin basin near Sde Boker, the same early 2nd century earthquake which destroyed the Nabatean Fort at Ein Rahel also destroyed the Nabatean Hellenistic fortress at 'En Ziq.
Horbat Hazaza possible ≥ 6-8 Erickson-Gini (2019:152,167) reports destruction of the South Wing and subsequent abandonment along with three fallen arches in Room 2. A 1st century CE terminus post quem was established for the fallen arches based on Nabatean pottery and a terminus ante quem seems to have been established due to continued occupation of the north wing where pottery as early as the first half of the 2nd century CE was found (Hayes’ Form P40 fine-ware krater - Erickson-Gini, 2019:162).
Yotvata possible ≥ 8
Early 2nd century CE Earthquake

Erickson-Gini (2012a) report archaeoseismic evidence in a Nabatean structure at 'En Yotvata

Three walls of a structure (W1–W3; Fig. 4) were revealed during the 2005 season. The walls were constructed from hard limestone blocks (average size 0.25×0.35 m). The only complete wall was W2 in the west, oriented north–south (length 12.5 m), which was preserved to at least two courses high above the surface. A possible entrance is indicated along this wall, slightly west of its center. The other two walls appear to have been of the same length. The structure had entirely collapsed in the earthquake of the early second century CE.
...
The structure, which was apparently a two-story building, appears to have been stripped for building stones, probably after the earthquake destruction. In the collapse of the upper storey (L100, L500, L600), potsherds dating to Late Hellenistic period were discovered, including painted fine-ware bowls (Fig. 5:1, 3, 4), a bowl of the fish-plate tradition (Fig. 5:9), as well as painted fine-ware bowls of the Early Roman period (Fig. 5:5–7). Large fragments of a fine-ware painted bowl of the second half of the first century CE were discovered, in situ, in the middle of the building (L100; Fig. 5:8).
...
A group of collapsed stone ceiling slabs (F2), standing nearly upright, was uncovered in the middle of the L601 square (Fig. 8 )
...
The building was apparently destroyed in an earthquake in the early second century CE. Evidence of this disaster could be seen in the collapsed upper floor in both squares, the collapsed ceiling slabs and in the collapse of the structure’s exterior walls. In addition, parts of the same Nabataean Aqaba Ware jar, found in the last season, were discovered deep in L502, somewhere above the surface of the lower floor. The coins recovered from the debris of the upper floor are Nabataean coins of the first century CE. The pottery assemblage includes forms of the earliest Nabataean painted wares of the Late Hellenistic period, Nabataean painted ware bowls of the Early Roman period, and plain ware Nabataean vessels, spanning the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. The latest datable pottery vessels discovered in the structure are the Nabataean Aqaba Ware jars, dated to the early second century CE.

Rujm Taba possible Surface Survey only. Site not excavated.
Early 2nd century CE Earthquake

Dolinka (2006a) reports the possibility of archaeoseismic evidence at Rujm Taba based on site delineation and surface collection performed in August 2001 and previous work such as SAAS.

the ceramic evidence gathered by RTAP suggests that both the village and the caravanserai at Rujm Taba flourished during the late first century AD, aptly demonstrated by the fact that half of the NPFW from the village and nearly half (48%) of the NPFW from Structure A001 are dated to Dekorphase 3b, or c. 70–100 AD. A high amount of activity at Rujm Taba during this period seems to call into question the notion repeated by many scholars (e.g. Bowersock 1983: 156) that the discovery of the monsoon winds in the mid-first century AD caused a major decline in the Nabataean overland caravan trade. Quite contrary, Rujm Taba seems to have thrived in an era of supposed economic deterioration.

Third, according to the RTAP ceramic repertoire there seems to have been a decline in activity and occupation at Rujm Taba during the early to mid-second century AD, an idea supported by the fact that numbers of NPFW drop off sharply during this period, with only 8% of the total pottery from Structure A001 and 15% of the total ceramics from the village dating from Zantur Dekorphase 3c. Whether or not this decline should be attributed to the Roman annexation of Nabataea in AD 106, or an earthquake that devastated the Rift Valley during the early second century AD, is still a matter of debate among scholars that could easily be resolved through stratified excavations at Nabataean sites, such as Rujm Taba, located along the major trade routes that were in use during the period in question.

Horbat Dafit possible ≥ 8 End of Phase 1 Earthquake - early 2nd century CE - Dolinka (2006:130) reports that Phase 1 ended with the earthquake of the early-2nd century AD, and several of the rooms within the structure exhibited collapse of the architectural elements as well as ashy layers associated with that event. Dolinka (2006:135-136) further reports that the earliest levels of [phase 2] are characterized by mudbrick collapse and/or building debris (e.g. Locus 46), cleaning of the interior of some of the rooms (e.g. Loci 23. 26 and 50), repair to damaged walls (e.g. Locus 45), and reconstruction of the main entrance and gate (Locus 27). The site appears to be well dated except for in some loci. Dolinka (2006:155) noted a difficulty in discerning the division between Phases 1 and 2 in some loci which, it was suggested, was due to activities associated with the reconstruction of the gate after the earthquake, which likely disturbed the floor levels from those loci.
Other sites in the Negev needs investigation n/a n/a
Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Introduction

In 1985, Ken Russell, a promising relatively young archaeologist, presented the world with evidence for a historically unreported earthquake in the early 2nd century CE along the Incense Road. This earthquake, likely caused by a rupture along the Araba fault, was the first "historical" earthquake in this part of the world discovered by scientific means. Although many of his assertions would prove to be wrong, the fundamental premise that an earthquake struck the Araba in the early 2nd century CE has withstood the test of time. Paleoseismic and Archaeoseismic evidence uncovered since then has shown that there was an early 2nd century Incense Road Earthquake. This is important not just for this particular earthquake but for a number of historically unreported earthquakes in this part of the world in the first millennium CE. There has been a rush to judgment on the Araba fault during this time period. Casual observations taken from incomplete and frequently inaccurate Earthquake catalogs have led many to beleive that the Araba fault was inactive during the first millennium. Flawed geologic models were constructed to describe the Araba's seeming inability to produce earthquakes when in fact it was quite active but it was under reported in the historical record. Far from a city that would produce extant historical reports, it's shaking was lost to time until the scientific method showed up - first in the personage of Ken Russell.

Now that I have sung Ken's praises, I am going to explain what he got wrong because, despite his brilliance, Ken got plenty wrong. Russell (1985) started out by by making the case that there was abundant well dated archeoseismic evidence that there was an earthquake, likely along the Araba fault, between 110 and 114 CE contending that the evidence was too wide widespread to support alternative explanations based on war or civil disturbance. Russell (1985:40-41) contended that the archaeological evidence suggested an early-second century destruction at Petra, Masada, Avdat and several other sites along the Petra - Gaza road. There were claims of further evidence from cities not along the Petra – Gaza Road - a number of which, upon close examination, seem dubious. Further inquiry also casts doubt on some of his evidence between Petra and Gaza. In making his case, Russell (1985) sought to constrain the date of the earthquake between 110 and 114 CE. A coin from ~110 CE found under earthquake debris in Masada provided the terminus post quem and a 114 CE inscription dedicated to Roman emperor Trajan associated with rebuilding in Petra provided the terminus ante quem. The ~110 CE Masada date was asserted by Yadin (1965) in a preliminary report but was not mentioned by Netzer (1991) in the final report. The 114 CE date came from the Trajan's dedicatory inscription at Petra. Although the inscription would seem to mark some building effort, the fragments recovered did not reveal the reason for the building. Russell (1985) assumed it was rebuilding after an earthquake. It's excavator Kirkbride (1960) thought it commemorated the completion of a road. Although Russell (1985) may be right that the Incense Road Earthquake struck between 110 and 114 CE, at this point all we can say is that it struck in the early 2nd century CE.

Jerash - Introduction



Jerash - North Gate



Heshbon



Caesarea



Masada



Khirbet Tannur



Emmaus/Nicopolis



Aqaba/Eilat - Introduction



Aqaba/Eilat - Aila



Petra - Introduction



Petra - el-Katute



Petra - Temple of the Winged Lions



Petra - Near Temple of the Winged Lions



Petra - The Great Temple



Petra - Pool Complex



Petra - ez Zantur



Petra - Wadi Sabra Theater



Avdat



Mampsis



Moje Awad



Sha'ar Ramon



Neqarot Fort



Ein Rahel



Mezad Mahmal



'En Ziq



Horbat Hazaza



Yotvata



Rujm Taba



Horbat Dafit



Other sites in the Negev

Summary of Sites still needing examination

Erickson-Gini and Israel (2013) noted that:
Evidence of an early second-century CE earthquake is found at other sites along the Incense Road at Nahal Neqarot, Sha'ar Ramon, and particularly at the head of the Mahmal Pass where an Early Roman Nabataean structure collapsed (Korjenkov and Erickson-Gini 2003; Erickson-Gini 2011). There is ample evidence of the immediate reconstruction of buildings at Moyat ‘Awad, Sha'ar Ramon, and Horvat Dafit. However, this does not seem to be the case with the Mahmal and Neqarot sites.
Erickson-Gini (2012a) supplied the following regarding evidence at for an early 2nd century CE earthquake
Although unreported in historical sources, a growing body of archaeological evidence points to widespread earthquake destruction in several Nabataean sites in southern Jordan and the Negev, including
  • Petra (Kolb B. 2002. Excavating a Nabataean Mansion. NEA 65/4:206–261)
  • Khirbat Tannur (Khirbet et-Tannur. NEAEHL 4, p. 1444. Jerusalem)
  • Aqaba (Dolinka, B.J. 2003. Nabataean Aqaba from a Ceramic Perspective: Local and Intra-Regional Trade in Aqaba Ware during the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD [Bar Int. Ser. 1116]. Oxford)
  • Horbat Dafit (Dolinka B.J. 2006. Arabia Adquistita? Ceramic Evidence for Nabataean Cultural Continuity during the Antonine and Severan Periods: The Aqaba Ware from Horvat Dafit. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Liverpool)
  • Moyat ‘Awad
  • Nahal Neqarot
  • Sha‘ar Ramon
  • Ma‘ale Mahmal
  • Oboda
  • Mampsis
  • Horbat Hazaza (Erickson-Gini T. 2010. Nabataean Settlement and Self-Organized Economy in the Central Negev [Bar Int. Ser. 2054]. Oxford).

Tsunamogenic Evidence

Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Caesarea and Jisr al-Zakra possible Although Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) and earlier researchers associated a 1st - 2nd century CE tsunamite deposit from offshore Caesarea with the Trajan quake of ~115 CE, this association is unlikely. Salamon et al (2011) noted that the presence of a tsunami far south of the supposed epicenter of the Trajan Quake does not fit the usual pattern of tsunamis on the Israeli coast where most tsunamis which hit the coast were generated by ruptures more or less opposite to the coast (e.g. from the Cypriot and Hellenic Arcs). While Salamon et al (2011) suggested a storm surge as a possibility, the work of Goodman-Tchernov and Austin (2015) and earlier publications appears to preclude this as they used a host of indicators to seperate storm surge deposits from tsunamite deposits. I propose that an offshore shelf collapse potentially due to the Incense Road Earthquake of the early 2nd century CE as a likely cause.
Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Caesarea and Jisr al-Zakra



Paleoseismic Evidence

Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Dead Sea - Seismite Types n/a n/a A conservative worst case scenario calculation reveals why it is unlikely that the Trajan Quake produced seismites in the Dead Sea.
  1. Assume the upper end of the Magnitude estimate for the Trajan Quake (MW = 7.5) from Meghraoui et al. (2003).
  2. Locate the epicenter ~90 km. south of Antioch in Apamea.
  3. Calculate the Epicentral Distance (R) from Apamea to Nahal Ze ‘elim (465 km.).
  4. Use the attenuation relationship from Hough and Avni (2009) to estimate peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) at Nahal Ze ‘elim where Kagan et al (2011) observed a 5 cm. thick seismite that they associated with the Trajan Quake.

  5. The result is a PGA of 0.10 g at Nahal Ze'elim. This is below the 0.25 g threshold calculated by Williams (2004) or 0.13 g assumed in Lu et al (2020a) that one needs to break the Dead Sea sediments. The conclusion is that the Trajan Quake probably did not produce these Dead Sea Seismites and the Incense Road Quake did.

    Calculator
    Seismic Attenuation

    Variable Input Units Notes
    Magnitude
    km. Distance to earthquake producing fault
    Variable Output - Site Effect not considered Units Notes
    unitless
    unitless Conversion from PGA to Intensity using Wald et al (1999)
      

Dead Sea - En Feshka no evidence Kagan et. al. (2011) did not see any evidence for a seismite created around this time.
Dead Sea - En Gedi possible 6.3-8.8 Migowski et. al. (2004) assigned two seismites at depths of 264 and 265 cm. (2.64 and 2.65 m) at En Gedi to earthquakes in 112 and 115 CE. The 112 CE date refers to the early second century CE Incense Road Earthquake and the 115 CE date refers to the Trajan Quake which was too far away to have created a Dead Sea seismite. During field work in January 2014 in the nearby En Gedi Trench, Jefferson Williams saw evidence for a sizable earthquake from a ~5 cm. thick seismite from around 112 ± 8 CE which was probably created by the Incense Road Quake. Williams also observed two detachment planes in the Incense Road Quake seismite (use magnifying glass to see at high resolution) which might explain why Migowski, while doing microscope work on the En Gedi Core, identified two separate seismites from the same deformation event.
Dead Sea - Nahal Ze 'elim possible 8.1-8.9 At site ZA-2, Kagan et al (2011) assigned a 5 cm. thick Type 4 seismite at a depth of 445 cm. (Modeled Ages 1σ - 125 CE ± 39 and 2σ - 133 CE ± 78) to a date of 115 CE. The 115 CE date refers to the Trajan Quake which was too far away to have created a Dead Sea seismite. The seismite observed by Kagan et al (2011) likely formed during the Incense Road Earthquake.
Araba - Introduction n/a n/a n/a
Araba - Taybeh Trench possible ≥ 7 LeFevre et al. (2018) identified a seismic event (E4) in the Taybeh trench with a modeled age of 111 CE ± 31 which was associated with the early 2nd century CE Incense Road Earthquake.
Araba - Qatar Trench possible ≥ 7 Klinger et. al. (2015) identified a seismic event (E6) in a trench near Qatar, Jordan in the Arava which they modeled between 9 BCE and 492 CE. The large spread in age caused them to consider two possible earthquakes as the cause; the early 2nd century CE Incense Road Quake and the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. They preferred the Cyril Quake of 363 CE based on weighing other evidence not related to their paleoseismic study and noted that further investigation was required.
Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Dead Sea - Seismite Types



Dead Sea - En Feshka

Kagan et. al. (2011) did not see any evidence for a seismite created around this time.



Dead Sea - En Gedi

Migowski et. al. (2004) assigned two seismites at depths of 264 and 265 cm. (2.64 and 2.65 m) at En Gedi to earthquakes in 112 and 115 CE. The 112 CE date refers to the early second century CE Incense Road Earthquake and the 115 CE date refers to the Trajan Quake which was too far away to have created a Dead Sea seismite. During field work in January 2014 in the nearby En Gedi Trench, Jefferson Williams saw evidence for a sizable earthquake from a ~5 cm. thick seismite from around 112 ± 8 CE which was probably created by the Incense Road Quake. Williams also observed two detachment planes in the Incense Road Quake seismite (use magnifying glass to see at high resolution) which might explain why Migowski, while doing microscope work on the En Gedi Core, identified two separate seismites from the same deformation event.



Dead Sea - Nahal Ze 'elim

At site ZA-2, Kagan et al (2011) assigned a 5 cm. thick Type 4 seismite at a depth of 445 cm. (Modeled Ages 1σ - 125 CE ± 39 and 2σ - 133 CE ± 78) to a date of 115 CE. The 115 CE date refers to the Trajan Quake which was too far away to have created a Dead Sea seismite. The seismite observed by Kagan et al (2011) likely formed during the Incense Road Earthquake.



Araba - Introduction



Araba - Taybeh Trench

LeFevre et al. (2018) identified a seismic event (E4) in the Taybeh trench with a modeled age of 111 CE ± 31 which was associated with the early 2nd century CE Incense Road Earthquake.



Araba - Qatar Trench

Klinger et. al. (2015) identified a seismic event (E6) in a trench near Qatar, Jordan in the Arava which they modeled between 9 BCE and 492 CE. The large spread in age caused them to consider two possible earthquakes as the cause; the early 2nd century CE Incense Road Quake and the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. They preferred the Cyril Quake of 363 CE based on weighing other evidence not related to their paleoseismic study and noted that further investigation was required.



Notes

Paleoclimate - Droughts

References