A comparison of ancient Hellenic and
Levantine texts concerning earthquakes
Eric R. Force
INTRODUCTION
The Greek and Judaic contributions to
cultural history are quite distinctive, and have been so since their earliest
records. Here I would like to focus on their early responses to tectonic
events, which may afford some glimpses of cultural dynamics.
Both
Hellenic and Levantine regions are seismically active, and in antiquity
suffered seismic damage. However, the ancient responses to seismicity of Judaic
and Greek traditions seem to have differed. It would be interesting to explore
the factors in these differences, via both textual and archaeological evidence.
Here I will focus on the texts. In order to control as best I can for
plate-tectonic and other geologic differences, I address cultural responses
throughout the ancient regions in which these two traditions are embedded,
hence my title.
DIFFERING GEOLOGIC CONTEXTS
Plate tectonic factors.—Both the
Hellenic and Levantine regions are impacted by the relative movements of the
Eurasian, African, and Arabian tectonic plates (fig. 1 below). The tectonics of
the Levantine region are the simpler; both the Arabian and African plate are
moving northward in colliding with the Eurasian plate, but the Arabian place is
doing so significantly faster. The relative motion is accommodated along the
“Dead Sea Rift” fault zone, where the eastern (Arabian plate) side is being
translated northward relative to the western (African plate) side. Where there
are bends in the rift, upper-crustal holes can occur, and alluvial fan
deposits, slumping walls, and lakes such as that of the Dead Sea itself tend to
fill the voids. Elsewhere, crustal impingements have produced the
Lebanon/Anti-Lebanon mountains. Fault movement has an appreciable vertical
component only along such responses to bends, movement being essentially
horizontal elsewhere (“sinistral strike-slip”). Large earthquakes are common.
The
Hellenic region on both shores of the Aegean Sea is subject to three main types
of faulting (fig. 1 after Reilinger et al. 1997). First, the rapid northward
movement of the Arabian plate has forced a large wedge of crust to move aside
in a so- called escape structure, forming the Hellenic-Turkish microplate (fig.
1). In most of mainland Greece, this motion is distributed across a wide zone oriented
NE-SW, and has a horizontal component of “dextral strike-slip.” Second, both
the Hellenic-Turkish and Eurasian plates collide with the African plate, which
dives under them in a “subduction zone” in the northern East Mediterranean.
Movement along this north-sloping boundary has a large vertical component.
Third and last, tectonic basins called grabens oriented roughly east-west have
opened up due to crustal stretching above the subduction zone. The Corinth
“rift,” the Argos basin, and similar basins in western Turkey are examples.
Tectonic movement is largely vertical. All three of these types of fault
structures have produced large earthquakes.
Other geologic factors.—Earthquake
intensity varies with the surface substrate, as do the exposure and
preservation of fault offsets. The Levantine and Hellenic regions differ
somewhat in their near-surface geologic makeup, and this factor could lead to
somewhat different cultural responses.
The geology of populated parts of the
Levant includes large tracts underlain by the Lisan and equivalent young
sedimentary deposits, formed in basins along previous incarnations of the Dead
Sea rift (Neev and Emery 1967, 1995). Sediments of this type tend to
amplify earthquake intensity, and fault movement is obscured by drag in pliable
wallrocks. However, older rocks are exposed in many other places, especially
along flanks of the rift as at Jerusalem. However, most even of these rocks are
slightly friable.
The
Hellenic realm, though riven with its own basin deposits, has comparatively
more rock exposure in populated areas. Limestone is very well represented
there, and most of these limestones have become tough through
recrystallization. Where faulting has occurred in these limestones over the
last 10,000 years, surface offsets called scarps are well preserved, though
details recording movement are progressively degraded by weathering (Stewart
and Hancock, 1988).
Responses to geologic
factors.--Experiencing an earthquake tends to provoke otherworldly responses in
any culture (Robinson 2016), and the active seismicity of both Hellenic and
Levantine regions might lead one to expect strong cultural responses. We can
next compare the Hellenic and Levantine cultural responses to their
earthquakes, and see whether these are explained by their geologic contexts:
EARTHQUAKES, THE UNDERWORLD, AND EARTH
STRUCTURE IN ANCIENT GREEK TEXTS
Earthquakes
per se appear fairly commonly in ancient Greek texts; also pervasive in these
texts are treatments of the underworld. Less well known are glimpses in these
texts of the structure of the earth relative to earthquakes, as in Hesiod and
Aristotle at opposite ends of the classical era.
I
will describe these matters in the ancient texts in the roughly separate
disciplines of poetry, drama, history, and philosophy, taken in the
chronological order in which first entries appear. I make no claim of exhaustive
coverage, especially of Hellenistic and later authors, which can reflect
non-Hellenic influences. Unlike the archaeological record, I lack links between
texts and earthquakes/faulting in the Mycenaean period, though this may be
partly because Linear B texts have not been examined with this question in
mind.
Poetry.—
Homer, recording an oral tradition referring to Bronze-age events, outlines a
great deal of formative Greek mythology, including earth-shaking Poseidon
repeatedly attempting to alter human affairs (Iliad XX lines 54-70, XIII
lines39-90), in the former intending to split the earth’s surface to lay the
entire underworld bare. In the Odyssey (V lines ca. 366) earth-shaker sends a
giant wave that looks like a tsunami to me. Tectonism seems to function in part
as a by-product of conflict among dysfunctional gods.
References to earthquakes, the underworld, and earth
structure also appear early in ancient Greek history as the poetry of Hesiod,
who refers to his own time. His Theogeny of the 8th century BC, another founding document
for Greek mythology, uses the term earthquakes (or shaking earth) quite frequently. Poseidon as
earth-shaker (including several times implied but not named) is responsible for
many of them. It is interesting that Poseidon is both earth- shaker and
internal earth-smith in both these early works (reviewed by Polimenakos 1996).
Most remarkable to me is that Hesiod’s earthquakes are
mentioned in the context of earth structure, in which the deepest layer
Tartarus is pointedly aseismic (ca. line 750) and girdled with bronze (ca. line
725). Above Tartarus in the Erebos layer are earthquake-ridden “roots of earth”
(ca. lines 680 and 730), and apparently above that are the realms of Hades and
of graves. Any resemblance to the core, mantle, and crust of the earth must be
coincidental (unlike Hesiod’s division of history into pre-bronze, bronze, and
iron ages, in his Works and Days). But zonation of the earth’s interior and
some tectonic context is clear.
Pindar in Nemean 9, referring to a mythic tradition of
Bronze-age Thebes and the family of Oedipus, has Zeus swallowing Amphiaraus in
split-open earth.
In conclusion, mythic tectonic processes appear in contexts
of earth structure and the underworld beginning with very early poetry. Two
references to Zeus’ involvement (as opposed to Poseidon) in characters being
swallowed by the earth in violent events suggest questions about the
identification as earthquakes per se, but certainly emphasize the underworld.
Drama.—Next
in chronology are ancient Greek dramas beginning with Aeschylus in 458 B.C.
Perhaps most significant seismically is his Prometheus Bound, which ends as
Prometheus descends underground in a shaking earth (lines ca. 1080), This
portion of the drama is sometimes listed separately as a poem “Prometheus amid
hurricane and earthquake”. Similarly, Sophocles involves an apparent earthquake
in the passing of Oedipus in Oedipus at Colonus (line 1585)
Euripides made free use of earthquakes as pivots for his
action, somewhat like our playwrights might use hurricanes. In his Hippolytus,
an earthquake located near Corinth is evocatively described, followed by an
equally well-described tsunami (lines 1200-1210). In scene III of his Bacchae,
Dionysus is liberated by an earthquake, seemingly at his command. Otherwise for
Euripides, earthquakes have no specific cause. The underground is central in
his Alcestis and his Heracles but not in a tectonic context.
In Aristophanes’ Acharnians, Poseidon is asked to send an
earthquake to punish Sparta (line 496), but the petitioner then changes his
mind in suitably comic manner. Here, in Lysistrata, and The Assembly Women,
earthquakes are mentioned almost as banter, just a commentary on real life.
In conclusion, earthquakes punctuate the action in a number
of ancient dramas. Otherwise the appearance of earthquakes constitutes a few
poignant passages amid a torrent of thoughts on other subjects. Mentions of the
underworld are treated in evocative ways where they occur. An evolution in
treatment of earthquakes from mythic toward factual occurs between Aeschylus
and Aristophanes.
History.—Herodotus
did not mention many earthquakes (though see History V, 85 and 86) but did
feature one as pivotal. This is that in Delos (VI, 98), said to be unique in
this sacred spot and divide Greek history into epochs.
Thucydides
in his History of the Peloponnesian War mentions at least nine earthquakes
(Force 2015) during the Peloponnesian Wars, several of them influencing
military outcomes, as does Xenophon in the sequel Hellenica (book 3, chapter 2
line 24). These authors note without comment that commanders treated
earthquakes as omens. Like Herodotus, Thucydides chooses one earthquake as most
pivotal in Greek history, this one near Sparta (ca. 464 B.C.) and which permitted
a rebellion of slaves, thus weakening Sparta’s military hegemony.
None of these historians invoked divine causation for his
earthquakes, indeed Thucydides contributed a break-through in natural earth
process (Force 2015). In III (xi) 89 we have, “The cause in my opinion of this
phenomenon (which today we call
tsunami) must be sought in the earthquake. At the point where its shock
has been most violent, the sea is driven back, and suddenly recoiling with
redoubled force, causes the inundation” (Crawley-Feetham translation). Though
the earthquake itself was not addressed in terms of natural process, the
consequent tsunami certainly was.
In
conclusion, ancient Greece’s founders of history treated earthquakes in secular
manner (though reporting the participants otherwise), devoid of underworld
connection. All were impressed with cultural consequences of earthquakes.
Thucydides’ explanation of tsunami as a natural process was prescient.
Philosophy.—Earthquakes
are a component in the work of the earliest Greek philosophers. Thales in the 6th century
B.C. attempted explanations of several phenomena as natural processes, and he
and several subsequent philosophers addressed earthquakes in terms of the
movement of subsurface fluids. This tradition continued in the 4th century
with Aristotle, who in his Meteorology gave an extensive discussion and
critique of causation by subsurface winds, including evidence from
distribution, fluid ejection, differing character of shocks, aftershocks, etc.
Intermediate in chronology, however, are a number of philosophers who in
searching for natural causes look to “spirit” in driving the dynamics (reviewed
by Polimenakos 1996). Pythagoras apparently dealt with the problem by declaring
Poseidon a force of nature. All these thinkers apparently felt that rapid fluid
motion must be required to produce rapid earth response. But worthy of notice
here is an insistence on natural or quasi-natural processes and an involvement
of subsurface motion.
Plato (in his Timaeus) inspired speculation for millenia
about the supposed continent of Atlantis, submerged in an earthquake. It seems
likely that this was in preparation for his ideas of a hypothetical ideal
society, and may have been inspired by the submergence of the coastal plain of Helike
in his own time (Soter 1998), emphasized by Lucretius and Pausanius many years
later.
In conclusion, aome ancient Greek philosophers tried to
combine mythological and natural agents for earthquakes, but others broached
serious questions about entirely natural causes of earthquakes, incorporating
subsurface agents.
Summary.—As
befits the tectonic environment of the Hellenic world, ancient Greek authors
from the beginning incorporated earthquakes as they developed their
disciplines. There seems a transition, especially noticeable about 450 B.C.
with historians and philosophers leading the way, from mention of earthquakes
in supernatural toward factual and then natural contexts (Plato is an
exception). Poseidon is accordingly given less credit for causing earthquakes.
For both poets and dramatists, earthquakes commonly heralded
the underworld, perhaps predictably as this linkage supported their themes. In
some cases identification as earthquakes is not even clear. But it’s
interesting that in these evocative Greek texts, the otherworldly nature of
earthquakes points toward the underworld.
Ancient Greek historians tended to treat earthquakes as
pivotal events, reporting in a secular manner some quasi-cultic responses.
Thucydides nailed the natural origin of tsunami relative to earthquakes.
Ancient Greek philosophers searched for natural causes for earthquakes in the
earth’s subsurface.
EARTHQUAKES IN ANCIENT LEVANTINE,
ESPECIALLY HEBRAIC, TEXTS
The
great majority of textual material from the Levant region is Hebraic, from the
Judaic cultural tradition. Biblical material is the part of it coeval with the
Greek texts summarized above.
Biblical text material has been interpreted in many ways by
many authors. Of course, few have
focused on earthquakes. In one method of such analysis, Force (2015) reduced
Biblical mention of earthquakes to a sequence presented in Biblical order,
which was in turn meant to represent chronologic order of occurrence. Force
recognized thirteen stages, referencing each by chapter and verse. For the
present paper it seems unnecessary to repeat all thirteen; better to summarize
four main stages recognized. Earliest were events ascribed to God with no
apparent realization of tectonic activity; these are unwitting accounts by its
beneficiaries and victims. Second came tectonic events specifically described
as demonstrations of God’s power, potentially altering history. Third was a
large number of prophetic predictions of tectonic destruction, forming implied
threats for religious manipulation, and last were New Testament visions of tectonism
in connection with the end of the world, itself a sort of super-threat. It was
noted that natural causes of earthquakes were not contemplated in any of these
stages. Indeed it was the mythic context of several of these earthquakes that
persisted through the ancient period into the present day.
A second way to organize the scriptural data on earthquakes
would be based on the time period of writing and incorporation. For the period
of writing itself brings into view the authors themselves and their personal
experiences and biases. The chronology of writing and incorporation is complex
(i.e. several books are of composite origin and age) and somewhat
counterintuitive (table 1). I have used the Wikipedia (“Dating the Bible”)
chronology because it represents current consensus.
Table
1. Era of recording or incorporation of selected Biblical books (columns) and
era of nominal time of event described (rows), showing mention of earthquakes
per se (red)
Era of event or prediction
|
Era of recording or incorporation
|
Early Monarchic
|
Later Monarchic
|
Exilic
|
Post-exilic
|
Pre-monarchic
|
Joshua 1-14
|
|
|
Genesis and other Torah
|
Monarchic
|
Amos, (first)Isaiah
|
I, II Samuel, Psalms 1-89,
I Kings, Jeremiah
|
|
|
Exilic
|
|
|
Ezekiel
|
|
Post-exilic
|
|
|
|
Joel, Haggai, Zechariah
|
The
overall pattern that emerges from this analysis, though well-accepted, has an
inverse aspect. The earliest-written books are those of the prophets Amos, then
(first) Isaiah in the late 8th century B.C. This tradition of prophesy
persisted for over 800 years, long into the post-exilic period, finally into
the New Testament. It consisted essentially of manipulation involving threats
of all sorts of ills especially earthquakes if religious observance did not
improve. The term earthquake occurs throughout this tradition. Beginning with
the authors of the Deuteronomic history (excepting Joshua 1-14 as below), in
the 7th century B.C., the term (sometimes reversed as shaking earth)
enters the vocabulary of Hebrew religious history as well as the prophetic
books.
The book of Genesis and the rest of the Torah, on the other
hand, is post-exilic, composed from several sources, including traditional
ones, but rather late and certainly several millennia after the events
described. Thus it is interesting that the term earthquake does not appear in
the Torah accounts, nor in conjunction with Joshua and Jericho’s conquest,
thought to have been written separately from the rest of the Deuteronomic
histories. It is possible that the original participants did not use the term;
or it is possible that the term did not transmit across the centuries to the
writers. Archaeological evidence strongly suggests, however, that events and
disasters such as Sodom and Gomorrah, Joshua’s crossing of the Jordan, and the
fall of the walls of Jericho had tectonic origins (Neev and Emery 1995, Nur
2008).
With
these results in mind, those of Force (2015) take on a new complexion. It
appears that his first stage, which includes these tectonic events—but not
labeled as such- -were records of oral traditions whose tectonic significance
had long been lost by the time they were recorded (table 1). It is his third
stage of prophetic threats and manipulation that both had the earliest origins,
and emphasize earthquakes per se. So there never was a time of biblical record
when recorders were unaware of earthquakes, indeed some were acutely aware of them,
but events that had already become mythic by the time of recordation were
ascribed to God’s power rather than tectonism.
Of
particular interest is the book of Amos, the earliest-written. The word
earthquake appears in the first verse of the book as an introduction to Amos’
prophesy, which included a forecast of destruction that did occur two years
later. Because this earthquake was so severe, its damage at widespread sites
could be closely dated at 750 B.C. (Austin et al. 2000).
Thus, the zealous prophetic tradition in Judaic culture begins with linkage to an earthquake, and continues with threats of earthquakes throughout Judaic history into the New Testament.
Also of interest is Zechariah 14, which seems to describe
particular fault transport directions for a predicted event in this region (“ .
. . and half of the mountain shall remove to the north, and half of it toward
the south” in KJV), directions that fit those of the Dead Sea rift. It is
thought that this chapter was composed in the 5th century B.C., making it approximately
coeval with the prescient observations of Thucydides (just prior to the
Hellenistic period). Observations linking earthquakes and fault motion had
already been recorded in Zoroastrian literature, however (Berberian, 2014).
God is the direct cause of all of these tectonic
destructions in the Biblical literature, whether or not earthquakes are
described as such. Natural processes are nowhere addressed as possible causes.
Indeed the Hebrew literature continued to avoid the subject of natural causes
into the Talmudic era, even though Greek influence is noted then (Becker 1998).
Conclusions drawn from voluminous Hebraic literature may,
however, apply to the region rather than the culture. We have seen that the
tectonic geology of the region is distinctive. Is it possible that cultural
response to tectonism is correspondingly distinctive? However, Iron-age texts
from other cultures of the region are scarce? For this reason I have looked at
discussions of the late Bronze-Age Ugaritic texts with this question in mind.
In CAT 1.3 III lines 4-31 (pp. 233-234), Smith and Pitard (2009) characterize
Ugaritic treatment of all natural processes as “shamanistic” rather than
“Yahwistic”. In CAT 1.4 VIII lines 1-9 (pp. 711-716) they note that Ugaritic
treatment of the underworld somewhat resembles the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic,
rather than resembling the few Judaic treatments, in which the underworld is
represented only by the grave or the bottom of the sea.
This comparison with Ugaritic texts, though necessarily
sketchy, strongly suggests that the remarkable treatment of earthquakes in
Hebraic literature is due to cultural rather than regional character. Religious
imperatives molded this literature from its beginning, and apparently earthquakes
and other natural events were used as needed.
CONCLUSIONS
The
contrast between ancient Greek and Judaic texts with regard to earthquakes is
stark. Earthquakes in the Greek literature were treated as pivotal phenomena to
be discussed, and to be endured as part of life. Discussion was largely
secular, and pervasive throughout the culture. Treatment in the context of
their polytheistic religion faded in favor of a search for natural causes. Earthquakes
as significant gateways to the underworld is characteristic.
Hebraic/Judaic treatment of earthquakes is relatively
monotonic as acts of God, driven by relentless monotheists. Indeed its prophetic tradition was initiated by an earthquake and the earthquake theme continued in its zealous literature for hundreds of years. Neither a search
for natural causes nor curiosity about the underworld appears in it.
Both strains of thought about earthquakes persist in our
modern world, perhaps inevitably as both Greek and Hebraic thought are
foundations thereof.
Acknowledgements
Ed
Wright and Matt Winter contributed thoughts for the Judaic/Hebrew parts, and Jeremy
Rutter for the Hellenic part.
REFERENCES
Austin,
S. A., Franz, G. W., and Frost, E. G., 2000, Amos’s earthquake: an
extraordinary Middle East seismic event of 750 B.C.: International Geology
Review v. 42, p. 657-671.
Becker,
Hans-Jurgen, 1998, Earthquakes, insects, miracles, and the order of nature, in
Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman culture v. 1, Peter Schafer, ed., p.
387-396: Mohr-siebeck, Tubingen.
Berberian,
M., 2014, Earthquakes and coseismic surface faulting on the Iranian plateau: a
historical, social, and physical approach: Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Force,
E. R., 2015, Impact of tectonic activity on ancient civilizations: recurrent
shakeups, tenacity, resilience, and change: Lexington
Neev,
D., and Emery, K.O., 1967, The Dead Sea: Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin
41.
------1995,
The destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho: geological, climatological,
and archaeological background: Oxford
Nur,
A., 2008, Apocalypse: Princeton
Polimenakos,
L. C., 1996, Thoughts on the perception of the earthquake in Greek antiquity p.
253-260, in Archaeoseismology, British School at Athens Occasional paper 7.
Reilinger,
R. E., and 8 others, 1997, Global Positioning System measurements of
present-day crustal movements in the Arabia-Africa-Eurasia plate collision
zone: Journal of Geophysical Researh v. 102 B5 p. 9983-9999.
Robinson,
A., 2016, Earth-shattering events: Thames and Hudson
Smith,
M. S. and Pitard, W. T., 2009 The Ugaritic Baal Cycle v. II: Brill, Leiden.
Pp. 233-4 (CAT 1.3 III lines 4-31) Ugaritic treatment of nature more
shamanistic than “Yahwistic”
Pp. 711-716 (CAT 1.4 VIII lines 1-9) underworld in the style of older regional
treatments cf. Gilgamesh. Compared to Job (7:9) and Jonah (2:7) in which
underworld is the grave and sea-bottom respectively.
Soter,
S., 1998, Uplift and subsidence of the Helike delta, in Coastal Tectonics, I.
Stewart and C. Vita-Finzi, eds.: p. 41-56, Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 146.
Stewart,
I. S., and Hancock, P. L., 1988, Normal fault zone evolution and fault-scarp
degradation in the Aegean region: Basin Research v. 1, p. 139-153
Wikipedia,
xxxx, Dating the Bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
Fig. 1 after Reilinger et al. (1997). Simplified tectonic map of the eastern Mediterranean region. Solid lines are strike-slip faults, ticked lines are normal faults, and lines with trianges are thrust faults. Dashed lies are international boundaries
