BY NO MEANS MILD QUAKE(S)

March 756 CE

by Jefferson Williams

Introduction & Summary

The By No Means Mild earthquake gets its name because in some translations of Theophanes he describes it as an earthquake that was "by no means mild". Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, who appears to be a contemporaneous source, describes the same earthquake but provides more details than Theophanes - stating that three villages on the north Mesopotamian Khabur River collapsed and many other places in Jazira were destroyed. Theophanes merely specifies that the earthquake struck Syria and Palestine. The earthquake likely struck in March 756 CE. Although calendaric inconsistencies in Thephanes' entry indicate it could have struck in the years 756, 757, 758, or, less likely, 759 CE, Halley's comet appeared in 760 CE and was described by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre and Theophanes 4 years after their earthquake accounts - thus fixing the date of this earthquake to 756 CE. There is a slight disagreement between Pseudo-Dionysius and Theophanes on the exact day. Pseudo-Dionysius says it struck on the 3rd of March while Theophanes says it struck on the 9th. Pseudo-Dionysius also says that it struck in the middle of the night and on a Tuesday. Arabic sources speak of an earthquake which struck around 756 CE in Mopsuestia which could be related to the event described by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre and Theophanes. There is also a Muslim tradition that the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem was destroyed by an earthquake that, based on textual sources, struck between 754 and 785 CE although a more likely date range may be between 754 and 775 CE. Although some have attributed this seismic destruction to the By No Means Mild Quake, this attribution has two problems. The epicentral region that can be derived from Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre's account seems too far away to have destroyed Al Aqsa and the date for the By No Means Mild Quake may be too early.

Intensity Estimates

Textual Evidence

Text (with hotlink)	Original Language	Biographical Info	Religion	Date of Composition	Location Composed	Notes
Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre	Syriac	Biography	Eastern Christian	750-775 CE	Zuqnin Monastery	Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre described a powerful, terrible and dreadful earthquake on Tuesday 3 March 756 CE which took place in the middle of the night in the land of the Jazira. Three villages on the Khabur collapsed, and many people perished inside them, like grapes in a wine press. Many other places were also destroyed by this earthquake. 3 March 756 CE fell on a Wednesday.
Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, Theophanes, and the Comet of 760 CE						Halley's Comet appeared in May and June of 760 CE and was both observed and recorded by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre and Theophanes. This precise time marker can be used to anchor the year of the By No Means Mild Quake in both accounts to 756 CE.
Article by Neuhauser et al (2021) on the Comet of 760 CE						Neuhauser et al (2021) identified Halley's Comet (1P/Halley) as the comet described by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre (Chronicle of Zuqnin), Theophanes, Agapius of Menbj, Nu'aym ibn Ḥammmad, Michael the Syrian, and Chinese, Japanese and Korean sources. They performed astronomical calculations (least squares fitting of Keplerian orbital solutions) to fit "corrected" historical reports paying close attention to the month and day of astronomical observations in the sources. Despite chronological inconsistencies (year and month) among the various sources (possibly due to scribal errors) which they had to "correct", they identified the comet as 1P/Halley and obtained a precise perihelion time (760 May 19.1 ± 1.7) and an inferior conjunction between the comet and Sun (June 1.8) which is about one day different from a previously published orbit (760 May 31.9, Yeomans and Kiang, 1981). Based on their orbital model and philological arguments, Neuhauser et al (2021:7) suggest that Pseudo-Dionysius drew the comet, 3 stars (Ari), and two planets (Mars and Saturn) in his text in the early morning (before sunrise) on 25 May 760 CE.
Theophanes	Greek	Biography	Orthodox (Byzantium)	800-814 CE	Vicinity of Constantinople	Theophanes (c. 758/60-817/8) wrote that on 9 March 756 CE an earthquake that was by no means mild struck Palestine and Syria.
al-Masudi	Arabic	Biography	Muslim - Shi’ite	mid-10th century CE	Egypt ?	al-Masudi wrote that Caliph al-Mahdi (r. 775-785 CE) rebuilt Jerusalem, which had been devastated by earthquakes
Description of Syria including Palestine by al-Maqdisi	Arabic	Biography	Muslim	ca. 985 CE	Jerusalem ?	al-Maqdisi wrote that earthquakes threw down the main building of Al Aqsa Mosque, except for the Mihrab, in the days of the Abbasids (who began their rule on 25 Jan. 750 CE). The Caliph of the day financed rebuilding by having each Governor build a colonnade.
al-Maqdisi	Arabic	Biography	Muslim	ca. 985 CE	Jerusalem ?	haven't yet accessed this text
Ibn al-Athir	Arabic	Biography	Sunni Muslim	~ 1200 - 1231 CE	Mosul	Poirier and Taher (1980) list Ibn al-Athir as a source for an earthquake in AH 140 (25 May 757 to 13 May 758 CE) in Msis (Mopsuestia).
Ibn al-Adim (aka Kemal ad-Din)	Arabic	Biography	Muslim	before 1260 CE	Aleppo or Cairo	Ibn al-Adim (aka Kemal ad-Din) wrote that Masisah (Mopsuestia) suffered from the earthquake of the year A.H. 140 (25 May 757 - 13 May 758 CE).
Earthquake in Mopsuestia in A.H. 139 according to an unknown Muslim source	Arabic		Muslim			Le Strange (1905:130-131), without citing a source, wrote that Massisah (Mopsuestia) had been partially destroyed by earthquake in [A.H.] 139 (5 June 756 to 24 May 757 CE).
Jamal ad Din Ahmad	Arabic	Biography	Muslim	1351 CE	Jerusalem ?	Account Jamal ad Din Ahmad wrote that the western and eastern parts of Al Aqsa mosque were damaged during the earthquake of A.H. 130. Caliph Al-Mansur (r. 754-775 CE ordered repairs made. The repairs were financed by stripping plates of silver and gold which had covered the Mosque's doors. A subsequent earthquake caused the repaired mosque to fall to the ground. The mosque was still in ruins when Caliph Al-Mahdi (r. 775-785 CE) ordered a rebuild but to different dimensions.
Mujir al-Din	Arabic	Biography	Hanbali Sunni Muslim	ca. 1495 CE	Jerusalem	Account Mujir al-Din described an earthquake which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque in A.H. 130 (11 Sept. 747 - 30 Aug. 748 CE) which led to a repair during the reign of Caliph Al-Mansur (ruled 754-775 CE). A second undated earthquake is described as destroying the repaired Mosque leading to a second reconstruction to different dimensions during the reign of Caliph Al-Mahdi (ruled 775-785 CE).
Text (with hotlink)	Original Language	Biographical Info	Religion	Date of Composition	Location Composed	Notes

Chronicle of Zuqnin by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Harrak (1999)

Part 4
from Harrak (1999:197)
Map showing the location of the Khabur River

Syria 2004 CIA map

Wikipedia - קרלוס הגדול - CC BY-SA 3.0

755-756 The year one thousand and sixty-seven: In the month of Adar (March), on the third day — a Tuesday — a powerful, terrible and dreadful earthquake took place in the middle of the night in the land of the Jazira. Three villages on the Khabur collapsed, and many people perished inside them, like grapes in a wine press. Many other places were also destroyed by this earthquake, brought on by the great number of our sins:

The earth shall totter exceedingly,
the earth shall shake violently,
and it shall sway like a hut.²

This is what our sins are able to do: to shake the ground beneath us!

Footnotes

2 Isaiah 24:19-20

Syriac - embedded

not bookmarked
from archive.org

Chronology

Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
middle of the night 2 or 3 March 756 CE	The year one thousand and sixty-seven: In the month of Adar (March), on the third day — a Tuesday ... in the middle of the night i.e., Tuesday 3 Adar (March) A.G. 1067	none	calculated for Macedonian reckoning using CHRONOS Adar corresponds exactly to March 3 Adar (March) 756 CE fell on a Wednesday (calculated using CHRONOS) If Babylonian reckoning is used, the date comes out to 3 March 757 CE which fell on a Thursday (calculated using CHRONOS)

Seismic Effects

Three villages on the Khabur collapsed, and many people perished inside them, like grapes in a wine press.

Syria 2004 CIA map

Wikipedia - קרלוס הגדול - CC BY-SA 3.0
Many other places were also destroyed by this earthquake

Locations

on the Khabur
Many other places

Sources

Sources according to Harrak (1999)

Part 3

Harrak (1999:28) discussed sources in Part 3

The sources of Part III have already been identified by Witakowski,² and they are given in the footnotes of the present translation where appropriate. The second part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus is the major source of Part III.³ ... Thus in Part III, our Chronicler was a mere copyist, writing down existing statements even in the first person.

Footnotes

2 Witakowski, OrSu 40 (1991) pp. 252ff.

3 See Van Ginkel, John of Ephesus: A Monophysite Historian in Sixth-Century Byzantium

Part 4

Harrak (1999:28-32) discussed sources in Part 4

In the introduction to Part IV, he bemoans the fact that he was unable to find "reliable" sources dealing with the period between A.D. 586, which ends the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus, and the year A.D. 775, "apart from some bits and pieces". Despite the Chronicler's claim that he used few sources, Conrad has recently suggested that Part IV is a composition of four layers, each composed by a different author.^6a In support of his conclusion, Conrad noticed two misplaced events within the chronological frame of Part IV, the first being the earthquake in Edessa of 717-718, which was placed after the entry for the year 731-732, and the second being the shooting stars episode of 742-743, which was placed after the account of the year 748-749. In these misplacements as well as in the Chronicler's supposed mistranslations of the Arabism musawwadah (even though he knew Arabic),^1b Conrad saw a change of authors.

The reasons Conrad gives for his conclusion that Part IV is comprised of four layers are open to question.^2b First, misplacing events is a common phenomenon in Part IV, even in the section which has been assigned to the Chronicler by common scholarly consent (see below).^3b So, for example, the event of 760-761 (the rebuilding of Malatya of Cappadocia by the Arabs) was placed after an event in 763-764 (epidemic of horses). The flood of the Tigris which occurred in 762-763 was placed after 764-765, the year in which Severus, Bishop of Amida, died. This lack of concern for precise chronological sequence cannot be ascribed to a change of author or authors but must be attributed to the Chronicler himself, who, furthermore, explicitly states in his introduction that he was unconcerned about such trivia: "It is of no consequence to intelligent and God-fearing people if an event is dated one year earlier or one or two years later ..."^4b This unorthodox practice of our Chronicler is vividly pointed up by parallel accounts in Syriac, Greek and Arabic, which have been noted in the present translation, and which offer dates of events often at variance with the Chronicler's.

Second, the Chronicler clearly understood the Arabism musawwadah, despite the fact that he partially mistranslated it. In the passage where we find the Arabism, he writes as follows about the 'Abbasids: "All their clothes were black ... and for this reason they were called musawwadah."^5b Yet, he failed to give a literal translation of this Arabism into Syriac, translating it simply "black" instead of "black-cloaked", as did Theophanes, the 9th-century Byzantine historian, who more aptly translated it as [Greek text].^6b Near the end of his work, our Chronicler committed a genuine mistake, when he confused an Arabic case ending, by rendering Arabic 'yn fin 'bny flny instead of 'yn fin 'bnw flny "where is so-and-so son of so-and-so?".^7b

Although it is not possible to determine precisely at what point in Part IV we should begin speaking of the Chronicler's uniquely personal contribution, one can start at least from folio 128 onward. In this folio the Chronicler wrote about the death of the Ummayad Caliph Hisham and the political upheaval that followed it; he dated these events to S. 1055 (A.D. 743-744). He then wrote an account about a famine and a bubonic plague that occurred in Syria in the year Hisham died. It is revealing that in his description of the mid-8th-century plague, the Chronicler used the lengthy narrative of John of Ephesus about the Great Plague of Justinian's reign as a model. Though he had previously copied verbatim the account of John of Ephesus for Part III of his Chronicle, in Part IV, the Chronicler reproduced John's outline, leading ideas, and individual expressions, including even the jeremiad, from John's account of the Great Plague. In other words, John's account was used by our Chronicler as a kind of mould into which he poured his own information about the plague that occurred during his own lifetime.

...

In light of the various pieces of information we have been able to uncover, the Chronicler seems to have composed the history of the period between 743 and 775. The fact that in 775 A.D. he wrote from memory about events dated as early as 743 A.D. means that his contribution covered the history of at least 32 years, using oral and personal information. This span of time is well within the range of human memory. The early section of Part IV, comprising events dated to the 7th and early 8th centuries, may well be based on written sources of some kind, as well as on oral tales about holy men. The written items were mostly lists of dates that furnished the Chronicler with conflicting data, about which he himself complains, as we have noted above. Palmer has given some indication as to the nature of the sources from which the Chronicler drew information about the 7th century,^1c but nothing more can be said about their authors.

In addition to the scant written sources and oral traditions used in the early portion of Part IV, the Chronicler had recourse to "old people" and other eyewitnesses, including himself, as sources of information for most of Part IV. This explains why his information is so plentiful and often very detailed. Sometimes he explicitly refers to his oral sources^1d and at least on one occasion hints at his personal skepticism, when he valiantly attempts to justify their testimony. Such is the case of the rainbow reported to have been seen by some, turned upside down. The Chronicler felt obliged to add the note: "If someone does not want to believe this matter, let him search in the preceding chapters where he will find an occurrence just like it."^2d He also discloses when and where he was himself witness to an event, as in the following passage dealing with Christians who apostatised to Islam: "I was in Edessa at this time for some event that took place there ... "^3d

Some 58 folios out of the 179 of Codex Zuqninensis were devoted to the writing Part IV of the Chronicle. To write his own personal contribution, the Chronicler filled 51 out of the 58 folios of Part IV. In other words, nearly 29% of the entire Chronicle and almost 88% of Part IV is the author's own contribution.

Footnotes

6a Conrad, "Syriac Perspectives on Bilad al-Sham During the Abbasid Period," 24-26.

1b See below p. 179. 2

2b Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw it, chapter 8, also expressed doubt about Conrad's conclusion.

3b Tisserant noticed the same phenomenon in other parts of the Chronicle; Codex, xii. 4

4b See below p. 139. 5

5b See below p. 179. 6

6b See below p. 178 n. 1.

7b See below p. 330 and n. 11.

1c See Palmer, The seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, 69f.

1d See below p. 212. 2

2d See below p. 213. The earlier information is found in Chabot, Chronicon I, 263:20-21 and Chronicon II, 4:7-12 (below p. 39).

3d See below p. 328.

Background Information

Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre vs. Dionysius of Tell-Mahre

Annals by Dionysius of Tell-Mahre and Annals by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre are not the same work nor were they composed by the same author. Annals by Dionysius of Tell-Mahre is largely lost. It only exists in fragments. Annals by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre is extant. Annals by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre is also known as the Chronicle of Zuqnin as it is thought to have been composed by a monk at the monastery of Zuqnin before it was falsley attributed to Dionysius of Tell-Mahre - hence the reason why the author is referred to as Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre. To complicate matters further, Chabot (1895) published a French translation of Annals by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre which he mistakenly titled Annals by Dionysius of Tell-Mahre. Well, it was actually titled Annals by Denys of Tell-Mahre which is another name for Dionysius of Tell-Mahre.

Online Versions and Further Reading

Online versions including the supposed autograph (original copy)

The sole surviving manuscript at the Vatican (Cod. Vat. 162) - This manuscript is claimed by some to be the autograph - the first draft of the manuscript. No further recension, or copy, is known.

Annals Part by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre in Syriac at archive.org

References

Harrak (2017:xvi) notes major sources identified in Parts I and II of the Zugnin Chronicle had been discussed in great detail by Witakowski.

Witakowski, Study, p. 124-135

Witakowski, "The Sources of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre for the Second Part of his Chronicle," in J.O. Rosenqvist (ed.), AEIMΩN Studies Presented to Lennart Ryden on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Uppsala, 1996), pp. 181-210

Witakowski, "Sources of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre for the Christian Epoch of the First Part of his Chronicle," in G.J. Reinink and A.C. Klugkist (eds.), After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Department Oosterse Studies, 1999), pp. 329-366.

text in original Syriac

The sole surviving manuscript (Cod. Vat. 162) at the Vatican - online and open access

Manuscript Cod. Vat. 162 is claimed by some to be the autograph - the first draft of the manuscript. No further recension, or copy, is known. Neuhäuser et al. (2021:4) notes that:

the text survived in one manuscript of 173 folios located as Codex Zugninensis at the Vatican Library (Vat. Syr. 162), and the remaining six folios are found in the British Library (Add. 14.665 folio 2-7); in Codex Zugninensis, 129 folios are palimpsest, one even a double-palimpsest (Harrak, 1999). Some of the folios in the British Library which cover the last years are partly worm-eaten and very fragmentary. Its first and last folios are lost together with the name of the author (Harrak, 1999). The Chronicle is divided into four parts, all translated to English (Harrak, 1999, 2017) and French (Chabot, 1895).

Neuhäuser et al. (2021:4) adds:

The Chronicle of Zugnin is not known to be copied and disseminated; sometime during the 9th century it was transferred to the Monastery of the Syrians in the Egyptian desert; see Section 4b for a possible use by Nu'aym ibn Hammad. Shortly after the manuscript was found and bought for the Vatican, it was considered to be written by the West Syrian patriarch Dionysius I of Tell-Mahire, so that this chronicle was long known as Chronicle of Dionysius of Tell-Mabre (Assemani, 1719-1728).

Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre at syri.ac

Wikipedia page for the Zunqin Chronicle - many links and references

Notes

Date and Day of the Week

Pseudo-Dionysius states that the earthquake struck on a Tuesday in the middle of the night on the 3rd of Adar in what appears to be 756 CE. When one makes Julian day calculations to arrive at the day of the week, 3 Adar (March) 756 CE falls on a Wednesday. This calculation is valid for Universal Time - i.e. the time in Greenwich, England - the same time zone as London. Northern Syria and Mesopotamia are 2 or 3 hours ahead of London depending on location (longitude). Below is a table of days of the week in Universal Time for 3 March (Pseudo-Dionysius) and 9 March (Theophanes) in 756 and 757 CE. Days began at sundown in the Syriac version of the A.G. calendar used by Pseudo-Dionysius (Sebastian Brock, personal communication 2022).

Date	Day of the Week
3 March 756 CE	Wednesday
3 March 757 CE	Thursday
9 March 756 CE	Tuesday
9 March 757 CE	Wednesday

Apparently, by the 4th Century CE, the days of the week were shared across all groups in the Roman empire despite their using different calendars. This habit apparently continued long after the Western Roman Empire fell at the end of the 5th century CE. The fourmilab converter was used to construct the table.

Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, Theophanes, and the Comet of 760 CE

Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre drew a picture of a comet in 760 CE which suggests that Harrak (1999) is correct that Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre is a contemporaneous source. This also assists in deciphering the chronology of the By No Means Mild Quake. In Pseudo-Dionysius' entry for A.G. 1071, we can read in Harrak (1999:198)'s translation:

759-760 The year one thousand and seventy-one: In the month of Adar (March), a shining sign was seen in the sky¹ before dawn on the northeast side which is called Ram in the Zodiac, to the north of the three most shining stars. Its shape resembled a broom. On the twenty-second day of the month, it was still in the Ram at its head, in the first degree (of the Zodiac circle), the second after the wandering stars Kronos and Ares,² somehow slightly to the south. The sign remained for fifteen nights, to the eve of the Pentecost feast. At one of its ends, which was narrow and more shining^*³ a star was seen and was turning toward the North. The other side, which was large and darker, was turning toward the South. The sign was moving little by little toward the Northeast. This was its form (Vat.sir.162 137r-136v):

Left - original drawing of a comet in 760 CE by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre (Vat.sir.162 137r-136v)

Right - redrawn comet by Harrak (1999:198)

On the eve of the third day after Pentecost^*, the sign was seen again in the evening in the Northwest, and it remained for twenty five evenings. It moved little by little to the South and then it disappeared. Then it reappeared in the southwest, where it remained in this way for many days.

During this time, many schisms took place in the church because of leadership. The eastern monasteries made John Patriarch, while neither the cities of the Jazira nor all the monasteries approved him. The people of the West and Mosul approved George. Because of this the entire Church became troubled.⁴

Footnotes

1 A brief mention in Theophanes 431: A.M. 6252 (760-761).

2 Following Ptolemy, the ancients believed that there were seven "wandering stars", Syriac | | (i.e. planets): The Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars (=Ares), Jupiter and Saturn (= Kronos), all revolving around the earth.

3 | | : See Manna, Dalil, 54, for its meaning.

4 See above pp. 193ff and 216ff.

Hayakawa et al (2017:11-12) suggests that this was a description of Halley's comet.

This should be the record of Halley’s Comet, which has an orbital period of about 75 years. According to Yeomans and Kiang (1981), Halley’s Comet was at perihelion on day 20.671 (UT) of May 760 CE. The comet was also observed by Chinese astronomers. There is a record in JiùTángshū (旧唐书), one of the official histories of the Táng Dynasty, stating that the comet was first observed on May 16, 760 CE within Aries and continued to be visible for about 50 days (JiùTángshū (旧唐书), Astronomy II: p. 1324). The observed period and the association with Aries are consistent between the Chinese and the Syriac records.

The discrepancy in months was discussed by Hayakawa et al (2017:11)

Firstly, we discuss its date and time. According to the text, the event was in the month ādār (March), so it should be March of 760 CE. The event was first seen on the 22nd of the month, remained 15 nights until the dawn of the Pentecost feast, appeared again on the third day after Pentecost, and remained another 25 days. From the text, it is also clear that the event was seen during the night. The time and the duration of the event as well as its shape, which we discuss below, are consistent with the interpretation that it was a large comet. The date of the event, on the other hand, is rather confusing. It is written that this event was seen on March 22 and lasted 15 nights up to the eve of Pentecost, but the date of the Pentecost of that year is May 25 (Grumel, 1958), so it cannot be 15 nights after March 22. A probable explanation for this inconsistency is a miswriting of May
ܐܝܪ(eyar)
as March
‫ܐܕܪ(adar)
in the manuscript as there only one letter difference between them in the Syriac letter system. After a short break, this event reappeared on the eve of the third day after Pentecost and lasted another 25 nights. Thus, we conclude that this event started around 22 May 760 CE and lasted until early July of 760 CE.

If we accept that Pseudo-Dionysius dates this to May, the Macedonian reckoning gives the correct year consistent with what Sebastian Brock (personal communication - 2021) relates - that Macedonian reckoning with a New Year starting on 1 October would be the standard for Syriac sources of the time.

Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
760 CE	A.G. 1071	none	Macedonian Reckoning dates A.G. 1071 to 1 October 759 - 30 September 760 CE
761 CE	A.G. 1071	none	Babylonian Reckoning dates A.G. 1071 to 2 April 760 - 1 April 761 CE

Pseudo-Dionysius dates the By No Means Mild Quake to 3 Adar A.G. 1067 which is 4 years earlier than A.G. 1071 (760 CE). This dates the earthquake to the 3rd of Adar in 756 CE - according to Pseudo-Dionysius. Theophanes also mentions the comet in his A.M._a 6252 entry which is also 4 years after his earthquake account in A.M._a 6248. In Mango and Scott (1997:596-597)'s translation (Turtledove's translation is available here), we can read Theophanes' description of the comet

[A.M. 6252, AD 759/60]

Constantine, 20th year

Abdelas, 6th year

Paul, 6th year

Constantine, 7th year

...
II In the same year a very bright comet appeared for ten days in the east and another twenty-one days in the west. II

Theophanes' regnal years and his A.M._a dates are all consistently 4 years apart from the comet of 760 CE. Thus, it would appear that Halley's comet of 760 CE also fixes Theophanes earthquake date to 756 CE. By extension, this also indicates that Theophanes' date for the Talking Mule Quake (one of the Sabbatical Year Quakes) in A.M._a 6241 places that earthquake in 749 CE.

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Cook, D. (1999). "A Survey of Muslim Material on Comets and Meteors." Journal for the History of Astronomy 30(2): 131-160. - open access

Hayakawa, H., et al. (2016). "The earliest drawings of datable auroras and a two-tail comet from the Syriac Chronicle of Zuqnin." Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 69. - open access

Neuhäuser, D. L., et al. (2021). "Orbit determination just from historical observations? Test case: The comet of AD 760 is identified as 1P/Halley." Icarus 364: 114278. - open access

Notes

Easter and Pentecost in 760 CE

Grumel (1958:310) lists the Easter date as Sunday 6 April in 760 CE. Since the Pentecost is exactly 7 weeks after Easter, this would indicate that the Pentecost was on Sunday 25 May in 760 CE.

Julian Calendar in 760 CE

Neuhauser et al (2021:7) report that the text of Pseudo-Dionysius reports that "the white sign" (i.e. the comet) was seen for "15 nights until dawn of the feast of Pentecost". Pentecost takes place on a Sunday and in AG 1071, most Christian churches (including churches under the Byzantine Patriarchate) celebrated Pentecost on 760 May 25, but some eastern churches celebrated Pentecost one week later on June 1 (Neuhauser et al, 2021:7). This, according to Neuhauser et al (2021:7), is further evidence that Iyyar (May) was the correct month for the comet not Adar (March).

Neuhauser et al (2021:7) further noted that:

The reason for the two different Pentecost (and Easter) dates in AD 760 is the difference between two ecclesiastical Easter calendars: in AD 760, the first computed (cyclic) full moon after the start of spring (defined for March 21 at the AD 325 Council of Nicaea) was on Saturday Apr 5 according to the 532-year cycle constructed by Irion in AD 562 for the Byzantine Patriarchate (based on a previous 200-year cycle by Andreas of Byzantium for AD 353-552), so that the Byzantines celebrated Easter on Apr 6 (like also the Roman church following the 532-year Easter calendar by Dionysius Exiguus starting in AD 532), while the Armenian, Jacobite, and Nestorian churches followed a different 532-year Easter table, namely the Armenian scholar Anania Siralcaci's (AD 610-685) reform (early AD 660ies) of Andreas' Easter table, according to which the paschal full moon in AD 760 would be on Sunday Apr 6, so that Easter has to be dated Apr 13 (see Sanjian, 1966, Mosshammer, 2008, pp. 257-277). This dispute is also reflected in the Chronicle of Zuqnin (Harrak, 1999):
The year (SE) 1070: Lent was confused. Some of the Easterners introduced Lent on the 18th of: Sebat (Feb) and ended it on the 6th of Islisdn (Apr). Others introduced Lent on the 25th of Sebat (Feb) and ended it on the 13th of Nisan (Apr). All of the Christians were confused, when in one place they celebrated Easter, in another place Palm Sunday; in one place it was Passion week, in another place Easter.
(With the above expression "some of the Easterners" for the other churches, our author probably refereed to the Byzantine Patriarchate or other churches west of the Euphrates.)

Our Chronicle reported the Easter dating problem for SE 1070, i.e. AD 758/9; in AD 759, Easter Sunday was on April 22, in AD 760 on April 6 or 13 (see above); hence, the above given end date of lent (Apr 6 or 13) points to AD 760; the given introduction of lent on Feb 18 or 25 would be a Monday in 760, i.e. the correct weekday for the start of lent in the Syriac churches (where there is no Ash Wednesday). There is also a brief mention of this problem by Theophanes, who dates it to AD 760. Hence, all the evidence points to AD 760 for the report on the Easter dating problem misdated to AD 759 in the Chronicle of Zuqnin. The same problem also happened in AD 570 and 665 (Mosshammer, 2008, pp. 276-277).¹⁴

The monastery of Zuqnin belonged to the Syriac Orthodox church, informally known as the Jacobite Church; this is known, because our chronicler listed bishops and patriarchs, which were also listed by the 12th century Michael the Syrian (e.g. Chabot, 1899-1910), who clearly identified them as to belong to the Syriac Orthodox patriarchate (Jacobite). Hence, it is clear that Easter was on Apr 13 and Pentecost on June 1 at the monastery of Zuqnin: since it is reported that the comet was seen "for fifteen nights, until dawn of the feast of Pentecost", it was first detected on May 18 "before early twilight". This is well consistent with the fact that the Chinese sources give May 17 for the first detection (Section 3.1).

Footnotes

14 The Chronicle of Zuqnin does not report any Easter dating problems for AD 570 nor 665; this problem, called "crazatik" or "Erroneous Easter", was resolved only in AD 1824 (Mosshammer, 2008, p. 277). Our Chronicle narrates one other Easter confusion for SE 857 (i.e. Easter AD 546, but correct year is AD 547, see Mosshammer, 200E, p. 256), when three different dates for lent and Easter are mentioned to have been followed by different parts of the population. For a discussion of the Easter problem and Easter tables, see McCluskey (1998, pp. 84-87) and for the Eastern churches also Sanjian (1966) and Mosshammer (2008).

Description of the Comet as a "white sign" or "broom"

The comet described by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre is not explicitly described as a comet in the text. Rather, it is referred to variously as "the white sign" or "broom". Neuhauser et al (2021:7-8) provided the following for why they viewed as a description of a comet:

2.4. The "white sign" as comet Criteria

In transmitted texts on celestial transients, using a pheno-typical description, it is often uncertain which kind of celestial phenomenon is meant: in our text the phenomenon is not called "comet", and even if it would be called that way, it may still be uncertain whether a comet in today's sense is meant. Five criteria are developed (timing, position/di-rection, colour/form, motion/dynamics, and duration/repetition) for various kinds of celestial phenomena, see, e.g., Neuhauser and Neuhauser (2015a) and D.L. Neuhauser et al. (2018a) for criteria for aurora borealis and D.L. Neuhauser et al. (2018b) for meteor showers (and aurorae).

The "white sign" or "broom" reported in the Chronicle of Zurinin fulfils all five criteria for comets:

timing, observed at night-time or twilight: "before early twilight", "fifteen nights", "at evening time", "twenty-five evenings", and stars and planets are mentioned (and shown in the drawing)

Position of first and/or last sighting: often close to Sun, in or near the ecliptic: "before early twilight, in the north-east" "seen again at evening time, from the north-west", and "in the Zodiac [sign] which is called Aries (emro)"; also tail direction away from the Sun: "[at] its one end/tip, the narrow one, a very bright star (kawkbo) was seen at its head/end/tip. And it was tilting to the north side, but the other wide and very dark one was tilting to the south side"

colour and form (extension): "white sign", "resembled in its shape a broom", the white broom points to the comet dust tail appearing white due to reflection of sunlight (while the plasma tail would appear bluish and much fainter)

dynamics, i.e. moving on sky relative to the stars: first "north from these three stars", "it was going bit by bit to the North-East", seen until Pentecost (June 1 morning), then again soon later after conjunction with the Sun, "it was seen again from the north-west", "it was going bit by bit to the south", etc.

duration: "remained for fifteen nights", "remained for twenty-five evenings", etc.

Furthermore, our Chronicler connects the sighting of this transient object as negative portent with unfortunate events (e.g. "many schisms"), as was not unusual at this time.

Celestial nomenclature in the Chronicle of Zuqnin

Neuhauser et al (2021:8) provided the following on the nomenclature of celectial objects in the Chronicle of Zuqnin:

2.5. Nomenclature of transient celestial objects

The Chronicle of Zugnin describes the object of AD 760 as "white sign" and as kawwbo ("star") with or in the shape of a "broom" (for kawkbo, see Section 2.2), but it did not use the Syriac term nayzko — usually translated with "comet", literally meaning "short spear" or "lance"; maybe, the term used here by our Chronicler is motivated by the real form of the phenomenon on sky resembling more a broom than a lance.

Our Chronicler also called an object reported for AD 768/9 (probably 770 May) "sign in the likeness of a broom", also a comet in today's sense (Harrak, 1999, pp. 226/7). For the 6th century, the Chronicle of Zuqnin describes three objects as both kawkbO and nayzko (Harrak, 1999, p. 136, n. 5), for the first two it is explicitly mentioned that they are called "kometes" by the Greek (e.g. Harrak, 1999, p. 93) — the term "kometes" is taken from its source, the otherwise mostly lost Chronicle of John of Ephesus (based on John Malalas).

The author of the Chronicle of Zuqnin should have noticed that all these objects are of the same class (comet in our sense) given similar drawings. Greek terms like "kometes" may have been outmoded in the `Abbasid caliphate, but acceptable when used in quotation. The terms nayzko in Syriac, nayzak in Arabic, and "kometes" in Greek formerly all meant the same — not only a comet in today's sense, but more generally a transient, extended celestial object; bright supernovae were sometimes also called "kometes" or nayzak, as they appeared to be extended due to strong scintilation, see R. Neuhauser et al. (2016).

Halley's Comet (Wikipedia)

Wikipedia entry for Halley's Comet

Article by Neuhauser et al (2021) on the Comet of 760 CE

Introduction and Summary

Neuhauser et al (2021) identified Halley's Comet (1P/Halley) as a comet described by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre (Chronicle of Zuqnin), Theophanes, Agapius of Menbj, Nu'aym ibn Ḥammmad, Michael the Syrian, and Chinese, Japanese and Korean sources. They performed astronomical calculations (least squares fitting of Keplerian orbital solutions) to fit "date corrected" historical reports paying close attention to the position and locations of celestial objects described in the sky by Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre and Chinese sources. Despite chronological inconsistencies (month and year) among the sources (possibly due to scribal errors) which they had to "correct", they identified the comet as 1P/Halley and obtained a precise perihelion time (760 May 19.1 ± 1.7) and an inferior conjunction between the comet and Sun (June 1.8) which is about one day different from a previously published orbit (760 May 31.9, Yeomans and Kiang, 1981). Based on their orbital model, philological arguments, and the way the drawing is embedded in the text, Neuhauser et al (2021:7) suggest that Pseudo-Dionysius drew the comet, 3 stars (Ari aka Aries), and two planets (Mars and Saturn) from an observation made in the early morning (~3 am ?) on 25 May 760 CE. Their reconstruction of the night sky when and where they suggest the comet was drawn is shown below (Fig. 2) along with a reproduction of the drawing and text by Pseudo-Dionysius (Fig. 1).

Fig. 2 - A comparison with Fig. 1 shows that the original drawing is for a date around 760 May 25 in the early morning (2:40 h local time, 0 h UT): both Sun (NE) and Moon were under the horizon at that time, 1P/Halley was ~7° above the NE horizon. IAU constellations are indicated in black, the ecliptic in orange with dots at the borders of zodiacal signs. The planets Mars (0.7 mag, red dot) and Saturn (0.5 mag, yellow dot) are still close to each other. The position of the comet is indicated on our own new (green) orbit (and as grey cross on the old orbit, JPL, YK81); both orbits start on May 17. The drawing (Fig. 1) was not used for orbital reconstruction. Here and in all other figures, the comet plasma tail pointing away from the Sun is displayed, while observation and drawing regard the dust tail. This and all other such figures are drawn with Cartes du Ciel (v3.10).

Fig. 1 - Syriac text and drawing: The relevant Syriac text from the Chronicle of Zuqnın (finished AD 775/6) on the comet AD 760 (1P/Halley) – from the middle of the first line shown to the middle of the last line – with a drawing embedded in the text (Vatican Library, Vat. Syr. 162, folio 136v): the comet to the left, the three brightest stars of Aries (α, β, and γ Aries) in the center, and the planets Mars and Saturn as Ares and Kronos to the right, as identified in the Syriac caption. The drawing fits best for around May 25 given the relative position of Ares/Mars east (left) of Kronos/Saturn, both west of Aries. See Fig. 2 for a comparison with a computed position of 1P/Halley for May 25 at 0 h UT.

Background and Biography

Background and Biography - Pseudo Dionysius of Tell-Mahre author of the Chronicle of Zuqnin

Background and Biography - Theophanes

Background and Biography - Nu'aym ibn Ḥammmad

Background and Biography - Agapius of Menbij

Background and Biography - Michael the Syrian

Excerpts

Literal English Translation of the Chronicle of Zuqnin from Neuhauser et al (2018)

brackets [] and line breaks are from Neuhauser et al (2021:6).

The year [SE] one thousand seventy one (AD 759/760).
In the month of iyyōr (May)⁵ a white sign was seen in the sky,
before early twilight (Syriac: šafrō), in the north-east [quarter],
in the Zodiac [sign] which is called Aries (emrō), to the north from these three stars (kawkbē) in it, which are very shining.
And it resembled in its shape a broom, while it was still in the same Aries (emrō) at its edge/end/furthest part (rīšeh)⁶:
in/at the initial degree (mūrō)⁷ [of] the second⁸ [sign] (i.e. Taurus) from these wandering stars (kawkbē), Kronos (Saturn) and Ares (Mars), like somehow a bit to the south, on [day] 22 in the same month.
And the sign itself remained for fifteen nights, until dawn (nōgah)⁹ of the feast of Pentecost.
And [at] its one end/tip (rīšōh), the narrow one, a very bright star (kawkbō) was seen at its head/end/tip (rīšeh).¹⁰ And it was tilting to the north side, but the other wide and very dark one was tilting to the south side,
and it was going bit by bit to the North-East [direction].
Its shape is as follows [now 4 points forming a rhomb meant as pointing to the drawing, which is embedded in the next lines, Fig. 1].
However, at the beginning (nōgah)¹¹ of [the] third [day] after Pentecost, it was seen again at evening time, from the north-west [quarter].
and it remained for twenty-five evenings.
And it was going bit by bit to the south:: [actually 4 points forming a rhomb meant here as a break].
And it again disappeared.
And then it returned [and] was seen in the south-west¹² [quarter],
and thus there it remained for many days.

Footnotes

5 Chabot (1895), Harrak (1999), and Hayakawa et al (2017) read "adar/odor” and gave “March” here (“odor” is the correct West-Syrian transliteration here, while “adar” is East-Syrian); in Syriac, the words for March (odor) and May (iyyor) are written very similar: ‘DR and ‘YR, respectively. We came to the conclusion that iyyor is given here in the MS:

epigraphically, the Syriac letter /d/ (as in odor) should have a tail, which is not found in the MS

there is no space between /y/ and the following /r/, the two letters are ligatured, but if it were /d/ (as in odor) there should be a space (as seen in all occurrences of this letter in the month name ‘DR = odor)

because of a dot underneath the /y/, the letter was thought to be /d/, i.e. reading ‘DR = odor, however, in five occurrences of the month name ‘YR in the MS, four do not have this diacritical dot, one (folio 150v) has it as a thick one, which should be thin – the chronicler was by no means consistent in using diacritics and symbols. Michael the Syrian also gives iyyor as month of the first sighting (Section 4d).

6 The Syriac word rıseh mainly means “its head”, but “its tip, its edge, its end, its furthest part” etc. and such meanings are also attested in dictionaries (e.g. Sokoloff, 2002). See below for a discussion of position 2.

7 The Syriac muro from Greek moira for degree is also attested in Ptolemy’s Almagest for degree.

8 Harrak (1999) gave “in the first degree (of the Zodiacal circle), the second”; Hayakawa et al.: “in the first degree (of the sign), two (degrees)”; see below for a discussion of position 2.

9 Chabot: “la veille”; respectively “eve” in Harrak (1999); the comet was seen in the morning, as mentioned before; for nogah, see footnote 11.

10 An alternative translation could be “and its one end/tip, the narrow one, was very bright; a star was seen at its head/end/tip”, but it does not work because in the MS there is a punctuation between qaṭıno (“narrow”) and yatır bahuro (“very bright”). Hayakawa et al. (2017) brings a punctuation in their transliteration that is in many places inconsistent with the autograph, in particular they overlooked the punctuation by translating “And one end of it was narrow and duskier, one star was seen in its tip”, and they confused the meaning by rendering “duskier” instead of “very bright”: the original word bahuro means “dim” in old Syriac, but later also “bright” after Arabic influence; Chabot (1933) emended bahuro into nohuro, which just means “bright”, but this emendation is not necessary; the first letters (/b/ and /n/) are also quite different in Syriac. The translation by Hayakawa et al. (2017) is not satisfactory: “duskier” would be in contrast to the “star” at this end (comet head), and it would not be in contrast to what is later given as “wide and very dark” (the other end); the drawing also clearly shows a “very bright star”, the comet head; see below for our discussion of the drawing.

11 For the Syriac nogah, instead of “beginning”, Hayakawa et al. (2017) gave “dusk”, which is not attested in Syriac dictionaries; the word nogah does mainly mean “dawn” (see above), but this is not possible here, because the observation was in the “evening time”. Harrak (1999) gave “eve”. Our translation “at the beginning” follows oriental calendars, where the 24 h-day begins with sunset, e. g. nogah d-shapto meaning “Sabbath vespers”, which happen in the evening after sunset. In the report on a bolide in AD 754, the Chronicle of Zuqnın gave the timing as “on Tuesday, when Wednesday was dawning (nogah) ... In the same evening ...”, i.e. it uses nogah here for the beginning of the oriental 24 h-day (D.L. Neuhauser et al., 2018b, event 5, p. 77, Harrak, 1999, p. 196).

12 Lit. west southern

English Translation of the Chronicle of Zuqnin from Harrak (1999)

Part 4
from Harrak (1999:198)

759-760 The year one thousand and seventy-one: In the month of Adar (March), a shining sign was seen in the sky¹ before dawn on the northeast side which is called Ram in the Zodiac, to the north of the three most shining stars. Its shape resembled a broom. On the twenty-second day of the month, it was still in the Ram at its head, in the first degree (of the Zodiac circle), the second after the wandering stars Kronos and Ares,² somehow slightly to the south. The sign remained for fifteen nights, to the eve of the Pentecost feast. At one of its ends, which was narrow and more shining^*³ a star was seen and was turning toward the North. The other side, which was large and darker, was turning toward the South. The sign was moving little by little toward the Northeast. This was its form (Vat.sir.162 137r-136v):

On the eve of the third day after Pentecost^*, the sign was seen again in the evening in the Northwest, and it remained for twenty five evenings. It moved little by little to the South and then it disappeared. Then it reappeared in the southwest, where it remained in this way for many days.

During this time, many schisms took place in the church because of leadership. The eastern monasteries made John Patriarch, while neither the cities of the Jazira nor all the monasteries approved him. The people of the West and Mosul approved George. Because of this the entire Church became troubled.⁴

Footnotes

1 A brief mention in Theophanes 431: A.M. 6252 (760-761).

2 Following Ptolemy, the ancients believed that there were seven "wandering stars", Syriac | | (i.e. planets): The Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars (=Ares), Jupiter and Saturn (= Kronos), all revolving around the earth.

3 | | : See Manna, Dalil, 54, for its meaning.

4 See above pp. 193ff and 216ff.

The comet is referred to later in the text (as 'the broom').

Part 4
from Harrak (1999:200-201)
Brackets from JW

The year one thousand and seventy-five [A.G. 1075 = 1 Oct. 763 to 30 Sept. 764 CE]: A severe plague among horses took place in the whole land. ... This disease spread throughout all the nations and kingdoms of the earth, to the point that people were left without horses. The effect of ’the broom’ seen a short while before, was clearly seen in reality, as it swept the world like a broom that cleans the house.

Transliteration of the Chronicle of Zuqnin from Neuhauser et al (2021)

Part 4
from Neuhauser et al (2021:Fig. 15)
Transliteration of the Syriac text on the comet of AD 760 (see also Fig. 1 and Section 2).

English Translation of Theophanes from Mango and Scott (1997)

from Mango and Scott (1997:596-597)

[am 6252, AD 759/60]

Constantine, 20th year
Abdelas, 6th year
Paul, 6th year
Constantine, 7th year

... In the same year a very bright comet appeared for ten days in the east and another twenty-one days in the west.^b

Footnotes

b Cf. Ps.-Dion. Chron. 63-4, AG 1071.

English Translation of Theophanes from Turtledove (1982)

from Turtledove (1982:120)

ANNUS MUNDI 6252 (SEPTEMBER 1, 760— AUGUST 31, 761)

... In the same year a brilliant apparition appeared in the east for ten days, and again in the west for twenty-one.

English Translation of Theophanes from Mango and Scott (1997) - embedded

see [A.M. 6252, AD 759/60] on page 596
from Mango and Scott (1997:596-597)
from archive.org

English Translation of Theophanes from Turtledove (1982) - embedded

see ANNUS MUNDI 6252 starting on page 120
from Turtledove (1982:120)
from archive.org

English Translation of Nu'aym ibn Ḥammmad from Neuhauser et al (2018)

brackets [] are from Neuhauser et al (2021:17).
The same quote (minus the last sentence) appears in Cook (1999:136)

“We saw the comet rising in Muḥarram in the year [Anno Hijra, AH 145 = AD 762/3] with the dawn from the east, and we would see it during the dawn for the rest of Muḥarram; then it disappeared. Then we would see it after the sunset in the twilight, and afterwards between the north and the west for two month or three. Then it disappeared for two or three years.³⁸

Footnotes

38 This report by Nu'aym ibn Ḥammmad then continues with:

Then we saw a mysterious star with blazing fire the length of two degrees, according to what the eye saw, near Capricorn, orbiting around it like the orbit of a planet during the months of Jumada [July] and [some of the] days of Rajab [Oct] and then it disappeared.

(as translated by Cook, 1999 with his additions in brackets, dated by him to AH 145 = AD 762/3)

This and the following reports definitely do not belong to the comet in AD 760.

English Translation of Agapius of Menbij from Neuhauser et al (2018)

brackets [] are from Neuhauser et al (2021:17).

In this year [ AD 760] the star with a tail appeared, and it was in Aries before the Sun, and the Sun was in Taurus. It proceeded until it was under the rays of the Sun, then went behind it and stayed 40 days. (Cook, 1999; Vassiliev, 1911)

English Translation of Agapius of Menbij from Vasilev (1909) and Cook (1999)

from Vasilev (1909)

In this same year, a comet [appeared]. It was in Aries, in front of the sun, when the sun was in Taurus. It went on until it came beneath the rays of the sun; then it went behind and remained for forty days.

from Cook (1999:136)

In this year the star with a tail appeared, and it was in Aries before the sun, and the sun was in Leo. It proceeded until it was under the rays of the sun, then went behind it and stayed 40 days²³.

Footnotes

(23) I can't find the footnotes in this article.

Cook (1999:136) notes that this observation is probably from Theophilus of Edessa himself. Neuhauser et al (2021:17) wrote the following about the Sun being in Leo:

Note that Cook (1999) incorrectly gave “and the Sun was in Leo”, while the text clearly gives Taurus, see Vassiliev, 1911.

English Translation of Agapius of Menbij from Vasilev (1909) - embedded

see text starting with In this same year, a comet
Vasilev (1909)
from tertullian.org

English Translation of Michael the Syrian from Neuhauser et al (2021)

brackets [] are from Neuhauser et al (2021:19).

And in this year in the month of iyyor (May), a comet star [kawkbo qumiṭus – the latter obviously from the Greek kometes] was seen before the Sun in Lamb (Aries), when the Sun was in Taurus. It looked like a pillar/column [‘omudo] and was extending its rod⁴⁰ to the south. It moved close to the Sun for twenty days, and became below the rays of the Sun for three days. Thereafter, it was behind the Sun for forty days. Due to its appearance, fear gripped everyone

Footnotes

40 What is translated as “rod” points to the tail. Chabot translated it as “chevelure”, i.e. “lock of hair” (Chabot, p. 524 n.3). The 16th century Edessan manuscript emended the term sabuqo (“rod”) to sobqo (“emission”), and Chabot interpreted this word as (curled) hair.

English Translation of Chinese Texts from Neuhauser et al (2021)

Understanding historical observations from China - Neuhauser et al (2021:5-6)

In imperial China, court astronomers observed the sky all day and night in order to notice changes²; owing to this practise — among other transients — comets were recorded in observing logs. While the original night reports for the 8th century are not extant, later compilations or copies thereof are available, which are shortened and may suffer from scribal errors. These include: Jiu Tang shu (JTS) by Liu Xu et al. (945) from AD 945, Tang hui yao (THY) by Wang Pu et al. (961) from AD 961, and Xin Tang shu (XTS) by Ouyang Xiu et al. (1061) et al. from AD 1061, i.e. the astronomical chapters of the History of the Tang dynasty (Tang shu), as well as the collection Wenxian tongkao (WHTK) by Ma Duanlin from AD 1317. Extracts for comets were published by Pingre (1783) in French as well as by Hsi (1957, only for 1P/Halley AD 837), Ho (1962, see also Hasegawa, 1980 for comments and additions), Kiang (1972), Xu et al. (2000), and Pankenier et al. (2008), all in English.

For general information about astronomy in imperial China, please refer to the detailed monographs by Needham and Wang (1959) and Sun & Kistemalcer (1997, henceforth SK97), and short summaries also in Kiang (1972), Clark and Stephenson (1977), Stephenson (1994), Xu et al. (2000), Stephenson and Green (2002), and Pankenier et al. (2008).

Since the Han dynasty (206 BC to AD 220), the sky was structured into about 283 asterisms of various sizes with almost 1500 stars in total (down to 6th mag and a few fainter ones, these are of course incomplete); a Chinese asterism³ can contain one, few or many stars; the stars of an asterism were combined by lines (skeletons). While this system had a strong continuity since the Han, some details changed later (not only in Korea and Japan, also in China).

The term zing, often rendered as star(s), can be combined to, e.g. ke zing as guest star(s) or hui zing as broom star(s). Classical Chinese word morphology does not distinguish between singular and plural.

The names of 28 asterisms are also used for the 28 lunar mansions (LM), which are right ascension ranges from the determinative (or leading) star of one LM to the next, omitting the south polar region which was not visible from the Chinese mainland, while the north circumpolar region was of special importance known as the enclosure (yuan) named Ziwei' or Zigong', see Stephenson (1994), SK97, and Ho (2003, p. 144). For a list of the 28 LMs and their determinative stars, see, e.g., SK97, Xu et al. (2000), Stephenson and Green (2002), or Pankenier et al. (2008). Given this equatorial system, hour angles of objects can be given as a certain number of du (0.9856°) East of the respective determinative star.

There also exist Chinese star charts from the time of the Tang dynasty, namely the Dunhuang maps (manuscript Stein 3326 dated AD 649-684 by style of characters, mentioning of an astronomer of that time, style of clothing shown in a figure, and usage of two taboo characters), where more than 1300 stars in 257 asterisms are drawn with skeleton lines, apparently in azimuthal projection (Bonnet-Bidaud et al., 2009).⁴

Separations on sky including comet tail lengths are given in certain old Chinese linear measures, which can be converted to angles such as 1 chi being about 1° (Stephenson and Green, 2002; Kiang, 1972 gave 1 chi = 1.50 ± 0.24°), 1 can being 0.1 chi, and 1 zhang =10 chi (see Ho, 1966; Kiang, 1972; Wilkinson, 2000; Stephenson and Green, 2002).

Sometimes, in addition to or instead of a celestial position given as one coordinate, angle, or separation, the compilations of observing records list the general direction as azimuth, which can be specified in terms of several different compasses; the precision of the compass used (e.g. 4- or 24-point) then defines the uncertainty or azimuth range of such a position.

The observing dates are specified by name of the emperor, year with a multi-year reign period, lunar month, and then usually the day count in a 60-day-cycle (ganzhi) - a continuous counting was achieved prior to the advent of the imperial period in 221 BC; sometimes, instead of or in addition to the day count (1-60), the age of the Moon is given; the luni-solar calendar had 12 lunar months starting on the second new-moon after winter solstice (i.e. in January or February), plus seven intercalary months in 19 years (called just "x-th intercalary month" located after the "x-th" month), like the Meton cycle; these rules were in use since a calendar reform during the Han.

The normal Chinese 24 h-day ran from midnight to midnight, but in astronomical records, for observations after midnight, the former date is given (some late sources may have modified the date to the new civil date). The night was separated into five watches of equal lengths per night, which changed during the year.

Footnotes

2 Such observations were performed, because it was thought that they identify dangerous political trajectories (astrology, but also weather rules etc., e.g. from the Han dynasty: "320 stars can be named. There are in all 2500 ... All have their influence on fate", Needham and Wang, 1959, p. 265), or can indicate misgovernment ("any anomalous happenings in nature ... were construed as signs of warnings by heaven toward the misbehaviour or misgovernment of the ruler of man", also from the Han, Wang Yiichuan, 1949, Bielenstein, 1984). The dramatic appearance of comet Halley in 12 BC, for example, was interpreted by both Gu Yong and Liu Xiang as a sign that the Western Han dynasty was in danger of collapse; the two writers each identified different court factions as responsible for the peril the dynasty faced, and both held that if the right actions were undertaken the sign would vanish and the dynasty would likely survive; neither writer saw the future as fixed or determined, though both associated it with an elevated likelihood of disastrous political events (Chapman, 2015).

3 Groups of stars (xing cang) were given certain names, which do not normally reflect their appearance on sky, even if connected with skeleton lines; this is similar for Babylonian, Western, and Chinese constellations. To discriminate from Western constellations, Chinese star groups are often called asterism. However, this term derives from the Greek asterismos as was used by Ptolemy in his Almagest for what we now call constellations (now defined as fields on sky by IAU mostly based on Ptolemy's Almagest). Xing qun is the modern Chinese term for constellation; literally, it means group of stars.

4 Stars and asterisms on the 13 charts are drawn only in a crude way with rough positions and several mistakes, e.g. the asterism name Lou in Aries is missing (but the three stars apparently are drawn), the colour-convention for stars is not followed strictly (Chinese charts show the stars and asterisms from three Han dynasty schools in different colour: red for those from Shi Shen, black from Gan De, and white/yellow from Wu Xian), twice the Chinese characters for "right" zuo and "left" you, which are very similar, are mixed up, the asterism Sangong near the pole is shown twice (Bonnet-Bidaud et al., 2009). Given that the maps are drawn on expensive pure mulberry fibres (3940 mm by 244 mm scroll), this atlas may be a copy produced by a wealthy but not well-talented student of Li Chunfeng, one of the main astronomers of the 7th century, who is mentioned in the accompanying text and could have done the (now lost) original map based on observations and/or the astronomical chapters of the Jin shu, which he had written.

The comet of AD 760 as reported in classical Chinese sources - Neuhauser et al (2021:12-14)

We present here our own new, technical, very literal translations, which aim to preserve the detail and word order of the original Chinese, but have been slightly smoothed to present correct English sentences (see appendix for the Chinese texts); significant variants in Ho (1962, no. 273 and 274), Xu et al. (2000), and Pankenier et al. (2008) are mentioned in footnotes. First, we translate the oldest text from JTS (36.1324, and much shorter in 10.258), counted as object no. 273 in Ho (1962), with some Chinese terms, explanations, and significant variants from THY (43.767) and XTS (32.838, unless otherwise specified) in round brackets, our additions in square brackets (e.g. the day/night number in the 60-day-cycle), starting with the night 760 May 16/17, line breaks by us:

Tang Emperor Suzong (literal: Tang[‘s] Solem Ancestor) Qia- nyuan [reign-period]²⁰ 3[rd] year, 4[th] month, dingsi (54) night (THY gives the lunar date: “27[th] day”, XTS omitted “night”), 5[th] watch (“5[th] watch” omitted in THY and XTS),
[a] broom (hui) [star] (XTS: “ hui xing” for “broom star”) emerged (THY: “seen at (yu)”, XTS: “there was ... at (yu)”) east (dong) direction, colour being white, length (JTS 10.258 adds: about) 4 chi (THY and XTS have color and length after the next phrase),
it was located/situated in (zai) Lou, [in] Wei²¹ for-a-while/space (jian),
it rapidly moved toward east (dong) north (bei) corner (THY omitted “corner”; XTS has instead: “east direction rapidly moved”),
passing through Mao, Bi, Zui (XTS: “Zuixi”), Shen,²² Jing (XTS: “Dongjing”), Gui (XTS: “Yugui”), Liu²³ [and] Xuanyuan (THY added “xiu” for “lodge”²⁴),
reaching Taiwei Youzhifa²⁵ 7 cun position (THY: “reaching Taiwei west (xi), Youzhifa west (xi) 7 chi”; XTS omitted “Taiwei” and has only “reaching Youzhifa west (xi)”),
In all more than 50 days, only then (fang) [it] disappeared (THY very similar; XTS has “in all more than 50 days, [it was] not seen”)” (continued below).

We will discuss this transmission in detail below to obtain dated positions.

Next, we present additional relevant texts, not given in Xu et al. (2000) and Pankenier et al. (2008). Ho (1962) cited under his no. 274 a record from JTS 36.1324 (Ho: CTS 36/8a), and gives two more texts, HTS 32/6b (=XTS 32.838) and, almost identical, WHTK 286/23a (286/ 29b-30a in the Siku quanshu huiyao edition). Here our own new literal translation of the JTS text (with variants from XTS and also from THY 43.767), which follows immediately after the previous comet report:

Intercalary 4[th] (XTS omitted “4[th]”) month, xinyou (58=May 20 with night 20/21), new-moon (THY: “ Shangyuan reign-period, [initial] year, intercalary 4[th] month, 21[st] day” (=June 9)), [an] ominous star (yao xing) seen at (yu) south (nan) (THY: “west (xi)”; XTS: “there was [a] broom star (hui xing) at (yu) west (xi)”) direction, length several zhang.
This time, since [the] beginning [of the] 4[th] month, heavy fog [and] heavy rain, reaching [the] end [of the] 4[th] intercalary month (i.e. the last 10 days), only then (fang) [it, i.e. bad weather] stopped (instead of this whole sentence, THY and XTS have “Reaching 5[th] month, [ominous star] disappeared”, XTS adds: “Only [when] reaching ...”).
This month, rebel bandit Shi Siming again captured [the] Eastern Capital (i.e. Luoyang). Grain prices leapt [up] in expense, dou (i.e. about 6 liters of rice) reaching eight hundred wen. People ate each- other [and] corpses covered [the] ground.

After reporting the disappearance of the comet, "Only [when] reaching 5[th] month ...", XTS (32.838) adds:

Lou corresponds to [the pre-imperial state of] Lu, Wei [and] Mao [and] Bi correspond to Zhao, Zuixi [and] Shen correspond to Tang, Dongjing [and] Yugui correspond to [the] capital city (jingshi) (meaning probably the historical capital of the Zhou dynasty) allotment, [as for] Liu, its half corresponds to [the] Zhou allotment. As-for-cases-in-which (zhe) two brooms seen in-succession, amassing disaster. Moreover, Lou, Wei space (firm) [corresponds to] Tiancang (`Celestial Granary').

The whole last paragraph is an astro-omenological interpretation of the comet report. In Chinese astro-omenology, Wei (LM 17) governs granaries and warehouses, as found in the Jin shu ( , p. 100, 2003, p. 147) — and indeed, the term Tiancang means `Celestial Granary/ ies'. There is also an asterism Tiancang, which is however located mostly in LM Kid and only partly in LM Lou; there are further asterisms meaning `Celestial Granaries' in LMs Lou and Wei, e.g. Tianjun (SK97), written Ticatqurt in Pankenier et al. (2008). (Lou governs cattle rearing and animal sacrifices, see Ho, 1966, p. 100.)

In the past, it was considered that there were two comets in spring AD 760, e.g. Yeomans et al. (1986). All sources for Ho no. 274 give "several zhang" as length, so that one could consider that they mean the same object: the "ominous star" (yao xing) in the west in THY (June 9 evening) would fit with the comet path given in the previous text; the object(s) in JTS, XTS, and WHTK for May 20/21 (morning) in the south or west are not consistent with the path of comet no. 273, which was then still in the NE. If the previously cited JTS text refers to the same object, a date correction would be needed — it should be June 9 (as in THY) instead of May 20. One explanation could be: May 20 corresponds to the 58th day, xin-you in the 60-day-cycle, while June 9 is the 18th, xin-si, so that only the 2nd part would have been mistaken in JTS, XTS, and WHTK by a copying scribe (you for si); THY conserves the correct date as date in the lunar calendar (day 21 = June 9), converted from the 60-day-cycle as found in its source. Note that the two dates (May 20 and June 9) pertain to the same Chinese lunar month (4th intercalary month), just the day within the month is different. More reasonably, since "new moon", i.e. the first day of the lunar month, is given in JTS and XTS in addition to xin-you (58), which is correct for May 20, a confusion between date and event might be just due to a false concatenation in the compilation process; furthermore, it is plausible that the second comet report, preserved correctly in the THY text, originates from another source and observing site, where, e.g., weather conditions did not allow a detection earlier than June 9.

To sum up, among the three texts for Ho object no. 274, the THY transmission appears to be the least corrupt: sighting on June 9 (JTS and XTS: May 20/21), THY has west direction (XTS also west, but JTS has south). That the information in THY is most reliable here, relies on the assumption that the "two" objects Ho no. 273 and 274 are one and the same comet; this is supported by the fact that the duration in the first comet report (about 50 days after May 17/18) corresponds well with the disappearance in THY and XTS ("Reaching 5[th] month, [it] dis¬appeared"). This assumption is also supported by the following astro-omenological interpretation in XTS 32.838: "As-for-cases-in-which (zhe) two brooms seen in-succession, amassing disaster". In the translation "two separate broom stars appearing simultaneously" ( phenson and Yau, 1985), the word "separate" is added (but not given in the Chinese text); the sense of the adverb in Classical Chinese (reng) suggests repetition with close or immediate proximity in time ("appear one after the other" or "in quick succession" or "repeatedly").²⁶ That it is only one comet is justified by further independent reports, where the conjunction with the Sun is explicitly reported, e.g. the Chronicle of Zugnin (see above) and several further East Mediterranean and West Asian reports (Section 4).

There is one more extant source, XTS 6.162-3, but the variant transmission gives only very short information:

4[th] month ... dingsi (54), there was [a] broom star, emerged at (yu) Lou, Wei, Jiwei (56), Lai Zhen (died ca. AD 763) became Sharman Eastern Circuit's Military Commissioner charged to overcome [the rebellion of] Zhang Weijin. Intercalary month (4[th] omitted) xinyou (58), there was [a] broom star, emerged at (yu) west (xi) direction.... Jimao (16), [there was a] large amnesty, change [of] reign-period [title], grant [of] civil [and] military office [and] rank.... This month [was a] large famine. Zhang Weijin surrendered.

This late source shows how compilers work: XTS 6.162-3 concatenated input from XTS 32.838, a source which is already shortened — as one consequence, the comet's position at the beginning is a bit corrupt. This source, which belongs to the "Basic Annals" (Benji) section of the history (a general chronicle of events during the reign of each emperor), rather than the technical treatise, is only interested in the first appearance of the comet (first sightings at the very beginning and after conjunction with the Sun) - the main point is the connection to historical events on Earth.

The year 760 fell midway through the An Lushan rebellion (AD 755-763). The early years of the rebellion had witnessed the abdication of an emperor who had reigned for more than forty years, the fall and subsequent recapture of the main capital at Chang'an, and casualties reportedly numbering in the millions. In both JTS and XTS 6.162-3, close chronological proximity associates the comet's appearance with politics, the rebellion and the famine that accompanied it; XTS 32.838 reflects these in an astro-omenological interpretation.

As quoted above, JTS reports the weather: "This time, since [the] beginning [of the] 4[th] month (new-moon on Apr 19/20), heavy fog [and] heavy rain, reaching [the] end [of the] 4[th] intercalary month (i. e. the last 10 days, new-moon on June 17/18), only then [it, i.e. bad weather] stopped." Monsoon typically arrives in May and may well end in June. In addition to shortenings and omissions in the compilation process, problems with weather and the rebellion may also have influenced the observations and the data record (and might be partially responsible for the famine). Still, since the beginning of the Tang dynasty (AD 618), there are no better transmitted records for any comet before AD 760 (see Pankenier et al., 2008 for the texts).

The Korean "Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms" (Samguk sagi) briefly reported a " hui comet" sometime during the lunar month 761 May 9 to June 7 (Ho, 1962, no. 275); this work, compiled AD 1142-1145 (Schultz, 2004), is often off by a few years — probably, our comet is meant. The Kingdom of Silla is traditionally dated 58 BC to AD 935. However, the Silla dynasty, which united the whole of peninsula, ran from AD 668 to 935.

From the Chinese observations also all five comet criteria mentioned above (Section 2) are fulfilled. A "broom colour being white" also points to a comet with dust tail.

Footnotes

20 Xu et al. (2000) added here “i.e. 1st year of the Shangyuan reign period” – in fact the Shangyuan reign period started only at the beginning of the 4th intercalary month, after the Qianyuan reign period had ended with the 4th month.

21 Lou (“Hillok” or “Lasso”) and Wei (“Belly” or “Stomach”, see SK97 and Ho, 1966) could be the asterisms of that name (both in “our” Aries, i.e. the constellation as defined by the International Astronomical Union) or the lunar mansions (right ascension ranges) named after these asterisms (LM 16 and LM 17, respectively) starting in the west with the determinative star β Ari for Lou and with 41 Ari for Wei. See below for position C1.

22 Xu et al. (2000) give “Can” here, which is a more common pronunciation of the Chinese character; however, in this context, the correct pronunciation is “Shen”, LM 21 and an asterism in Orion.

23 This list could point to either asterisms or LMs: Mao (“Mane”, LM 18), Bi (“Hunting net”, LM 19), Zui or Zuixi (“Beak”, LM 20), Shen (“Triaster” or “Hunter”, LM 21), Jing or Dongjing (“Eastern Well”, LM 22), Gui or Yugui (“Spectral Carriage”, LM 23), and Liu (“Willow”, LM 24); translations of asterisms here are the Han time interpretation, some have changed later (SK97).

24 Xuanyuan (“Yellow Emperor”) is usually only an asterism, which does not have the additional function as LM asterism; given that it seems to be listed here as xiu, it may have some ‘lodge’-like function; Xuanyuan is meant as skeleton of 17 stars in Leo and Lynx starting with α Leo close to the ecliptic.

25 Taiwei (“Great Tenuity Enclosure” or “Supreme Subtlety Palace” or “Privy Council”) is one of three asterisms, which are so-called “enclosures” (yuan) with two “walls” each, Taiwei being a large area with 10 stars in Virgo and eastern parts of Leo (12 stars in Tianguan shu, but then only 10 in the official Shi Shi, SK97); the determinative star of Taiwei is Youzhifa (β Vir) at the southern end of Taiwei’s western wall (SK97).

26 Stephenson and Yau (1985) and Yeomans et al. (1986) thought that, in addition to the comet seen since AD 760 May 16/17, there would have been another comet seen in the south or west since May 20/21.

Image of Chinese Texts from Neuhauser et al (2021)

from Neuhauser et al (2021:Fig. 16)
The Chinese texts from JTS, THY, and XTS on the comet of AD 760 (see Section 3).

The Chinese texts from JTS, THY, and XTS on the comet of AD 760

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
May 760 CE	Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre - The year one thousand and seventy-one: In the month of Adar (March), a shining sign was seen in the sky before dawn on the northeast side which is called Ram in the Zodiac, to the north of the three most shining stars. Its shape resembled a broom.	month of Adar changed to Iyyar	A.G. 1071 converted to CE using CHRONOS
1 Sept. 759 to 31 Aug.760 CE	Theophanes - A.M. 6252 ... In the same year a very bright comet appeared for ten days in the east and another twenty-one days in the west	none	A.M._a 6252 converted to CE using CHRONOS Other Chronological Pointers (i.e. regnal years) in Theophanes are ignored. Theophanes' multiplicity of time markers are often in disagreement creating chronological confusion and imprecision. However, because his regnal year markers are consistently displaced by 4 years between the By No Means Mild Quake of 756 CE and Halley's Comet of 760 CE, these markers have more value as relative rather than absolute markers of time. This is discussed briefly in this section (Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, Theophanes, and the Comet of 760 CE) Chronological Discussion from Neuhauser et al (2021:17) Neuhauser et al (2021:17) A duration of 10 days in the east (before conjunction with the Sun) and 21 days in the west (after conjunction) is slightly shorter but consistent with the reports from Zuqnın (and China) for the comet of AD 760. Theophanes’ chronology is sometimes uncertain by 1–2 yr (Mango and Scott, 1997) – here one year, since the Byzantine year runs from 760 Sep 1 to 761 Aug 31¹. Footnotes 1 JW: This assumes that Theophanes started his year on Sept. 1 instead of 25 March. According to Grumel (1934:398-402), A.M._a 6252 falls within Synchronism MB when the year starts on 1 Sept.
22 April - 21 May 760 CE	Nu'aym ibn Ḥammmad - We saw the comet rising in Muḥarram in the year [Anno Hijra, AH 145 = AD 762/3] with the dawn from the east, and we would see it during the dawn for the rest of Muḥarram; then it disappeared.	A.H. 145 corrected to A.H. 143 - see Chronological Discussion.	Muḥarram A.H. 143 calculated using CHRONOS. Chronological Discussion from Neuhauser et al (2021:17) and Cook (1999:136) Neuhauser et al (2021:17) Given other dating errors in this quite apocalyptic Hadith collection, it may be dated to AH 143, i.e. AD 760/1 (Cook, 1999). With new-moon on 760 Apr 20 and May 19, the month of Muḥarram would run from AD 760 about Apr 21 to May 20 (±1 or 2 days depending on the first detection of the crescent moon), but the comet of AD 760 did not disappear at around May 20. However, the source used by Nu'aym ibn Ḥammad could have given the date on a western calendar system, e.g. as May, which would have been converted loosely to Muḥarram, probably based on a Christian source using e.g. the West Syrian Seleucid calendar as, e.g., the Chronicle of Zuqnın. A scribal error is then required only for the year number (AH) “145”, which should be 143. Then, the text would be fully consistent with the Chronicle of Zuqnın: seen first since some time in the month of May of AD 760 in the morning dawn (“with the dawn”, Zuqnn: “safro”) in the east and also like that for the rest of that month “during the dawn” (Zuqnın: “nogah”) – instead of “rest of Muḥarram”, we should read “rest of iyyor/May”; the Chronicle of Zuqn ̄ın reported the last visibility before conjunction with the Sun for the early morning of the night May 31/June 1 (“Pentecost”). Then, according to Nu'aym the comet was seen after conjunction “after the sunset in the twilight between the north and the west for two month or three”, i.e. again similar as in Zuqnın (for 25 evenings in the NW and later again for “many days”), after conjunction the comet was definitely seen in two different months (June and July). When Nu'aym ibn Ḥammad mentioned a reappearance “two or three years” later, he could either mean some other comet or transient object, or he could have interpreted the text in the Chronicle of Zuqnın, which is found in the report for SE 1075 (AD 763/4), which is, however, again about the comet of AD 760: “The effect of ’the broom’ seen a short while before, was clearly seen in reality, as it swept the world like a broom that cleans the house” (Harrak, 1999), see Section 2.1 for full citation (given that the Chronicle of Zuqnın does not mentioned any other comet or celestial sign in between the comet report in AD 760 and this short statement later, it is likely that the latter short note points to the comet of AD 760). Therefore, given all the similarities (except the offset by 2 years), it is likely that the (direct or indirect) source used by Nu'aym ibn Ḥammad is the Chronicle of Zuqnın – this would be the first hint that our chronicle was active before been buried in a Sinai monastery in the 9th century. Cook (1999:136) It is very likely because of the tradition in Theophanes that there was a mistake made in the date here (since there are a great many errors in this edition of the apocalyptic text), and that the real date is 143/760.²² According to the Chinese records of this appearance it began on 16 May (corresponding to 24 Muharram of that year) and lasted into July. This would be consistent with our tradition, which continues to detail several other comets. Footnotes (22) I can't find the footnotes in this article.
760 CE	Agapius of Menbij - In this year [AD 760] the star with a tail appeared, and it was in Aries before the Sun, and the Sun was in Taurus. It proceeded until it was under the rays of the Sun, then went behind it and stayed 40 days	none	“and in this year” equated to [AD 760] by Neuhauser et al (2021:17) Chronological Discussion from Neuhauser et al (2021:17) Neuhauser et al (2021:17) Cook remarks: “This observation is probably from Theophilus of Edessa himself”. (Note that Cook (1999) incorrectly gave “and the Sun was in Leo”, while the text clearly gives Taurus, see Vassiliev, 1911.)
May 755 CE - May 765 CE	Michael the Syrian - And in this year in the month of iyyor (May), a comet star [kawkbo qumiṭus – the latter obviously from the Greek kometes] was seen before the Sun in Lamb (Aries), when the Sun was in Taurus.	“and in this year” equated to A.G. 1066-1076 - see Chronological discussion.	Iyyor equates to May in the Syriac calendar. A.G. 1066-1076 converted to a time span in CE using CHRONOS. See below why this time span was used. Chronological Discussion from Neuhauser et al (2021:19) Neuhauser et al (2021:19) The expression “and in this year” refers to SE 1076 (AD 764/5), if related to the preceding account which deals with an earthquake in Khorasan. However, chapter 25 of Michael the Syrian, in which the comet report appears, covers the period from SE 1066 to 1076 – this cast doubt about the expression “and in this year”. When Michael the Syrian quotes large texts, he names his sources, but when he gathers information to include in a Chapter, he picks and copies, but not necessarily in chronological order.

Figures and Tables

Notes

Kepler Orbit (Wikipedia)

Wikipedia entry for Kepler Orbit

Chronicle of Theophanes

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Mango and Scott (1997)

from Mango and Scott (1997:594-595)

[A.M. 6248, AD 755/6]

Constantine, 16th year
Abdelas, 2nd year
Paul, 2nd year
Constantine, 3rd year

II In this year, on 9 March, there occurred a considerable earthquake in Palestine and Syria.II^a Theodore [I], patriarch of Antioch, was exiled because of the malice of the Arabs, having been accused of frequently communicating Arab affairs by letter to the emperor Constantine. And so, Salim¹ himself banished him to the land of Moab which was his native country. The same Salim decreed that no new churches should be built, that crosses should not be displayed and that Christians should not discourse with Arabs on matters of religion. II He invaded the Roman country² with a force of 80,000 and, when he had come to Cappadocia, he heard that Constantine was taking up arms against him. Taking fright, he returned empty-handed without causing any damage, except that he took a few Armenians who had joined him. II^b.

Footnotes

a Ps.-Dion. Chron. 63 records an earthquake in Mesopotamia on 3 Mar. AG 1067.
b Cf. Agapios, 278, with different details.

1 Salih b. 'All. He was governor of Egypt down to AH 140 (757/8). In AH 141 (758/9) he was appointed over Qinnasrin (Chalkis), Emesa, and Damascus: Tabari, Williams, i. 28, 31, 36, 44. His measures against the Christians, including the patriarch of Antioch, would thus appear to date from 758/9.

2 Salih led two expeditions to rebuild Melitene, the first in AH 138 (755/6), the second the following year (which is probably the one meant here). On the latter occasion he entered Byzantine territory by the pass of Adata: Tabari, Williams, i. 29, 32. Cf. Brooks, 'Abbasids', 733.

English from Mango and Scott (1997) - embedded

see [A.M. 6248, AD 755/6] on page 594
from Mango and Scott (1997:594-595)
from archive.org

English from Turtledove (1982) - embedded

see ANNUS MUNDI 6248 starting on page 119
from Turtledove (1982:119)
from archive.org

Chronology

Halley’s Comet of 760 CE shows that Theophanes' A.M._a is correct and the year was 756 CE.

Year (CE)	Reference	Corrections	Notes
9 March 756 CE	on 9 March A.M._a 6248	none	Calculated with CHRONOS extra year not added because Halley’s Comet of 760 CE shows that Theophanes' A.M._a is correct. See Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, Theophanes, and the Comet of 760 CE for details.
9 March 757 CE	on 9 March Constantine, 16th year	none	Calculated with CHRONOS reign started 18 June 741 CE
9 March 756 CE	on 9 March Abdelas, 2nd year	none	Calculated with CHRONOS reign started on 10 June 754 CE
9 March 759 CE	on 9 March Paul, 2nd year	none	Calculated with CHRONOS consecrated on 29 May 757 CE
9 March 756 or 9 March 757 CE	on 9 March Constantine, 3rd year	none	Calculated with CHRONOS installed 754 CE
9 March 759 CE	Salim's measures against Christians and Theodore [I] exiled	none	Mango and Scott (1997:594-595) suggest this would have happened in A.H. 141 A.H. 141 went from 14 May 758 CE - 3 May 759 CE (calculated with CHRONOS)
9 March 757 CE	Salim invaded the Roman country	none	Mango and Scott (1997:594-595) suggest this happened in A.H. 139 A.H. 139 went from 5 June 756 CE - 24 May 757 CE (calculated with CHRONOS)

Seismic Effects

there occurred a considerable earthquake in Palestine and Syria

Locations

Palestine
Syria

Sources

Source Discussions

Natural phenomenon in Theophanes

Conterno (2014:106-107) considers the following regarding reports of natural phenomenon in Theophanes:

However, in examining this type of information two aspects must be kept in mind: on the one hand the fact that they represented the main content of the chronological lists linked to the city archives, on the other hand the fact that events of this type could very likely be the subject of independent recording by several sources and, especially in the case of the most impressive phenomena, their memory could also be passed down orally for a long time. The importance of the registers of the archives of Antioch and Edessa in relation to the Syriac and Greek chronicles was highlighted by Muriel Debié. As emerges from one of his studies, in fact, the registers of documents kept in the city and patriarchal archives - the so-called "archive books" - probably also contained annotations, in calendar or annalistic form, of the most relevant local events, references to which they could be contained in the documents and administrative acts themselves: construction of buildings, destruction due to wars or fires and floods, natural disasters and exceptional events of various kinds (plagues, famines, eclipses and other astronomical phenomena ...)

From these registers, short chronological lists were extracted and circulated independently and from which authors of both Greek and Syriac chronicles could draw, as can be seen from the testimony of Giovanni Malalas. To these must also be added the episcopal lists, lists of rulers and lists of synods and councils, and it is precisely to these thematic lists, which circulated independently and in different versions, that the material centered on Edessa, Antioch and Amida which is found in the later chronicles. According to Debié, any dating discrepancies found in the various chronicles can be attributed, on the one hand, to the fact that the chroniclers had different lists available and often crossed the data from the lists with those taken from other chronicles; on the other hand, the probable difficulties encountered by chroniclers in matching the different dating systems or in obtaining absolute datings from chrono related logies, or even to their precise intention to modify the chronological data for ideological reasons. Debié therefore hypothesizes a large production and circulation of these lists, which in fact constituted a concrete form of scheduling relevant events at the local level, primarily for practical purposes. Being instruments of use rather than compositions of a historiographical nature, they were not intended to cover very large periods, but were rather relatively short clips. An aspect that emerges clearly from his study, moreover, is that in these lists the relative chronology was just as and perhaps more important than the absolute one, since the fixing of memorable facts and their concatenation was essentially aimed at establish reference points for the chronological location of other events.

Theophanes' 7th and 8th century Sources

The 'Eastern Source'

The three earliest Byzantine sources (Paul the Deacon, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and Theophanes in that order¹) speak of two earthquakes separated by 3 years. The similarity of the ten Byzantine accounts, dates of composition, and the distance of the authors from the region (e.g., writing in Constantinople or Italy) suggests that the accounts are derived from a shared local source(s) and each other. None of the three earliest Byzantine authors could have experienced the earthquakes firsthand. As none of the Byzantine authors cite a source, the shared source - often referred to as the ‘eastern source’ - is a matter of conjecture². Several scholars (e.g., Brooks, 1906) have suggested that the ‘eastern source’ was cobbled together by a Melkites³ monk who wrote around 780 CE. After civil unrest led to the dissolution of Melkite monasteries in Palestine and Syria, a number of Melkite Monks ended up in Constantinople in 813 CE (Brooks, 1906:587). One of the monks may have brought this text with him – a text that would eventually find its way into the hands of Theophanes. How this source was cobbled together is also a matter of conjecture. Two authors whose works are now lost have been proposed as promising candidates in providing source material - John son of Samuel of whom nothing is known beyond that he lived in Western Syria and Theophilus of Edessa. Theophilus, who wrote in Greek, Syriac, and Arabic, was in his 50’s and living in the region when the earthquakes struck⁴. John’s Chronicle is thought to have ended in 746 CE (supposedly⁵) and the unknown editor of ~780 CE may have been a continuator – meaning he added his own version of events from ~746 to ~780 CE. He may have also incorporated Theophilus’ text, simply used Theophilus alone, or used other texts and information. Further, he may have been a redactor meaning that he modified John and/or Theophilus’ original text in addition to adding his own events. Some hypothetical possibilities are shown in Fig. 2. However this ‘eastern source’ came to be, since the Byzantine accounts write about earthquakes which affected Palestine, Syria, and Jazira (northern Mesopotamia), it would appear that the original report(s) of these earthquakes came from these territories.

Footnotes

1 Although Anastasius Bibliothecarius wrote after Theophanes, Neil (1998:46) points out that Anastasius likely based his account on an earlier non-extant and perhaps ‘unfinished’ version of Theophanes thus making his account effectively older than the extant copies of Theophanes we currently have access to.

2 Brooks (1906:587) was one of the first scholars to hypothesize about who wrote the ‘eastern source’. Subsequent work on the subject is discussed in multiple publications including but not limited to Proudfoot (1974), Mango and Scott (1997: lxxxii – lxxxiv), Conrad (1992, 2004), Hoyland, (2011:10), and Conterno (2014).

3 Melkites were supporters of the Council of Chalcedon (i.e., Chalcedonians) who resided in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria. In the church schisms of the time, Chalcedonians were allied with the same faction as Byzantine writers such as Theophanes and wrote in Greek and Syriac thus producing texts which could have been read by the Greek reading Byzantine authors.

4 Theophilus’ Lost Chronicle is known to have directly informed Arabic writer Agapius of Menbig and indirectly informed later Syriac authors such as Michael the Syrian and Chronicon Ad Annum 1234 (Hoyland, 2011:11-15). All three of these authors wrote about the Sabbatical Year Quakes.

5 The dates of the Sabbatical Year Earthquakes may suggest that it ended in 749 CE.

Hypothetical dependencies for Theophanes' eastern source

Figure 2 - Three hypothetical source dependencies for Theophanes. Dashed arrows indicate uncertain textual transmission. Solid lines are certain. Other Sources refers to some of the many sources thought to have informed Theophanes Chronicle. Mango and Scott (1997: lxxiv-lxxxviii), for example, list 20 possible sources for different time periods and subjects. Other local source refers to unknown sources of information for the Continuator. Alternative source dependencies are also possible. - Williams (in press)

Proudfoot (1974)'s discussion of the 'Eastern Source'

Proudfoot (1974:405-409) summarized Brook's pioneering work on Theophanes' eastern source in several run on sentences (only the first part is shown below)

Exposition of this source might profitably be preceded by discussion of the pioneer studies of Brooks towards identification of the common source underlying much of the seventh and early eighth century narratives of Theophanes and Michael the Syrian, the development and the corroboration of this work in the light of more recently published primary sources and of other chronicle traditions, and its contribution to the emerging perspective of a single Byzantino-Syriac tradition for the historiography of the seventh century. A Monophysite Syriac chronicle extending to 746 written soon after that date by the otherwise unknown John son of Samuel and citing an unknown chronicle composed 724-31 (wherein much of the more detailed material was attributable to a source written either within or on the frontier of the Caliphate before 717) (2) was transmitted to Theophanes through the intermediary of a Melchite monk of Palestine writing in Greek c. 780 whose work was brought to Constantinople in 813 after the dissolution of the Syrian monasteries and the dispersal of their personnel, and to Michael the Syrian through Denis of Tellmahre -writing c. 843-6, while the chronicle dated to 724-31 was one of the sources of the monk of Karthamin whose work was written c.785 and continued as the Chronicon ad 846 pertinens (3). The last notice Theophanes drew from the Melchite continuator of the common source was apparently (780) the persecution of Christians by al-Mandi (775-85) the first caliph of the Abbasid jihad ...

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Brooks, E. W. (1906). "The sources of Theophanes and the Syriac chroniclers." Byzantinische Zeitschrift 15(2): 578-587.

Conterno, M. (2014). La “descrizione dei tempi” all’alba dell’espansione islamica Un’indagine sulla storiografia greca, siriaca e araba fra VII e VIII secolo, De Gruyter.

Grumel, V. (1958). La chronologie, Presses Universitaires de France.

Hoyland, R. G. (2011). Theophilus of Edessa's Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, Liverpool University Press.

Mango, C., et al. (1997). The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern history, AD 284-813, Clarendon Press.

Proudfoot, A. S. (1974). "THE SOURCES OF THEOPHANES FOR THE HERACLIAN DYNASTY." Byzantion 44(2): 367-439.

Turtledove, H. (1982). "The Chronicle Of Theophanes, Trans. By Harry Turtledove ( 1982)."

Notes

Theophanes' Calendaric Inconsistencies

Author

Inconsistencies

Theophanes

Theophanes used the Alexandrian version of the Anno Mundi calendar even though it was out of favor at the time and would be obsolete by the 9th century CE. He did so because his Chronicle was a continuation of George Syncellus Chronicle which itself used the Alexandrian version of the Anno Mundi calendar. Proudfoot (1974:374) noted that the problem of whether Theophanes regarded the year as commencing on March 25 according to the Alexandrian world-year or on September 1 according to the Byzantine indiction cycle has not been resolved with [] clarity.

Theophanes

Grumel (1934:407), Proudfoot (1974:373-374), and others have pointed out that Theophanes A.M._a in the years A.M._a 6102-6206 and A.M._a 6218-6265 are frequently a year too low. The indictions, however, are thought by many more likely to be correct.

**Grumel's (1934:398-402) synchronisms**
Synchronism	Explanation
MA	Theophanes’s indictions begin in March - the start date for A.M._a
MB	Theophanes’s indictions begin in September after the March starting date for A.M._a

Note: Outside of Egypt, Indictions began on 1 September

**Grumel's (1934:398-402) synchronisms by time period**
Synchronism	Years A.M._a (approx.)	Date Range CE	Historical Markers
MA	? - 6102	? - 5 Oct. 610	until the end of the reign of Phocas (ruled 23 Nov. 602 – 5 Oct. 610 CE)
MB	6102 - 6206	5 Oct. 610 - 3 June 713	starting with the reign of Heraclius (ruled 5 Oct. 610 – 11 Feb. 641 CE) and ending right before the start of the reign of Anastasios II (aka Artemios) (ruled from 4 June 713 – 4 June 715 CE)
MA	6206 - 6220	4 June 713 CE - 24 March 728	starting with the reign of Anastasios II (aka Artemios) (ruled from 4 June 713 – 4 June 715 CE) until A.M._a 6220
MB	6221 - 6266	1 Sept. 728 - 31 Aug. 774	A.M._a6221 - 6266
MA	6267 - ?	25 March 774 - ?	A.M._a6267 - ?

Martin (1930:12-13) states the following:

The indiction runs from Sept. 1st, the Alexandrian A.M. from March 25th, but Theophanes probably dates the latter for calendar purposes from Sept. 1st², to correspond with the Indiction.
...
In two periods (607-714 and 726-774) the A.M. and the indictions do not correspond ³. It was formerly supposed that the Indictions were most likely to be correct, and therefore they must be made the foundation for a true chronology. But a suggestion was made by Bury (Later Roman Empire, II, p. 425). and worked out by Hubert (Byzant. Zeitschrift, VI, pp. 491 sqq.), that in 726 Leo III raised double taxes and put two indictions in one year, while in 774 or 775, Constantine remitted a year's taxation and spread one indiction over two years. This suggestion has been generally accepted. On the other hand, it is purely conjectural. Ginis (Das Promulgationsjahr d. Isuar. Ecloge. Byz. Zeitsch., XXIV, pp. 346 sqq.) would trace the error to Theophanes having confused the April of Indiction 10 (Sept. 1st, 726, to Aug. 31st, 727), with April of the 10th regnal year of Leo (March 25th, 725, to March 24th, 726). E.W. Brooks (Byz. Zeitsch., VIII, pp. 82 sqq.) explains the error by differences in the chronological systems of the sources used by Theophanes.

Muslim Writers - Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems by al-Masudi

مُرُوج ٱلذَّهَب وَمَعَادِن ٱلْجَوْهَر by ٱلْمَقْدِسِي by أَبُو ٱلْحَسَن عَلِيّ ٱبْن ٱلْحُسَيْن ٱبْن عَلِيّ ٱلْمَسْعُودِيّ

Aliases

Aliases	Aliases
al-Masudi	أَبُو ٱلْحَسَ
Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Masʿūdī	أَبُو ٱلْحَسَن عَلِيّ ٱبْن ٱلْحُسَيْن ٱبْن عَلِيّ ٱلْمَسْعُودِيّ

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Lunde and Stone (1989)

an abridged English translation from Lunde and Stone (1989:389)

QAHIR DEMANDS A TRUE HISTORY OF THE CALIPHATE

The following story originates from Muhammad ibn Ali al-Misri, the historian and native of Khurasan, who was an intimate of Qahir:

... It was Mahdi who rebuilt the mosque at Mecca and that of the Prophet at Medina in the form they stand today, and he rebuilt Jerusalem, which had been devastated by earthquakes.

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
Before 785 CE	[Caliph al-Mahdi (r. 775-785 CE)] rebuilt Jerusalem, which had been devastated by earthquakes.	none

Seismic Effects

he rebuilt Jerusalem, which had been devastated by earthquakes.

Locations

Jerusalem

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Lunde, P., Stone, Caroline (2013). Meadows Of Gold, Taylor & Francis.

Muslim Writers - Description of Syria including Palestine by al-Maqdisi

وصف سوريا بما في ذلك فلسطين (?) by ٱلْمَقْدِسِي

Aliases

Aliases	Aliases
al-Muqaddasi	ٱلْمَقْدِسِي
Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Abī Bakr al-Maqdisī	شَمْس ٱلدِّيْن أَبُو عَبْد ٱلله مُحَمَّد ابْن أَحْمَد ابْن أَبِي بَكْر ٱلْمَقْدِسِي
Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Abī Bakr al-Banna' al-Shami
al-Bashshari

Background and Biography

Excerpts

Here we can read about earthquake damage inflicted on Al-Aqsa mosque from more than one earthquake.

English from Le Strange (1886)

from Le Strange (1886:41)

But in the days of the Abbasides occurred the earthquakes which threw down most of the main building; all, in fact, except that portion round the Mihrab. Now when the Khalifa of that day obtained news of this, he enquired and learned that the sum at that time in the treasury would in no wise suffice to restore the mosque. So he wrote to the Governors of the Provinces and to other Commanders, that each should undertake the building of a colonnade.

English from Le Strange (1886) - embedded

see middle of page 41 starting with But in the days of the Abbasides
from Le Strange (1886:41)
from archive.org

Chronology

Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
after 25 Jan. 750 CE	in the days of the Abbasides	none

Seismic Effects

Earthquakes (plural) are mentioned
threw down most of the main building of Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem
only the part of the Mosque around the Mihrab was spared

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Le Strange, G. L. (1886). Description of Syria, Including Palestine by Mukaddasi, Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society.

Various translations of al-Maqdisi are listed here.

A. Miquel, La geographic humaine du monde musulmane, jusqu'au milieu du XI€ siecle, 4 vols., Paris-The Hague 1967-88

Muslim Writers - The Best Divisions in the Knowledge of the Regions by al-Maqdisi

أفضل الأقسام في معرفة المناطق (?) by ٱلْمَقْدِسِي

Aliases

Aliases	Aliases
al-Maqdisi
al-Muqaddasi	ٱلْمَقْدِسِي
Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Abī Bakr al-Maqdisī	شَمْس ٱلدِّيْن أَبُو عَبْد ٱلله مُحَمَّد ابْن أَحْمَد ابْن أَبِي بَكْر ٱلْمَقْدِسِي
Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Abī Bakr al-Banna' al-Shami
al-Bashshari

Background and Biography

Excerpts

I have not been able to access this book so I don't know if the earthquakes are described within it.

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Collins, B. A. (2001). The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions, Garnet - English translation

Various translations of al-Maqdisi are listed here.

A. Miquel, La geographic humaine du monde musulmane, jusqu'au milieu du XI€ siecle, 4 vols., Paris-The Hague 1967-88

The Complete History by Ibn al-Athir

الكامل في التاريخ by علي عز الدین بن الاثیر الجزري

Aliases

Aliases	Aliases
Ibn al-Athir	الدین بن
Ali 'Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari	علي عز الدین بن الاثیر الجزري
Abu al-Hassan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ash-Shaybani

Background and Biography

Excerpts

Poirier and Taher (1980)'s Ibn al-Athir references

Poirier and Taher (1980) list Ibn al-Athir as a source for an earthquake in AH 140 (25 May 757 to 13 May 758 CE) in Msis (Mopsuestia).

(7) Ibn Al Athir Abu Hassan 'Ali
· "Al Kamil fi at Tarikh", edited by Tornberg, Leyden, 1851-1876.
· "al Tarikh al Bahir fi ad Dawla al Atabikya", edited by Tolymat, Cairo, 1963.

Original Document

Sources

Sources according to Keany (2013)

Keany (2013:82) notes that in the earlier part of Ibn al-Athir’s History, he relies on al-Tabari without isnads and with minimal editing, making his “perhaps the most conservative of all the major universal chronicles.

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

"Al Kamil fi at Tarikh", edited by Tornberg, Leyden, 1851-1876. in Arabic

Ibn al-Athir (1965). al-Kamil fi al-tarikh. edited by Tornberg, Carolus Johannes Beirut, Dar Sadir. in Arabic

ul-Hasan, M. (2005). Ibn Al-At̲h̲ir: An Arab Historian : a Critical Analysis of His Tarikh-al-kamil and Tarikh-al-atabeca, Northern Book Centre.

The Complete History by Ibn al_Athir in Arabic (online at archive.org)

Ibn al-Athir Izz al-Din ( 1851-76, 1872). (Kitab) al-Kamil fil-tarikh (The Complete History). (C) RHC Hist.Orient. C. J. Tornberg. Leiden, Paris.

Biographical Info on Ibn al-Athir from Brill

The Cream of the History of Aleppo by Ibn al-Adim (aka Kemal ad-Din)

زبدة الحلب في تأريخ حلب by مال الدين عمر بن أحمد ابن العديم

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Ibn al-Adim
Kamāl al-Dīn Abu ʾl-Ḳāsim ʿUmar ibn Aḥmad ibn Hibat Allāh Ibn al-ʿAdīm	مال الدين عمر بن أحمد ابن العديم
Kamāl al-Dīn Abu Hafs 'Umar b. Ahmad

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Blochet (1895)

from Blochet (1900:46 n.3)

Masisah. Malmistra according to Latin writers; in Armenian Msis.

According to The Description of Aleppo (ms. ar. 1683, fol. 67 r.):

this name includes two towns; between the two flows the Djihân river, the western city is Masisah, the eastern city Kafr-bîà, it was called the little Baghdad (Baghdâd as-Soghrâ)

Ibn abi-la'koûb said:

It was built by al-Mansoûr during his caliphate. It was a simple post before him. Al-Mamoûn builds Kafr-bîà; the Djihân river flows between the two places; on this stream there is an old bridge, large and built in stone.

According to the same author, the citadel of Masisah was built during the reign of Abd al-Malik ibn-Marwân; there was a church that 'Omar ibn' Abd al-'Azîz destroyed. This person had the mosque djâmi built for the locals in the vicinity of Kafr-bîâ. Hishâm ibn 'Abd al-Malik built the suburb of the city that suffered from the earthquake of the year A.H. 140. We still cite al-Mansoûr and al-Mahdî as the builders of this city ; ar-Rashîd built a ditch there. It was taken from the Muslims in 354 of the Hegira by the takafoûr.

French from Blochet (1895)

from Blochet (1900:46 n.3)

Masisah. La Malmistra des écrivains latins ; en arménien Msis.

Suivant la Description d'Alep (ms. ar. 1683, fol. 67 r.):

ce nom comprend deux villes ; entre les deux coule le fleuve Djîhan, la ville occidentale est Masîsah, la ville orientale Kafr-bîà, on l'appelait la petite Bagdad (Baghdâd as-Soghrâ).

Ibn abi-la'koûb dît :

Elle fut construite par al-Mansoûr durant son khalifat. C'était avant lui un simple poste. Al-Mamoûn bâtit Kafr-bîà ; le fleuve Djihân coule entre les deux places ; sur ce cours d'eau il y a un pont ancien, grand et bâti en pierres.

Suivant le même auteur, la citadelle de Masîsah fut bâtie sous le règne d' 'Abd al-Malik ibn-Marwân ; il y avait une église qu' 'Omar ibn 'Abd al-'Azîz détruisit. Ce personnage fit construire une mosquée djâmi' pour les gens du pays dans les environs de Kafr-bîâ. Hishâm ibn 'Abd al-Malik construisit le faubourg de la ville qui souffrit du tremblement de terre de l'an 140. On cite encore al-Mansoûr et al-Mahdî comme constructeurs de cette ville ; ar-Rashîd y construisit un fossé. Elle fut prise aux Musulmans en 354 de l'hégire par le takafoûr

French from Blochet (1900) - embedded

see footnote 3 on page 46
from Blochet (1900:46 n.3)
from archive.org

Chronology


Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
25 May 757 - 13 May 758 CE	A.H. 140	none	Calculated with CHRONOS

Seismic Effects

the suburb of the city that suffered from the earthquake of the year A.H. 140

Locations

Masisah (Mopsuestia).

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Ibn al-‘Adim. Zubdat al-halab fi ta’rikh Halab. 3 vols. Edited by Sami al-Dahhan. Damascus: Institut Francais de Damas, 1951–1968.

Freytag, G. Selecta ex historia Halebi Paris: Typographia Regia, 1819. - a Latin translation

Meri, J. W. and J. L. Bacharach (2006). Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 1 Routledge.

Morray, David W. An Ayyubid Notable and His World: Ibn al-‘Adim and Aleppo as Portrayed in His Biographical Dictionary of People Associated with the City. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994

Kamāl al-Dīn (1896): Histoire d'Alep, in Revue de l'Orient Latin

Kamāl al-Dīn ʻUmar ibn Aḥmad Ibn al-ʻAdīm, Edgar Blochet (1900): Histoire d'Alep

Other works by Ibn al-‘Adim

Ibn al-‘Adim, Bughyat al-talab fi ta’rikh Halab. 11 vols. Edited by Suhayl Zakkar. Damascus: Dar al-Ba‘th, 1988

Earthquake in Mopsuestia in A.H. 139 according to an unknown Muslim source

Background and Biography

Le Strange (1905:130-131) did not cite his source.

Excerpts

English from Le Strange (1905)

from Le Strange (1905:130-131)

Al-Massisah lies on the Nahr Jayhan (the river Pyramus). It was conquered by 'Abd-Allah, son of the Omayyad Caliph 'Abd-al- Malik, in the 1st (7th) century, who rebuilt its fortifications and established a strong garrison here. A mosque was erected on the summit of the hill, and the church in the fortress was turned into a granary. A suburb or second town was built shortly afterwards on the other bank of the Jayhan, called Kafarbayya, where the Caliph Omar II founded a second mosque and dug a great cistern. A third quarter, lying to the east of the Jayhan, was built by the last Omayyad Caliph Marwan II, and named Al-Khusus ; he surrounded it by a wall with a ditch, and wooden doors closed its gateways. Under the Abbasids the Caliph Mansur turned an ancient temple into a Friday Mosque, making it thrice as large as the older mosque of Omar II. Harun-ar-Rashid rebuilt Kafar-bayya, and its mosque was further enlarged by Mamun. The two quarters of Kafarbayya, and Massisah proper were connected by a stone bridge across the Jayhan ; the town bore the title of Al-Ma'muriyah, 'the Populous,' or 'Well-built,' said to have been bestowed upon it by the Caliph Mansur, who restored Massisah after it had been partially destroyed by earthquake in [A.H.] 139 (5 June 756 to 24 May 757 CE). At a later date Massisah, like its neighbours, passed into the possession of the kings of Little Armenia.

English from Le Strange (1905) - embedded

see bottom paragraph of page 130 starting with The three cities of Al-Mass!sah (Mopsuestia), Adhanah (Adana)
from Le Strange (1905:130-131)
from archive.org

Chronology


Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
5 June 756 to 24 May 757 CE	A.H. 139	none	Calculated with CHRONOS

Seismic Effects

Caliph Mansur, who restored Massisah after it had been partially destroyed by earthquake in [A.H.] 139

Locations

Massisah (Mopsuestia)

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate: Mesopotamia, Persia, and Central Asia from the Moslem Conquest to the Time of Timur, Cambridge, 1905; tr. Maḥmud ʿErfān, as Joḡrāfiā-ye tāriḵi-e sarzaminhā-ye ḵelāfat-e šarqi, Tehran, 1970.

Guy Le Strange at Encyclopedia Iranica

Guy Le Strange at wikipedia - has links to his works

Muslim Writers - The Exciter of Desire (for Visitation of the Holy City and Syria) by Jamal ad Din Ahmad

موتهير الءعهيرام (Muthîr al-Ghirâm) by جامال اد دين اهماد (?)

Aliases

Aliases	Aliases
Jamal ad Din Ahmad	جامال اد دين اهماد (?)

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Le Strange (1890)

from Le Strange (1890:92)

On the authority of 'Abd ar Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Mansur ibn Thabit, from his father, who had it from his father and grandfather. In the days of 'Abd al Malik, all the gates of the mosque were covered with plates of gold and of silver. But in the reign of the Khalif Al Mansur, both the eastern and the western portions of the mosque had fallen down. Then it was reported to the Khalif, saying,

O commander of the faithful, verily the earthquake in the year 130 (a.d. 746) did throw down the eastern part of the mosque and the western part also; now, therefore, do thou give orders to rebuild the same and raise it again.

Khalif replied that as there were no moneys in his treasury, (to supply the lack of coin) they should strip off the plates of gold and of silver that overlaid the gates. So they stripped these off and coined therefrom Dinars and Dirhams, which moneys were expended on the rebuilding of the mosque until it was completed. Then occurred a second earthquake, and the building that Al Mansur had commanded to be built fell to the ground. In the days of the Khalif Al Mahdi, who succeeded him, the mosque was still lying in ruins, which, being reported to him, he commanded them to rebuild the same. And the Khalif said that the mosque had been (of old) too narrow, and of too great length - and (for this reason) it had not been much used by the people — so now (in rebuilding it) they should curtail the length and increase the breadth. Now the restoration of the mosque was completed on the new plan during the days of his Khalifate.

English from Le Strange (1890) - embedded

see bottom paragraph on page 92 starting with On the authority of 'Abd ar Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Mansur ibn Thabit
from Le Strange (1890:92)
from archive.org

Chronology

**1st Earthquake**
Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
11 September 747 - 30 August 748 CE	A.H. 130	none	Calculated with CHRONOS

**2nd Earthquake**
Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
Between 10 June 754 and 24 July 785 CE	After the rebuild by Caliph Al-Mansur (r. 10 June 754 – 6 October 775 CE) and before the second rebuild by Caliph Al-Mahdi (r. 6 October 775 – 24 July 785 CE)	none

Seismic Effects

1st Earthquake

the earthquake in the year 130 did throw down the eastern part of the mosque and the western part also

2nd Earthquake

Then occurred a second earthquake, and the building that Al Mansur had commanded to be built fell to the ground

Locations

1st Earthquake

Al Aqsa Mosque - Jerusalem

2nd Earthquake

Al Aqsa Mosque - Jerusalem

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Le Strange, G. (1890). Palestine under the Moslems. A description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500. London, Alexander P. Watt for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund.

Le Strange (1910:10) relates that an excellent MSS of this work, which has never yet been printed, are preserved in the Bibliotlieqne Nationale at Paris, and from these the translations given have been made. For a full description of the MSS., and an account of Jamal ad Din's life, I may refer to my paper on Suyuti (who has copied Jamal ad Din), in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xix , new series, p. 250.

Muslim Writers - The Glorious History of Jerusalem and Hebron by Mujir al-Din

التاريخ المجيد للقدس والخليل (?) by مجير الدين

Aliases

Aliases	Aliases
Mujir al-Din al-’Ulaimi	مجير الدين العليمي (?)
al-’Ulaimi	العليمي (?)
'Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad al-'Ulaymi	مجير الدين عبدالرحمن الحنبلي العليمي الشهير بأبن قطينه (?)
Ibn Quttainah	يبن قوتتايناه (?)

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009) - an account of the earthquake which destroyed Al Aqsa Mosque the 1st time

from Ambraseys (2009)

The history of the holy Rock at Jerusalem on the night of the earthquake, according to Abu Umayr who held the Jundub which pertained to Rustum al- Farisi:

At the time when the first earthquake occurred, they requested me to give the call to prayer, and I answered that that was not my business. They asked me the same when the second [earthquake] occurred and I gave the same answer. Come the third earthquake, I was very frightened and I approached the mosque. All the houses had been destroyed. One of the guards of the holy Rock asked me, 'Quick, go and get news of my family and I will tell you the prodigy.' I went to find out and brought him back the news. Then he said to me, 'The dome lifted itself up, [so that] one could see the stars in the sky, and then it settled again. I heard some unknown people giving orders: here, a bit more, since it was not in its correct place.

According to another version (that of ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Qaramany), taken from Amr and Rustum himself:

There were ten guards at each gate: when I brought him news of his family, my guard related to me that the dome had been dropped down (depose´), [so] that the stars had been visible, and that before I returned, rustlings had been heard, then a voice saying ‘Put it down’ three times, and the dome was put back in its place.

Al-Walid ibn Hamad gives an account taken from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Mansur ibn Thabit, who gives the following version passed down from his father and grandfather:

Abu ‘Uthman was sounding the evening prayer, after the prayer of Qyam [the breaking of the fast], on the black square. During the evening prayer, he heard the roar of an earthquake, and cries of people’s distress across the town. It was a black and cold night, full of rain and wind. He heard a voice (without seeing anyone) which said, “Lift it up gently, in the name of God”, and the dome was lifted up so that the stars appeared, and at the same time people felt drops of water on their faces, until the time of the call to prayer. After this the voice said, “Put it down, put it in place, in the name of God.” And the dome returned to its place.

(al-’Ulaimi, al-Uns. i. 237–238).

English from Sauvaire (1876) - accounts of two instances of seismic damage and repairs made to Al Aqsa mosque

from Sauvaire (1876:59)

Abd-er-Rahman ibn Mohammad ibn Mansoûr ibn Tàbet reported from his father who reports from his grandfather that all the doors [of Al-Aqsa Mosque] were covered with gold and silver plates up to the time of Abd-el-Malek. Now, when the Abbasid Abu-Dja'far El-Mansoûr came, the eastern and western parts of the mosque had fallen. He said [to the Caliph]:

Commander of the Believers, the eastern and western parts of the mosque were overthrown by the earthquake in the year 130. If you gave the order to rebuild this Mosque and restore it, I do not have the money [to do so].

Then he [the Caliph] ordered him to tear off the gold and silver plates which covered the doors. They were torn off and they made dinars and dirhams which were used for the expenses of the reconstruction until it was completed.

The caliphate of El-Mansoùr began in the year 136. He was the second caliph of the Abbasids who built Baghdad. Construction started in the year 145. He [El-Mansoùr] died on Saturday the 6th of the month of Dhu l'Hijja, year 158 (AD October 7, 775), at the age of fifty-eight years and was buried in Mecca.

Some time later the second earthquake struck and overturned the buildings executed by the order of Abu-Dja'far. Subsequent to this time, that is to say after the death of the Caliph, [the new Caliph] El-Mahdy came and with the constructions in ruins, the state of things was explained to him. He ordered repairs saying:

This Mosque is narrow and long and empty of followers. Decrease the length and make it wider.

The building was completed under his caliphate. His full name is Abu-'Abd-Allah Mohammad, son of Abd-Allah El-Mansoûr, and his honorary nickname is El-Mahdy.

French from Sauvaire (1876) - accounts of two instances of seismic damage and repairs made to Al Aqsa mosque

from Sauvaire (1876:59)

'Abd-er-Rahman ebn Mohammad ebn Mansoûr ebn Tàbet a rapporté d'après son père qui le tenait de son aïeul, que toutes les portes étaient revêtues de plaques d'or et d'argent à l'époque d' 'Abd-el-Malek. Or, lorsque vint Abou-Dja'far El-Mansoûr. l'Abbâsîde, les parties orientale et occidentale du Masdjed étaient tombées : « Com- mandeur des Croyants, lui dit-on_, les parties orientale et occidentale du Masdjed ont été renversées par le tremblement de terre, en l'année 130; si tu donnais l'ordre de reconstruire ce Masdjed et de le restaurer ? — Je n'ai pas d'argent, » répondit-il. Puis, il ordonna d'arracher les plaques d'or et d'argent qui recouvraient les portes. Elles furent arrachées, et on en fabriqua des dinars et des derhems qui servirent aux dépenses de la reconstruction, jusqu'à ce que celle-ci fut achevée.

Le khalifat d'El-Mansoùr commença en l'année 136. Deuxième khalife des 'Abbâsides, c'est lui qui construisit Baghdàd; la construction en fut commencée l'an 145. Il mourut le samedi 6 du mois de dou'l heddjeh, l'année 158 (7 octobre 775 de J.-C.), à l'âge de cinquante-huit ans, et fut enterré à la Mekke.

Quelque temps après eut lieu le second tremblement de terre qui renversa les constructions exécutées par l'ordre d'Abou-Dja'far. Postérieurement à cette époque, c'est-à-dire après la mort du khalife, El-Mahdy étant venu et ces constructions se trouvant en ruines, on lui exposa l'état des choses: il ordonna de faire les réparations, en disant: « Ce Masdjed est étroit et long, et vide de fidèles; diminuez-en la longueur et faites-le plus large. » La bâtisse fut achevée sous son khalifat. Son nom entier est Abou-'Abd-Allah Mohammad, fils d' 'Abd-Allah El-Mansoûr, et son surnom honorifique El-Mahdy.

French from Sauvaire (1876) - accounts of two instances of seismic damage and repairs made to Al Aqsa mosque - embedded

see 1st complete paragraph on page 59 starting with 'Abd-er-Rahman ebn Mohammad ebn Mansoûr ebn Tàbet
from Sauvaire (1876:59)
from archive.org

Original Document - Arabic - embedded

not bookmarked

Chronology

Dates for the two earthquakes which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque

**Earthquake which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque the 1st time**
Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
11 September 747 - 30 August 748 CE	A.H. 130	none	Calculated with CHRONOS

**Earthquake which destroyed Al Aqsa Mosque the 2nd time**
Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
10 June 754 – 6 October 775 CE	Sometime during the reign of Caliph Al-Mansur (r. 10 June 754 – 6 October 775)	none	The caliphate of El-Mansoùr began in the year 136 (specifically 10 June 754 CE) Some time later the second earthquake struck and overturned the buildings Subsequent to this time, that is to say after the death of the Caliph, [the new Caliph] El-Mahdy (r. 6 October 775 – 24 July 785) came and with the constructions in ruins, the state of things was explained to him He (El-Mahdy) ordered repairs Notes Reference in Sauvaire (1876:59) to construction starting in A.H. 145 refers to building in Baghdad and not to Al Aqsa Mosque. There is a possibility that the Earthquake which destroyed Al Aqsa Mosque the 2nd time struck during the reign of Al-Mahdi (r. 6 October 775 – 24 July 785)

The Main Shock from the Earthquake which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque the 1st time struck at night

Three instances of eyewitness testimony sourced through a chain of witnesses (isnad) describes a main nighttime shock. A nighttime earthquake is compatible with the timing of the Holy Desert Quake reported by al-Muqaffa, Al-Makin, Chronicon Orientalen, and Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre. The table below summarizes eyewitness testimony for a nighttime earthquake.

**Earthquake which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque the 1st time struck at night**
Source	Quotes
Abu Umayr	The dome lifted itself up, [so that] one could see the stars in the sky
‘Ubayd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Qaramany	the dome had been dropped down, [so] that the stars had been visible,
Al-Walid ibn Hamad	Abu ‘Uthman was sounding the evening prayer, after the prayer of Qyam [the breaking of the fast] During the evening prayer, he heard the roar of an earthquake, and cries of people’s distress across the town It was a black and cold night, full of rain and wind the dome was lifted up so that the stars appeared at the same time people felt drops of water on their faces, until the time of the call to prayer Notes The account from Al-Walid ibn Hamad states that the earthquake struck during an evening prayer that happened after the prayer of Qyam [the breaking of the fast]. It appears that the prayer of Qyam can take place any time during the night. Caveat : the earthquake was described as striking on a black and cold night, full of rain and wind yet the same earthquake breached the roof of Al Aqsa Mosque such that the stars appeared and at the same time people felt drops of water on their faces. How likely is it that one can see the stars on a black rainy night ?

Foreshocks from the Earthquake which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque the 1st time

Two earlier daytime foreshocks were also described according to Abu Umayr.

**Descriptions of Foreshock timing**
Shock Number	Quotes
1	At the time when the first earthquake occurred, they requested me to give the call to prayer,
2	They asked me the same (give the call to prayer) when the second [earthquake] occurred

The foreshocks are described as occurring soon before calls to prayer. Muslim prayer times are shown below.

**Muslim Prayer Times**
Prayer Name	Prayer Time
Fajr prayer	~ 6 am - between dawn and sunrise
Zuhr prayer	12 pm - noon
Asr prayer	~ 3 pm - midway between noon and sunset
Maghrib prayer	~ 6 pm - just after sunset
Isha prayer	~ 7 pm - nighttime

Seismic Effects

Earthquake which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque the 1st time

All the houses had been destroyed
The dome [of Al Aqsa Mosque] lifted itself up, [so that] one could see the stars in the sky, and then it settled again
the dome had been dropped down, [so] that the stars had been visible
he heard the roar of an earthquake, and cries of people’s distress across the town
the eastern and western parts of the mosque were overthrown by the earthquake in the year 130

Earthquake which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque the 2nd time

Some time later the second earthquake struck and overturned the buildings

Locations mentioned

Earthquake which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque the 1st time

Jerusalem

Earthquake which damaged Al Aqsa Mosque the 2nd time

Jerusalem

Sources

Elad (1995:2) reproduced Mujir ad-Din's Introduction which discusses some of his sources and shows why this text, despite being late, may contain reliable information.

What motivated me to write this [i.e. book] is that the majority of cities in the Islamic world gained the interest of the scholars, who wrote about matters related to their history, helpful things that are instructive of their true events in olden times. Though with respect to Jerusalem, I did not come across any writing of this kind about it, devoted only to it ... I saw (therefore) that people yearn for something of this type, an example of which I turned to do; for a few for one] of the scholars wrote something connected to praise [of Jerusalem] only; several of them deal with a description of `Umar's conquest and the construction of the Umayyads; a few of them note Salah al-Din's conquest, found it sufficient, and did not mention what occurred after it; and some of them wrote a history in which they discussed some distinguished Jerusalemites, which is not of much use.

And lo, I wish to gather all the notations on the construction, the praise, the conquests and the biographies of the esteemed persons and to mention some of the famous events in order to construct a complete history.⁴

Footnotes

Mujir al-Din, vol. I (Amman ed.), p. 5 (Bulaq's ed., vol. I, p. 6); mentioned by Goitein, "Jerusalem During the Arabic Period," p. 7.

Elad (1995:2) notes that Mujir al-Din's sources for Umayyad and possibly early Abbasid periods relies on the "Literature in Praise of Jerusalem". Elad (1995:6-7, 10-11) describes this literature as follows:

The "Literature in Praise of Jerusalem" upon which Mujir al-Din based most of the first part of his book, which discusses the early period of the city, is mainly from the 12th to 15th centuries. This literature is predated by earlier writings which the later authors copied. Among these are the books by Abu Bakr al-Wasiti (beginning of the 11th century), Fada'il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas and by al-Musharraf b. al-Murajja (middle of the 11th century), Fada'il Bayt al-Maqdis wa-al-Sham wa-'l-Khalil, which is the largest and most important of the In-Praise-of-Jerusalem literature. A number of scholars used Ibn al-Murajja's manuscript for their research.

The "Literature of Praise" (Fada'il) is considered a part of the hadith literature. This literature is usually regarded as reflecting trends and developments in the early Muslim state in the 1st/7th and 2nd/8th centuries. The classic approach of the important hadith scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries was to examine the hadith chiefly through the matn, i.e., internal and external analysis and examination of the content of the hadith. This type of analysis provides historical, religious, social, economic, etc. data incorporated into the hadith. Sometimes it is possible to point precisely to trends of a specific hadith (though less possible to give an exact date of its creation) by comparing it with known historic processes or events. As noted, with the exception of single instances, just on the basis of the criterion for examining the matn alone, it is very difficult to establish an exact chronology or to date the creation of the tradition before the end of the 1st/7th century. During the last twenty years extensive progress has been made in the study of early Muslim historiography, especially in the broad field of hadith literature. More and more emphasis is being given to the study of the isnad, i.e., to the chain of transmitters. Efforts are being made in these studies to develop a method and establish criteria that will aid in finding data, particularly chronological (though also others) about the hadith.

Elad (1995:13-20) suggested that In-Praise-of-Jerusalem literature contained a number of traditions that came from the Umayyad period.

Research on Jerusalem in the early Muslim period in general and on the In-Praise-of-Jerusalem literature in particular took a decisive turn following Kister's studies. He further developed the method Goldziher used in studying the hadith and clearly showed that a great number of the traditions of the Praise literature are very old and were created in the Umayyad period, or in his own words:
We can say with certainty that they were well known and widely circulated as early as the beginning of the second century after the hijra.... Jerusalem Praise Literature emerged in the second half of the first century of the hijra (the end of the seventh century C.E.) and was put into writing in the first half of the second century of the hijra (eight century C.E.).
Recently, Juynboll has argued, basing his argument on other methods, that this literary type (the Fada'il) as a whole (not just the "Literature in Praise of Jerusalem") is among the older types of hadith, if not the oldest, and was already circulated from the middle to the end of the 1st/7th century. ³⁸ Other scholars reached identical conclusions through analysis and treatment of another type of hadith literature, al-Fitan wa-'l-Malahim (events and wars of the "End of Days")."

I rely to a great extent in this book on Jerusalem Praise Literature and in particular on two compositions that Le Strange did not see, namely, that of al-Wasiti and of Ibn al-Murajja (beginning to the middle of the 11th century). The years these authors lived and when they died date their compositions to pre-Crusader times. The assumption of other scholars that a large part of the In-Praise-of-Jerusalem literature was composed after the Crusader period is mistaken. Analysis of the historic background (the Umayyad period) which was conducive to the creation of the Praise literature and the conclusions of the studies quoted above lead to the conclusion that most of the traditions in the Jerusalem Praise compositions are from the Umayyad period. They can, therefore, be traced back to the end of the 1st/7th century or the beginning to middle of the 2nd/8th century. The collection of the old Praise-of-Jerusalem traditions that appear in the books of al-Wasiti and Ibn al-Murajja served the later authors of the 12th to the 15th centuries; the latter copied what lay before them. If they added anything, they usually noted it; sometimes they deleted material. Comparison of tens of traditions in the books of al-Wasiti and Ibn-al-Murajja, that were accurately copied by later authors is proof of this. Evidently, the reason for the caution and relative preciseness in copying these traditions was because they were part of the hadith literature. This is one of the basic characteristics of the hadith literature and also of Muslim history: ancient compositions and traditions can "disappear" for hundreds of years and reappear in later compositions....

Other arguments can lead to the attribution of an early date to the Praise-of-Jerusalem Traditions:

Many traditions with an identical isnad exist in early hadith collections or early exegesis of the Qur'an as well as in Fada'il works. (There is a large body of evidence of this type, hence it would be superfluous to discuss it here.)

A great number of traditions (sometimes many scores) were transmitted at a certain stage by one transmitter, one isnad chain going back from him to the alleged originator of the report. One of these transmitters, al-Walid b. Hammad al-Ramli, who wrote in the mid-9th century, has been discussed elsewhere. The fact that each different transmitter, some living in the 9th-10th centuries, had an accumulation of so many traditions makes it likely that they already possessed a book or big collection of "Traditions in Praise of Jerusalem".

Juynboll argues that during the last two decades of the 1st century of the hijra (700-720), interest was awakened in hadith literature in the different centres of the Caliphate, and he adds:
I have come to recognize that the vast majority of isnads, as far as their three oldest transmitters are concerned, can be considered as being particular to one centre. At a somewhat later stage, say, during the first few decades of the second century (the 720's-750's A.D.), contacts do seem to have been established between centres and witness the emergence of isnads that can be labelled as being particular to more than one centre.
An analysis of the isnad of a great many traditions in Praise-of-Jerusalem shows that at least the first three scholars, beginning from the Successors onwards, lived in Palestine or in the towns of southern Syria. This is particularly evident in the traditions dealing with or providing information on the topography of Jerusalem (and not merely from a geographico-historical point of view). I shall insist and comment on this point many times during my discussion. It has important demographic and cultural implications, and a special study needs to be devoted to this in the future.

The place the tradition was transmitted or heard is often given in the isnad itself, and sometimes even the date of transmission. There are many such testimonies in the "Traditions in Praise of Jerusalem" in Ibn al-Murajja's work. The dates are generally from the 9th century onwards, although some are earlier

Many key traditions, often those with the greatest historical value for the history of Jerusalem during the Umayyad period and later, were transmitted by a chain of transmitters from one Jerusalem family. Such a family, the Salama b. Qaysar, with all its branches, has been discussed elsewhere. ⁴⁸.
Another very important family is that of `Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Mansur b. Thabit of Jerusalem. Eight traditions transmitted by members of this family are found in al-Wasiti's work. ⁴⁹

Abd al-Rahman lived in the mid-9th century. He transmitted all eight traditions mentioned above to al-Walid b. Hammad al-Ramli (mid-late 9th century).

His father, Muhammad b. Mansur, was active in the last quarter of the 8th century and early 9th century. He was active at least during the reign of Caliph al-Mahdi (reigned 775-785), since he tells of the church which al-Mahdi ordered al-Fadl b. Salih (b. `Ali b. `Abdallah b.`Abbas) to renovate and construct. This renovation may have been carried out during al-Madhi's visit to Jerusalem in the year 163/780. From another source it is learned that Salih b. `Ali was in al-Mahdi's retinue when he came to Jerusalem in the year already mentioned. Another tradition tells that the Muhammad b. al-Mansur in question lived in the period of Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 150/767-8) and even heard [hadith] and transcribed from him on the Haram.

Mansur b. Thabit. Nothing more is known about him.

Thabit b. Istanibiyadh, al-Firisi al Khumsi lived during al-Mahdi's reign. He reports on al-Mahdi's visit to Jerusalem in 780 in an important tradition. In another he reports from Raja' b. Haywa (d. 112/730) on the building of the Dome of the Rock. And in yet another, he reports on the earthquake which occurred in 130/747. The members of this family are discussed in detail since the information they provide in their traditions is of the greatest importance for the history of Jerusalem in the early Islamic period. At least in connection with the "Traditions in Praise of Jerusalem" which were examined, it is concluded that the family traditions are an extremely important source. This differs from Schacht, who almost totally negates such traditions in the field of legal hadith.

The isnad in many "Traditions in Praise of Jerusalem" does not "originate" with the Prophet or with one of the Companions of the Prophet (Sahaba), but with a Successor or the Successor of a Successor, who generally lived in the first or second half of the 8th century. In this respect the words of Schacht should be noted, that "isnads have a tendency to grow backwards," or that:
In the course of polemical discussions . . . traditions from Successors become traditions from Companions and traditions from Companions become traditions from the Prophet.... We must as a rule ... consider the opinions of the Successors as the starting point, and the traditions from the Companions and from the Prophet as secondary development, intended to provide a higher authority for the doctrine in question.
In another place he says:
Generally speaking, we say that the most perfect and complete isnads are the latest.
Juynboll develops this basic idea of Schacht's as follows:

Where did a specific hadith originate? Probably in the region where the traditionist mentioned at the Successor's level in its isnad operated.

When did a specific hadith originate? ... at the earliest sometime during the life of the Successor of the isnad .

Who may be held responsible for bringing a tradition into circulation? ... It is again in most cases the Successor who can be held responsible as the earliest likely candidate ... but the class of so-called Successors of Successors are even more likely candidates.

It can be said with certainty that traditions concluding with a Successor or Successor of a Successor were widespread during the Umayyad period, at least at the time when the last transmitter lived.
In many traditions of this kind, the earliest personality signing the isnad was a scholar living in one of the cities of Palestine or at least a Syrian scholar, with close ties to Palestine and its scholars. The information they transmitted was thus of great importance; it is often unique historical or historico-topographical information. Traditions of this kind were transmitted by mu'adhdhiniin of Jerusalem, but mainly by religious scholars, some who served in administrative posts during the Umayyad reign. Such men included

Khalid b. Ma`dan (d, 103 or 104/721 or 722), who was both a transmitter of traditions and chief of the "police" (sahib al-shurfa) of Caliph Yazid b. Mu`awiya (reigned 60/680-63/683)

or the famous scholar, Raja' b. Haywa (d. 112/730), born in Beit Shean in Palestine, who was in charge of the construction of the Dome of the Rock, and served the Umayyad caliphs from `Abd al-Malik (reigned 65/685—86/705) to ` Umar b. `Abd al-'Aziz (reigned 99/717-101/720)

or Ibrahim b. Abi `Abla (d. 152/769-770 or 153/770), who lived in Ramla, and was in close contact with the Caliphs

al-Walid b. `Abd al-Malik (reigned 86/705-96/715)

Sulayman b. `Abd al-Malik (reigned 96/715-99/717)

`Umar b. `Abd al-`Aziz

Hisham b. `Abd al-Malik (reigned 99/724-125/743)

and Marwan b. Muhammad (reigned 125/744-132/749)

Al-Walid b. `Abd al-Malik used to send him from Damascus to Jerusalem to distribute the pensions which the government gave to the Arabs there (`ata').

In another tradition, Ibrahim testifies that al-Walid b. `Abd al-Malik used to send gold bands with him to be distributed among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In another place his explanation of a verse of the Qur'an is transmitted with an early, very important topographical identification. Ibrahim served as secretary to Hisham and was in charge of diwan al-khritam during Marwan b. Muhammad's reign. There are many other such examples. One further unique example is the last tradition in al-Wasiti's book. The isnad concludes with Damara b. Rabi`a al-Ramli (d. 202/817), the pupil of Ibrahim b. Abi `Abla, from Khalid b. Hazim, who recounts in the first person that Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, the famous scholar (d. 124/ 742), came to Jerusalem:
and I began to go around with him in these (holy places) so that he could pray there. He said:
I said here is [a]shaykh, who recites from the holy books (inna hahuna shaykhan yuhaddithu 'ani ''-kutubi), called `Uqba b. Abi Zaynab. What do you think of sitting in his company?
...

He said:
And we sat by him and he began to transmit traditions in praise of Jerusalem. And since he dwelt at length (on these), al-Zuhri said, oh shaykh, you will never reach the level reached by Allah.
He said:
Glory to (Allah) who did take his Servant for a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts we did bless.
And he (the shaykh) was angered and said:
The resurrection of the dead will not come to pass until the bones of Muhammad, may Allah pray for him and save him, are transferred to Jerusalem.

From this tradition one learns of the early ziyara to holy places in Jerusalem during the Umayyad period; of the study of non-Muslim religious literature on the Haram by Muslims; of the identification of Jerusalem with the well known Qur'an verse of the Prophet's Isra; of the activity of al-Zuhri, the important scholar, and of two early Jerusalem scholars, mentioned by name. This is in fact an historical tradition, with isnad, of course. Many traditions of this kind are to be found in the collections of the Fada'il.

In light of all of the above, and based on my understanding of the traditions of the "Literature of Praise", I attempt to trace the earliest historical and topographical processes in the Muslim period in Jerusalem. This brings us back to the Umayyad period, in which great efforts were made by the rulers to exalt Syria (including Palestine: al-Sham), and in which Jerusalem received a special status within the framework of these efforts.

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Sauvaire, H. (1876). Histoire de Jérusalem et d'Hébron depuis Abraham jusqu'à la fin du XVe siècle de J. C: Fragments de la Chronique de Moudjir-ed-Dyn, E. Leroux. - French translations of some parts of Mujr ad-Din

Mujir al-Din al-’Ulaimi (ca. 1495) "The Glorious History of Jerusalem and Hebron" (al-Uns al-Jalil bi-tarikh al-Quds wal-Khalil) (Online - in Arabic)

Elad, A. (1995). Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage, E.J. Brill.

Elad, A. (1982:36-37) An Early Arabic Source Concerning the Markets of Jerusalem. Cathedra, vol. XXIV (1982), pp. 31-40 (in Hebrew).

Kister, M.J. "A Comment on the Antiquity of Traditions Praising Jerusalem." The Jerusalem Cathedra, voI. I (1981), pp. 185-186.

Schacht, J. The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1979.

Juynboll, G.H.A. Muslim Tradition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Abu '1-Ma'ali, al-Musharraf b. al-Murajja. Fada'il Bayt al-Maqdis wa-'l-Sham wa-'l-Khalil. Ms. Tubingen VI 27.

Abū 'l-Maՙālī al-Musharraf b. al-Murajjā b. Ibrāhīm al-Maqdisī. (1995). Faḍā'il bayt al-maqdis wa al-khatīl wa-faḍa'il al-shām. ed. Ofer Livne-Kafri, Almashreq, Shfaram.

DBpedia contains numerous links to online versions of Mujir al-Din's works

Al-Wasiti

Wasiti, Muhammad ibn Ahmad trans. by Isaac Hasson (1979). "Fadail al-Bayt al-Muqaddas". al-Quds, Dar Maghnis lil-Nashr, al-Jami`ah al-`Ibriyah fi Urushalim.

Link 1

Link 2

google search for Al-Wasiti's book in Arabic

Isaac Hasson at worldcat

Hasson, I. Symposium : Muslim literature in praise of Jerusalem: Fada'il Bayt al-Maqdis.

Excerpts and publications

from wikipedia

Mujir al-Din's writings are quoted extensively in the works of 19th century Orientalists and 20th and 21st century scholars alike. It is particularly valuable for what it reveals about the topography and social life of 15th century Jerusalem. A number of copies of manuscripts of al-Uns al-Jalil are kept in libraries in Paris, London and Vienna. El Wahby, a Cairo-based publishing house printed his work in full. A French translation of excerpts of his work with a foreword by Henry Sauvaire was published under the title, Histoire de Jérusalem et d'Hébron depuis Abraham jusqu'à la fin du XVe siècle de J.-C. : fragments de la Chronique de Moudjir-ed-dyn (1876). This compilation was made up of excerpts of his work translated from a manuscript procured in Jerusalem and from the Egyptian edition.

Translated excerpts of al-Uns al Jalil can be found in the work of Joseph Toussaint Reinaud and Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall. Guy Le Strange references the work of Mujir al-Din throughout his book Palestine Under the Moslems: A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500 (1890), drawing upon his descriptions of various monuments to determine their state, appearance, and measurements at his time of writing.

Notes

Two Jerusalem families which provided chains of transmitters

Salama b. Qaysar, with all its branches
that of `Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Mansur b. Thabit

Notes from Elad

Elad (1995:78-79)

One such tradition (with an isnad of the family of `Abd al-Rabman, the Jerusalemite) relates that Abtu `Uthman al-Ansari used to spend the nights of Ramadan in prayer on the Black Paving-Stone. This tradition, in which legendary elements, miracles, etc. are interwoven, also describes the earthquake of 130/748 and its effect on the Dome of the Rock.⁶

Footnotes

6 Al-Wasiti, p. 80, no. 135, and the parallel sources therein.

Elad (1995:40)

In the year 130/747-748 there was an earthquake which apparently destroyed the eastern and western walls of al-Aqsa Mosque.⁷⁹

Footnotes

79 Al-Wasiti, pp. 83-84, no. 137; see also ibid., pp. 79—81, nos. 133-135; al-Dhahabi, Ta'rikh, (Beirut, hawddith wa-wafayat 120-140), pp. 29-30; [Cairo ed., 1367 H., vol. V, p. 39] for an interesting description of the earthquake which hit Jerusalem and destroyed the house of Shaddad b. Aws, the Companion of the Prophet; on this, see also Gil, op. cit., pp. 89-90, no. 102 [= vol. I, p. 74]; al-Suyiiti, Kashf al $alsala, fol. 422a; Nujam, vol. I, p. 311, II. 12-14; Le Strange, Palestine, p. 92.

Praise of Jerusalem References

Gatein
Creswell
Gil

Notes

Megas Chronographos

Guidoboni et al (1994:370) indicates that this earthquake is referred to in Megas Chronographos 12, but Megas Chronographos 12 refers to the Sabbatical Year Quakes - see Megas Chronographos in the Sabbatical Year Quakes.

Habura

Map showing location of Habura (aka Khabur) River

Syria 2004 CIA map

Wikipedia - קרלוס הגדול - CC BY-SA 3.0

Guidoboni et al (1994:371) adds the following notes about Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre's account

It has not been possible to identify the site of Habura. The only indication provided by the editor of the text of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tellmahre is a reference to the Thesaurus Syriacus (Payne Smith 1879, I, col.1172), which laconically reports: name of a city.

Habura (aka Khabur) is a tributary of the Euphrates River and is located in northern Mesopotamia (Jazira). Guidoboni et al (1994:370-371) wrote before Harrak (1999)'s translation of Pseudo-Dionysius was available so I will assume that Habura has now been identified as Khabur.

Ambraseys (2009)

AD 757 Massisa, Kafr-bia

An earthquake damaged Kafr-bia, and probably Misis. This earthquake is known only from a decree Al-Mansur issued for the rebuilding of al-Massisah following an earthquake in a.H. 140 (25 May 757 to 13 May 758). He comments that the inhabitants of the town were ‘not very numerous’. Whether this was due to the earthquake or simply reflected the fact that the town was in decline is not known.

Le Strange adds that Misis was partially destroyed by earthquake a year earlier in a.H. 139 (5 June 756 to 24 May 757); he quotes no authority (Le Strange 1905; Blochet 1895, 554 n. 3).

Notes

‘(a.H. 140) Al-Mansur decreed the rebuilding of al-Massisah in the charge of Jibra’il ibn Yahya: the girdle-wall had been weakened by the earthquake. The inhabitants of this town were not very numerous. The wall was rebuilt and called al-Ma’mura. And the clerk of the works built a great mosque. He paid the salary of 1000 workmen and allowed many of the inhabitants to set up home inside the girdle-wall.’ (MS Ar. 1683. 67r, in Blochet 1895).

References

Ambraseys, N. N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900.

Sbeinati et al (2005)

〈050〉 757 March 9

Habura: VII
Mesopotamia
Syria
Palestine

Surface faulting and liquefaction in Mesopotamia
Landslide at Mount Tabor

Sources

Theophanes: A strong earthquake in Syria and Palestine.

Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysus of Tell-Mahre: A big and terrible shock in the region of Mesopotamia. Near Harbura, three villages fell down.

Seismological compilations

Guidoboni et al. (1994): 757 March 9, Habura, Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia I = IX. A powerful earthquake struck Syria and Palestine on 9 March 757 (Theophanes). In the year 756 on Tuesday 3 March, there was a great, violent and terrible earthquake in the land of Mesopotamia where three villages near Habura collapsed, many people there were crushed and perished (Pseudo-Dionysius).

Russell (1985): An earthquake by no means mild, affected Palestine and Syria on 9 March 757 (Theophanes).

References

Sbeinati, M. R., R. Darawcheh, and M. Monty (2005). "The historical earthquakes of Syria: An analysis of large and moderate earthquakes from 1365 B.C. to 1900 A.D.", Ann. Geophys. 48(3): 347-435.

Guidoboni et al (1994)

(250) 9 March 757 Habura, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria

sources 1

Theoph. 430
[Dion. Tellmahr.1 2.216

sources 2

The Great Chronogr. 12

literature

Payne Smith (1879)
Russell (1985)
Whitby and Whitby (1989)

catalogues

von Hoff (1840)
Mallet (1853)
Sieberg (1932 a)
Amiran (1950-51)
Grumel (1958)
Guidoboni (1989)

Theophanes records a strong earthquake in the year of the world 6248 [756-757 A.D.], during the sixteenth year of the reign of Constantine V:

In this year, a powerful earthquake struck Syria and Palestine, on 9 March.

Pseudo-Dionysius of Tellmahre reports collapses in three villages in Mesopotamia:

In the year 1067 [of the Greeks; i.e. 756 A.D.], on Tuesday 3 Adar [March], there was a great, violent and terrible earthquake at midnight in the land of Mesopotamia, and three villages near Habura collapsed. The many people who were there were crushed and perished, like grapes in the press, and many places were destroyed in the earthquake, which took place because of the great number of our sins.

It has not been possible to identify the site of Habura. The only indication provided by the editor of the text of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tellmahre is a reference to the Thesaurus Syriacus (Payne Smith 1879, I, co1.1172), which laconically reports: "name of a city". For problems of dating the sources, see Whitby and Whitby (1989, p.197).

References

Guidoboni, E., et al. (1994). Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century. Rome, Istituto nazionale di geofisica.

Abou Karaki (1987)

* 756 A.D. calculated date ?

In Syria and Palestine, a strong earthquake, (Will).

Between 758 and 775 AD., in Palestine and Syria, in Jerusalem, Aleppo and Antioch, destroyed buildings; strong enough

765 (May 3) AD, felt in the North of Syria, damaged buildings in Jerusalem, earthquake associated with faults in the 30.8° N - 33.6° N zone, M_L = 6.2 (BM1) which refers to the descriptions of (Will) above, among others.

765 AD Jerusalem, the damaged AI-Aqsa Mosque (BM1)

757 AD, 140 AD, the city of Misis, I = VII, (PTAH).

In the year 140 AD. H, the walls of the city of Misis, which were in poor state because of the earthquakes, were restored by the caliph AL-MANSOUR, and the city was renamed AL-MAMOURAH (TAHA)., NAJA: J = in the interval (23 MAY 757- 13 MAY 758), i.e. the period which corresponds to the year of restoration of the walls, 140 A.H.

French

* 756 apr. J.C date calculée ?

En Syrie et en Palestine, un fort séisme, (Will).

Entre 758 et 775 apr. J.C., en Palestine et en Syrie, à Jérusalem, Alep et Antioche, des immeubles détruits; assez fort

765 (le 3 mai) apr. J.C., ressenti au Nord de la Syrie, immeubles endommagés à Jérusalem, séisme associé aux failles de la zone 30°,8 N - 33°,6 N, M_L = 6,2 (BM1) qui se réfère aux descriptions de (Will) ci-dessus, entre autres.

765 apr. J.C. Jérusalem, la mosquée AI-Aksa endommagée (BM1)

757 apr J.C., An 140 apr.H, la ville de misis, I = VII, (PTAH).

En l'an 140 apr. H, les murailles de la ville de misis, qui étaient en mauvais état à cause des tremblements de terre, furent restaurées par le calife AL-MANSOUR, et la ville fut rebaptisée AL-MAMOURAH (TAHA).,

NAJA: J = dans l'intervalle (23. MAI 757- 13. MAI 758), soit la période qui correspond à l'année de restauration des murailles, 140 apr. H.

References

Abou-Karaki, N. (1987). Synthèse et carte sismotectonique des pays de la bordure Orientale de la Méditerranée: sismicité du système de foilles du Jourdain – Mer Morte, University of Strasbourg, France. Ph.D. Diss.

Russell (1985)

The Earthquake of March 9, 757

The earthquake of 757 completes the present analysis of earthquakes in Palestine and Arabia through the mid-8th century. Theophanes wrote of this earthquake, In this year, an earthquake. by no means mild, affected Palestine and Syria on the 9th day of the month of March (1839: 662-63). The year referred to was A.M. 6248, which dates the event to March 9, 757.

Further textual documentation of this earth-quake has not been found. Cedrenus, for example. did not record any events at all between June 754 and June 759 (1839: 10-11). Even so, the temporal proximity of this earthquake to Theophanes' own lifetime (ca. 758-817), coupled with his general accuracy and consistency in documenting earlier earthquakes, suggests that sections of ancient Palestine and Syria were indeed affected by an earthquake on March 9, 757, provided that his dating is correct. Whether the Negev, the Jordan Valley, or the regions east of the rift were affected as well cannot be established from this text. No archaeological evidence has yet been correlated with this earthquake.¹⁶

Footnotes

16 In addition to destructions in 748 and 757. the region of Syria also experienced earthquakes in 713 and 717 (Theophanes 1839: 587. 614: Ambrasseys 1962: 77). The first half of the 8th century also saw the rapid decline of the Omayyad Caliphate (Hitti 1951: 527-32). The last Omayyad Caliph, Marwan II (744-750), even transferred the seat of government from Damascus to Harran (Hitti 1951: 529), probably as a result of frequent earthquake destructions and the growing discontent of his subjects. As previously observed for the disastrous earthquakes of the mid-6th century. the social and economic impact of earthquakes in the early 8th century has yet to be incorporated into our understanding of early Islamic history.

References

Russell, K. W. (1985). "The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd through the Mid-8th Century A.D." Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 260: 37-59.

Russell, K. W. (1981). The earthquake chronology of ancient Palestine and Arabia from the 2nd to the 8th century A.D. Anthropology. Salt Lake City, UT, University of Utah. MS.

Description	Image	Source
Comet in Chronicle of Zuqnin	Fig. 1 Syriac text and drawing: The relevant Syriac text from the Chronicle of Zuqnın (finished AD 775/6) on the comet AD 760 (1P/Halley) – from the middle of the first line shown to the middle of the last line – with a drawing embedded in the text (Vatican Library, Vat. Syr. 162, folio 136v): the comet to the left, the three brightest stars of Aries (α, β, and γ Aries) in the center, and the planets Mars and Saturn as Ares and Kronos to the right, as identified in the Syriac caption. The drawing fits best for around May 25 given the relative position of Ares/Mars east (left) of Kronos/Saturn, both west of Aries. See Fig. 2 for a comparison with a computed position of 1P/Halley for May 25 at 0 h UT. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 1 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Sky around 760 May 25 in the early morning	Fig. 2 A comparison with Fig. 1 shows that the original drawing is for a date around 760 May 25 in the early morning (2:40 h local time, 0 h UT): both Sun (NE) and Moon were under the horizon at that time, 1P/Halley was ~7° above the NE horizon. IAU constellations are indicated in black, the ecliptic in orange with dots at the borders of zodiacal signs. The planets Mars (0.7 mag, red dot) and Saturn (0.5 mag, yellow dot) are still close to each other. The position of the comet is indicated on our own new (green) orbit (and as grey cross on the old orbit, JPL, YK81); both orbits start on May 17. The drawing (Fig. 1) was not used for orbital reconstruction. Here and in all other figures, the comet plasma tail pointing away from the Sun is displayed, while observation and drawing regard the dust tail. This and all other such figures are drawn with Cartes du Ciel (v3.10). Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 2 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Horizon plot for Amida for 760 May 18 at 2:40 h local time	Fig. 3 Horizon plot for Amida for 760 May 18 at 2:40 h local time: The Chronicle of Zuqnın reported a white sign ... in ... Aries, to the north from these three stars in it, which are very shining ... before early twilight, the first dated position in Section 2 (Z1), to the north of α, β, γ Ari on the horizontal system. The comet with tail directed away from the Sun (in the NE below horizon) is indicated for May 18 at 0 h UT on the new (green) orbit (as grey cross on the old orbit). The expected positions on May 20.0 and 26.0 (UT) are indicated with green (and grey) tick marks. Our positional error box is shown in red, the relevant stars in Aries as red dots with their names, Mars as labelled red dot, Saturn yellow, and the ecliptic in orange. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 3 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Horizon plot for Amida for 760 May 22 at 2:40 h local time	Fig. 4 Horizon plot for Amida for 760 May 22 at 2:40 h local time: The Chronicle of Zuqnın reported the comet to be in/at the initial degree of [the] second [sign] (i.e. Taurus) ... still in the same Aries at its edge/end/furthest part, the second dated position in Section 2 (Z2). This record constraints the comet position to be close to 30° ecliptic longitude (Taurus 0°) ± some uncertainty, estimated to be ±1.5° (from some other observations of the same author, see Section 2) – indicated here by orange dashed lines with ecliptic longitude λ given (ecliptic in orange). The comet was at this longitude range and also still in Aries (at its end); the end of Aries was built by 33, 35, 39, and 41 Ari, indicated as red error box, while the head of Aries and its surrounding is made up by α, β, and γ Ari. The comet is indicated for May 22.0 (UT) on the new (green) orbit (grey cross on the old orbit). The expected positions on May 20.0 and 29.0 (UT) are indicated with green (and grey) tick marks. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 4 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Horizon plot for Amida for 760 June 1 at 2:40 h local time	Fig. 5 Horizon plot for Amida for 760 June 1 at 2:40 h local time: The Chronicle of Zuqnın reported that the comet was going bit by bit to the North-East direction until dawn of Pentecost in the night May 31 to June 1, the third dated position in Section 2 (Z3), the red error box. The NE direction is taken to be azimuth 45 ± 22.5°. The comet is indicated with tail directed away from the Sun for June 1 at 0 h UT on the new (green) orbit (as grey cross on the old orbit slightly below the horizon). On our new orbital solution, the comet was in conjunction with the Sun on June 1.8 (UT) with minimal elongation being 19.1° (according to the standard JPL orbit, it was on May 31.9 with 18.5° minimum elongation); the last observation before comet-sun-conjunction as reported in the Chronicle of Zuqnın for early morning of June 1 is consistent only with our new orbit regarding this inferior conjunction. The expected positions on May 30.0 and 31.0 (UT) are indicated with green (and grey) tick marks. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 5 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Horizon plot for Amida for 760 June 3 at 20:30 h local time	Fig. 6 Horizon plot for Amida for 760 June 3 at 20:30 h local time: The Chronicle of Zuqnın reported that the comet was seen from the north-west [quarter] at the beginning of [the] third [day] after Pentecost ... at evening time (Z4 and Z5, Section 2), the red error box. The comet is indicated with tail directed away from the Sun on the new orbit (cross on the old orbit). Along our best fitting orbit of 1P/Halley the closest encounter of the comet with the Earth occurred on 760 June 3.6 (UT) with 0.37 au (according to the JPL standard orbit, closest approach was on June 2.7 with 0.41 au). The expected positions on June 2.74 and 4.74 (UT) are indicated with green (and grey) tick marks. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 6 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Horizon plot for Chang’an (now Xi’an, China), the Tang capital, for the night 760 May 16/17 at 4 h local time	Fig. 7 Horizon plot for Chang’an (now Xi’an, China), theTang capital, for the night 760 May 16/17 at 4 h local time: The waning crescent moon is seen in Aries. The Chinese reported abroom [star] emerged east direction ... it was located in Lou, the first dated position in Section 3 (C1). Lou is here Lunar Mansion 16 (LM 16), the right ascension range from β Ari to 35 Ari (Wei is LM 17). The given East direction can be considered as azimuth 90 ± 45∘, so that the given right ascension range (LM 16) is constrained in the NE by azimuth 45°, but in the SE by the local horizon. The positional error box is indicated by blue lines. The star α, β, and γ Ari and 35, 39, and 41 Ari, which make up the asterisms Lou and Wei, respectively, are indicated as blue dots, but the asterisms are not meant here. Our new and the previous (JPL/YK81) orbits are shown as green and grey lines, respectively, from May 16/17 midnight onward to the east. We draw a comet with plasma tail directed away from the Sun (in the NE below horizon) for its position on May 16.86 (UT) on the new (green) orbit – and for the same date as cross on the old (grey) orbit. In order to illustrate the motion of the comet along both paths the expected positions on May 20.0 and 30.0 (UT) are indicated with green and grey tick marks, respectively; the ecliptic in orange. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 7 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Equatorial plot showing the whole comet path for the AD 760 perihelion	Fig. 8 This equatorial plot shows the whole comet path for the AD 760 perihelion (north up, east left): borders of the Chinese lunar mansions (right ascension ranges) are indicated as dotted lines (numbers on top) always going through their determinative star. The Chinese asterisms Lou, Wei, Xuanyuan, and Taiwei east and west (with Youzhifa in Taiwei west) are shown as blue skeletons. The ecliptic is shown as orange line with dots every 30° to indicate the borders of zodiacal signs. The planets Mars and Saturn are shown in close conjunction for May 22 at 0 h UT, the waning crescent moon for May 16.86 (UT). The positions derived here for the comet (Table 1) are shown as coloured boxes. Our new orbit is shown in green, the previous (YK81/JPL) orbit in grey, both from May 17 at 0 h UT (in Aries, right) until July 15 at 0 h UT (in Virgo, left), comet positions are shown as comet symbols on our new orbit on the dates of observation, and as crosses on the old orbit; the software Cartes du Ciel v3.10 shows the plasma tail directed away from the Sun. We can see that on June 9.58 (UT), the comet is indeed in Xuanyuan. Tick marks are shown on the new orbit on June 14.0, 19.0, 24.0, 29.0, and July 10.0 (UT) showing that the comet slowed down and got too faint (Section 5). Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 8 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Keplerian elements for non-periodic solutions	Fig. 9 Keplerian elements for non-periodic solutions (eccentricity e=1): They can be compared to (and are fully consistent with) the parameter ranges for periodic solutions with semi-major axes 17–19 au (Table 2, Fig. 13) shown as grey data points with error bars in the upper parts of the graphs. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 9 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Results from fitting the orbit	Fig. 10 Results from fitting the orbit: Correlations between the Keplerian elements, shown as light grey points, of all closed solutions found: perihelion distance q, inclination i, longitude of ascending node Ω, argument of perihelion ω, and perihelion time T (from top left to bottom). In the upper left, for q, we indicate the solar radius as dashed line. Since most solutions for perihelion distance q and inclination i cluster within small ranges, we can use these two to identify the comet of AD 760, see next two figures. Having identified the comet as 1P/Halley (Fig. 12), we constrain the solution to those with semi-major axes from 17 to 19 au as 1P/Halley – these are shown here as dark points, and the best fit among them as cross. For eccentricity e = 1, one can see the parameter range for non-periodic solutions. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 10 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Results from fitting the orbit	Fig. 11 The cumulative distribution functions for q (left) and i (right panel) (all solutions as in the previous figure): The highest slopes (i.e. the peaks in the probability density distribution) are indicated by vertical dashed lines and are located at q ~ 0.60 au and i ~ 168° (i.e. retrograde). We use these values for identifying the comet (Fig. 12). Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 11 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Perihelion distance q versus inclination i.	Fig. 12 Perihelion distance q versus inclination i. the comet of AD 760 (as constrained to q ~ 0.6 au and i ~ 168°, Fig. 11, as diamond in the upper part) is compared to other presently known comets with values in the range of i = 155 - 180° and q = 0.56 - 0.64 au: C/1855 Ll (Donati) has a very uncertain period of about 252 yr, it was observed only for 14 days, C/1963 Al (Ikeya) has a well-known orbit, but was not visible in AD 760; the three other comets shown as circles in the lower center are unperiodic. For C/1992 J2 (Bradfield) and C/1896 Cl (Perrin-Lamp) there is no evidence that they have periods less than many thousands of years, the case is similar for C/2002 T7 (eccentricity e = 1.00048565(39), JPL 144, i.e. non-periodic). There are no comets with i = 170 - 180° in the plotted range for q. For comet 1P/Halley, we show the data pair for its perihelion in AD 1986 (plus sign) and all pairs from the orbital solutions in Yeomans and Kiang (1981) connected by a line (their data for perihelion AD 760 as plus), obtained from the JPL small-body database, precessed to 2000.0; the orbital elements from telescopic observations scatter more than those from extrapolation to pre-telescopic time. In the upper part, we show q and i of the best fitting solution for 17-19 au semi-major axes for the comet of AD 760: they are best consistent with comet 1P/Halley (YK81 did not specify error bars). Therefore, the identification of the comet in AD 760 as comet 1P/Halley is justified - for the first time for this perihelion only from historical data. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 12 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Probability distribution of the Keplerian elements	Fig. 13 Probability distribution of the Keplerian elements as found in the semi-major axes range of 17–19 au. Small grey squares with error bar indicate the best fitting solution (Table 2). The distributions of the elements correspond well with the elements of the best fitting solution – within their uncertainties. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 13 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Apparent brightness evolution for a usual comet	Fig. 14 Apparent brightness evolution for a usual comet, upper left panel: apparent brightness of comet 1P/Halley for our best fitting orbit during the perihelion passage AD 760 using Equ. 1 for usual comets with δ90 = 1 (Marcus, 2007a, 2007b) in the phase function. We plot apparent V-band magnitude m (in mag) versus date until mid July (the difference between our new orbit and the old YK81/JPL orbit in terms of estimated brightness is only ≤0.1 mag). We plot the estimated magnitudes for all ten published parameter sets of absolute magnitude H and activity parameter n listed in Section 5. The comet was brightest around conjunction with the Sun early June. The vertical dotted lines indicate the observing dates (Table 1). The grey shaded area (±1σ error range) around conjunction displays the estimated background sky brightness at the location of the comet according to our new orbit – consistent with non-detection in the night June 1/2 (and probably also 2/3) as reported in the Chronicle of Zuqnın and by Michael the Syrian. Two (horizontal) dashed lines are for 2 and 6 mag, which are the likely apparent brightness for first discovery (~2 mag) and last detection (~6 mag); assuming these two values and that both H and n would be constant during from first to last detection in AD 760, we fit H and n for this perihelion passage and obtain H = 4.49 mag and n=4.28 (bold dashed line) – but if we assume 5.5 mag for the last detection (very close to β Vir), we would obtain H = 4.08 mag and n=3.55 (dotted line). The fit from Broughton (1979) assuming first detection at 3–4 mag is shown as full pink line (one of the three bottom lines, H=5.7 mag, n=4.4). Apparent brightness evolution for a dusty comet, upper right panel: light curve as in upper left, but for dusty comets with δ90 = 10 in the phase function (Marcus, 2007a, 2007b). Our best fit with 2 mag at discovery and 6 mag at last is now H = 4.30 mag and n=4.08 (bold dashed line), and H = 3.90 mag and n=3.35 (dotted line) for 5.5 mag for the last detection. The comet is now almost 1 mag brighter, even better consistent with detection until May 31/June 1 and non-detection for about the next two nights. Elongation of comet 1P/Halley, lower left panel: The full line is for our new orbit, the dashed line for the previous orbit (YK81) – the previous orbit, where conjunction happened on 760 May 31.9 UT (dashed vertical line) is inconsistent with the explicite last detection on June 1.0 UT, as reported in the Chronicle of Zuqnın, but consistent with our new orbit, where conjunction is on June 1.8 UT (full vertical line). The first detection of this comet actually happened close to the maximal elongation (~36°) before perihelion passage. Brightening of comet 1P/Halley due to light scattering by dust, lower right panel: we plot the brightening m(Φ) (see Equ. 1) due to light scattering by dust for a usual comet (δ90 = 1, full line) and a dusty comet (δ90 = 10, dotted line). Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 14 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Transliteration of the Syriac text	Fig. 15 Transliteration of the Syriac text on the comet of AD 760 (see also Fig. 1 and Section 2). Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 15 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Chinese Texts	Fig. 16 The Chinese texts from JTS, THY, and XTS on the comet of AD 760 (see Section 3). Neuhauser et al (2021)	Fig. 16 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Dated positions of the comet in AD 760 from historical observations	Table 1 Dated positions of the comet in AD 760 from historical observations (coordinates for epoch of date). Neuhauser et al (2021)	Table 1 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Keplerian elements of our best fitting orbital solution	Table 2 Keplerian elements of our best fitting orbital solution for the AD 760 perihelion passage of comet 1P/Halley (heliocentric ecliptic J2000.0) – first our best solution, then the JPL orbits for AD 760 and 1986 for comparison, than finally our parameters for non-periodic solutions. Our solutions are based on six astrometric data points observed within a span of time of 50 days. The best closed orbit has χ²_red = 0.09, clearly indicating that the given astrometric and timing uncertainties are overestimated. Neuhauser et al (2021)	Table 2 - Neuhauser et al (2021)
Residuals (O-C) of the best fitting orbital solution	Table 3 Residuals (O-C) of the best fitting orbital solution of comet 1P/Halley for its perihelion passage in AD 760 with their significances, listed in brackets, which take into account astrometric as well as timing uncertainties (we give the modern names of the towns, where the comet was observed, see Table 1 Neuhauser et al (2021)	Table 3 - Neuhauser et al (2021)

BY NO MEANS MILD QUAKE(S)

March 756 CE

by Jefferson Williams

Introduction & Summary

Intensity Estimates

Textual Evidence

Archaeoseismic Evidence

Landslide Evidence

Tsunamogenic Evidence

Paleoseismic Evidence

Notes