363 CE Cyril Quakes

Mitchel (1980:181) noted that a destruction of some sort tumbled the wall on the east side of the great stairway, signaling the end of the latter's useful life. The destruction was interpreted to be a result of one of the 363 CE Cyril Quakes. Mitchel (1980:193) suggested the source of the tumble was most probably the retaining wall at the east margin of the stairs (D.3:16A). Mitchel (1980:181) also suggests that this earthquake destroyed the Temple on the acropolis; noting that it was never rebuilt as a Temple. Numismatic evidence in support of a 363 CE earthquake destruction date was obtained from Locus C.5:219 where an Early Byzantine soil layer produced a coin of Constans I, A.D. 343 providing a closing date for Stratum 11 (Mitchel, 1980:195). However, Mitchel (1980:195) noted the presence of an alternative hypothesis where Sauer (1973a:46) noted that a 365/366 coin would suggest that the rock tumble and bricky rei soil of Stratum 6 should be associated with a 365 earthquake. Mitchel (1980:195) judged this hypothesis as untenable citing other numismatic and ceramic evidence. In a later publication, Sauer (1993:255-256) changed his dating assessment of the strata which appears to align with Mitchel (1980)'s original assessment.

Storfjell (1993:109-110) noted that damage appeared to be limited at Tall Hesban during this earthquake

Although evidence for the AD 363 earthquake was found at Hesban, it could only be identified in a few rock tumbles in various areas of the tell. Following the earthquake there was no large scale construction, neither domestic nor public. The earthquake, which was severe at other sites (Russell 1980) probably did little damage at Hesban.

Fischer et al (1984) examined a Temple at Kadesh which, based on inscriptions and architectural decorations, was presumed to have been in use in the second and third centuries CE. Noting that there were indications that the Temple appeared to have been destroyed by an earthquake, they speculated that the Temple was damaged by the northern Cyril Quake.

Some of the masonry courses of the east facade are clearly shifted out of line (PI. 27: I), and a similar disturbance is evident in the keystones above the two side entrances. This could have been caused by an earthquake some time in the past. One likelihood is the devastating earthquake of May 19, 363 C.E. that affected the entire region, from northern Galilee to Petra and from the Mediterranean coast to the Jordan Valley (Russel 1980; Hammond 1980).
...
Although it is still difficult to determine when the temple was abandoned, there are indications that it was destroyed by an earthquake, possibly the one that struck the region on May 19, 363 C.E

Meyers, Strange, Meyers, and Hanson (1979) report strong evidence for destruction at the end of VIb due to the northern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. Their discussion of archeoseismic evidence follows:

Therefore a second phase - VIb - of Late Roman occupation, after this seismic event, is postulated. This second Late Roman phase is also terminated by an earthquake, no doubt in A.D. 362. The coin evidence for this terminus is extremely illuminating, inasmuch as the earliest preserved surfaces of the western corridor contain coins which may extend at the latest until A.D. 365. Equally important, the ceramic repertoire from VIb corresponds precisely to that of Meiron Stratum IV and Khirbet Shema Stratum IV. In other words, there is a clear continuity in the ceramic tradition here, unmistakably late Roman. Whereas Stratum VIa contains many 3rd-century Middle Roman forms, these forms virtually disappear in VIb.

Stratum VII, representing the Byzantine period, thus begins after the 362 earthquake and is characterized by significant localized repairs made within the building.

The second building period thus witnessed no major modification [for] the plan of the building. However, stratigraphic assessment of the data indicates quite clearly that great effort was made to reinforce corners, stylobates, and walls. The debris buildup in the western corridor in particular demonstrates how soon after the great 363 CE earthquake the basilica was reused. Many architectural fragments were then reused, and a smaller bema replaced the earlier and larger one on the southwest interior of the southern facade wall.

Eric M. Meyers in Stern et al (1993) summarized Meiron's history as follows

The population grew steadily from Late Hellenistic times but especially after the wars with Rome; its most productive era was the third and fourth centuries CE; its economic orbit was northern, oriented toward the port of Tyre; conditions from the period of Gallus Caesar (351~352 CE) to the great earthquake of 363 CE conspired to create a situation that resulted in systematic abandonment

A strange fact came to light when the small finds (a bell and a sickle) and the food remains (identified as nuts, wheat, barley, and beans) from the Patrician House were examined. The food was placed in the storage jars in a charred and inedible state, inside a sealed room with no convenient access. On one of the storage jars the word "fire" was carved, while on another an inscription read "belonging to Julia (or Julian)." Apparently, the room had been a deposit area for a pious individual or family-possibly descended from the line of priests who settled in Meiron after the destruction of the Temple. The finds and food had been dedicated to the Lord as heqdesh (consecrated items) and hence purposely rendered unusable-the foods by charring, the bell by not having a clapper, and the sickle by not having a handle. The contents of this house undoubtedly reflect the religious views of the people who lived here.

Although excavators Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange (1976) identified two earthquake events ( Eusebius' Martyr Quake of ~306 CE and Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE) which destroyed a Synagogue I and then a Synagogue II at Khirbet Shema, subsequent authors ( e.g. Russell, 1980 and Magness, 1997) re-examined their chronology and redated the earthquake evidence. Russell (1980) redated the two earthquake events to the northern Cyril Quake of 363 CE and the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE while Magness (1997) concluded that there was no solid evidence for the existence of a Synagogue I on the site and evidence for an earthquake event in ~306 CE was lacking. She posited that Synagogue II was constructed in the late 4th to early 5th century CE and concluded that there was no solid evidence for the 419 CE (or 363 CE) earthquake as well. In Magness (1997) interpretation of the evidence, she suggested that the site had been abandoned when an earthquake brought down Synagogue II sometime before the 8th century CE.

Two sealed loci at the site provide a terminus post quem for the construction of Synagogue II. The latest coin found within a Bema was dated to 337-341 AD during the rule of Constans. The bema was described as "absolutely sealed by the stonework of the bema around and over it" where "contamination by later intrusions is virtually impossible" (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976:34). A declivity in the northwest corner of Synagogue II contained fill which was "sealed beneath more than a meter of debris, including large fallen architectural members" (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976: 34). Pottery within the fill below was described as homogeneous Middle-Late Roman. At the lowest levels a coin from Gratian (who ruled from 367-383 AD) was discovered. Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange (1976) interpreted the construction above the declivity to be part of a remodel. If we consider that construction above the declivity could also represent original construction, the terminus post quem for the construction of Synagogue II is between 337 and 383 AD. It is conceivable that Synagogue II was constructed over earthquake damaged remains of an earlier structure due to the presence of "battered architectural fragments built into Synagogue II (including those identified as belonging to the "Torah shrine") (Magness, 1997:216) however, as pointed out by Magness (1997) the provenance of these battered elements is unknown. They could come from another building. Nevertheless, this can be considered as possible archeoseismic evidence which predates the construction of Synagogue II. As for the causative earthquake(s), the Eusebius' Martyr Quake of ~306 AD and the Cyril Quake of 363 AD are both possibilities. Two other fills were examined (east and west of the Stylobate wall) but neither were sealed and neither added chronological precision to the construction of Synagogue II.

Mazar (1973) and Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Mazar in Stern et al (1993) dated a collapse, destruction, and burnt layer to the Jewish rebellion in 351 CE against Gallus Caesar. Russell (1980) suggested that this destruction layer was due to the northern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. Erlich (2018), reporting on renewed excavations that began in 2014, reports that the town was destroyed in the mid-4th century CE, perhaps by the 363 CE earthquake. Erlich (2021), reporting on the same renewed excavations, stated that it is impossible to determine the exact date and circumstances of the town’s destruction and decline in the mid-fourth century CE.

Meyers, et al. (2009) performed excavations of what they labeled Synagogue 2 at en-Nabratein. They subdivided the life of this structure into two phases of Period III (Late Roman, A.D. 250-350/363)

de Luca and Lena (2014:126) reported that buildings were found in a state of collapse due to the 363 CE earthquake. de Luca and Lena (2014:139) dated a collapse layer in the harbor to the 363 CE earthquake.

For causes yet unknown, the harbor basin was silted by 45–60 cm lacustrine sandy deposits covered by conglomerates of gravel (Units 3–4) typical of beaches areas, rich in mollusc shells and byoclasts (in particular melanopsis are copious). The imbrication of clasts, principally oriented eastwards and only partially toward the west, reveals the strongest water motion, typical of upper beach/foreshore environment. The potsherds from the conglomerates date back to the Middle-Late Roman (3rd century A.D.) period and give a terminus post quem for its formation (cf. Figs. 10 and 20 - see above). On this layer of pebbles, probably due to the earthquake of 363 A.D., there was the collapse of the elevation of the eastern portico to which several architectural elements – voussoirs, worked wall stones, corbels – belong. A great quantity of fragments of wall plasters with traces of paintings in vermilion red hues, burned ochre, yellow ochre, copper green, black and Egyptian blue, have been uncovered in context with pieces of ochre, red and caeruleum pigments, as well as coins and potsherds from the 3rd–4th century A.D.

Close to the southern area, the collapse was levelled and covered with crushed and pressed limestone of an Early Byzantine-Islamic building that was probably the service quarter of the monastery. The Byzantine structures were completely destroyed, greatly looted and consequently covered by a layer of pebbled, deposited by the lake which had dramatically risen toward the middle of the 8th century A.D., almost certainly due to the effect of the earthquake of 749 A.D..

While reports by Reisner, Fischer, and Lyon (1924: 218), Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik (1966:137-38), and Russell (1980) suggests evidence of seismic destruction, it seems that that this potential destruction can only be narrowed down to sometime between the 3rd and 7th century CE.

Bull and Campbell (1968:4-6) reported on excavations at Tell er-Ras, which is located on a north trending ridge off the peak of Mount Gerizim and overlooks Tell Balata (ancient Shechem). There they encountered the remains of a Temple Complex dedicated to Zeus which they suggested was built during Emperor Hadrian's visit to Palestine around 130 CE.

Adjacent to Wall 12,000 which surrounded Buildings A and B (presumed to be part of the Zeus Temple Complex), Bull and Campbell (1968:15-17) encountered six cisterns. They excavated three. At the bottom of Cistern II, a 0.15 meter thick layer of black silt was overlain by a 0.2 meter thick layer of compact fine grey silt. These two silty layers, containing a large quantity of pottery, glass fragments, coins, and other artifacts, were overlain by an apparent destruction layer - 1.10 m of loose grey earth containing architectural fragments, vaulting, and building stones. 43 dateable coins were recovered from the two silty layers in Cistern II ranging in age from Severus Alexander (222-235) to Julian II (360-363) - providing a terminus post quem of 360 CE for the destruction layer. Cisterns I and VI exhibited similar stratigraphy to Cistern II.

Bull and Campbell (1968:16) noted that the cisterns abutted and post dated Wall 12,000 which had been part of the Zeus Temple Complex. Bull and Campbell (1968:6) also reported that late and often confusing Samaritan records indicate that the Temple to Zeus was in ruins by the time of Julian II (360-363) indicating that the cisterns likely fell into disuse and began to silt up prior to 363 CE.

Negev (1969) published a description of an inscription regarding a restored Temple which he interpreted as attributing the restoration to Emperor Julian II (aka Julian the Apostate). Julian's name is not specifically mentioned but possibly referred to as Romani orbis liberatori. An analogue to another inscription in Italy was used to hypothesize that this referred to Julian. Language in this inscription found at Ma’ayan Barukh was also compared to other inscriptions attributed to Julian which Negev (1969) used to further bolster the case that the inscription found at Ma’ayan Barukh refers to Julian. Julian's reign was characterized by restorations of a number of Pagan Temples; some of which had been previously damaged by zealous Christians earlier during the 4th century CE. If Julian is referred to in the inscription, the use of the title "Pontifici maximo" dates the inscription to some time after the summer of 362 CE as Julian did not use that title earlier in his reign (Negev, 1969).

Ambraseys(2009) reports

Another inscription from ‘Anz in the southern Hauran states that another temple was restored by Julian (Littman 1910, 108/no. 186).

Raphael and Bijovsky (2014) examined "a large hoard of 3,700 copper coins found in the excavations of" what may have been a synagogue. They describe the discovery of the coin hoard as follows:

In 1962, during the excavations at Caesarea, Avi-Yonah unearthed a large hoard containing 3,700 copper-alloy coins, in a building that he identified as a synagogue. The latest coins in the hoard date to 361 CE, suggesting that the synagogue was destroyed by the 363 CE earthquake.
...
The finds from the excavation were only partially published. Much of the information, such as locus numbers, is not always clear and the exact location of the hoard is not marked on a plan or described by Avi-Yonah. Nevertheless, his written descriptions clearly state that the hoard was found in the building and the strata are fairly well defined. A photograph shows Avi-Yonah in the building during the excavation kneeling next to the in situ hoard (Fig. 1).

None of the excavations revealed large scale damage in Stratum IV: "there is no evidence of wholesale destruction across the site, especially since the wall lines are still mostly intact based upon photographic record. Yet not much remains of the structure either in stratum IV or stratum V" (Govaars et al. 2009:132). After the earthquake debris was cleared, the synagogue was rebuilt. Stones from the previous synagogue were reused for the building of the stratum V synagogue, but the hoard was not found until Avi-Yonah's excavations. Govaars wrote "the direct relationship of the coin hoard to a structure is uncertain and, therefore the coin evidence cannot be used to date the still unknown structure" (Govaars et al. 2009:42). This is a somewhat peculiar statement considering the coins were found in the synagogue and are on the whole well preserved, homogeneous and well dated. Avi-Yonah was convinced that the hoard was directly related to the Stratum IV building: "The fact that a hoard of 3,700 bronze coins was found in the ruins of the synagogue itself that were buried in 355/356 AD indicates that this synagogue was built in the end of the third or the early fourth century, and was destroyed in the mid fourth century AD" (Avi-Yonah 1964:26 n. 5).
...

Evidence at Caesarea

The subject of earthquakes and tsunamis has been partially reviewed by several archaeologists who directed or participated in the excavations at Caesarea. None of the monumental buildings across the site revealed earthquake damage that dates to the fourth century CE.

The report of remains from the excavations of the Promontory Palace at Caesarea, dated between the early fourth century and early sixth centuries, does not mention destruction levels (Levine and Netzer 1986:176-184). In other excavations, the Roman and Byzantine-period warehouses and granaries (horreum) gradually fell into ruin over a considerable period. Neither the main streets, pavements, sewage and water systems, the theater, amphitheater nor the stadiums of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods show signs of destruction that suggested earthquake damage (Humphrey 1974:32; Porath 1996:114-120; Porath 2003 and Porath [pers. comm.]).

If the town was partially damaged or destroyed in the 363 CE earthquake, as the Harvard Syriac letter [i.e. the letter attributed to Cyril] describes, then other than the large coin hoard, the earthquake left no clear, tangible evidence. The damage was cleared and buildings were repaired or rebuilt. Although none of the archaeological reports mentions earthquake damage, several reports clearly describe the abandonment and/or the rebuilding of public buildings in the second half of the fourth century CE. None of the authors provided a reason for their destruction or abandonment.

Tectonic evidence such as collapsed columns, thick piles of debris or warped walls are elusive throughout the fourth century architecture of Caesarea. Why is this typical earthquake damage missing? Are the written sources and the numismatic evidence sufficient proof of the 363 CE earthquake in Caesarea? It is important to note that among the various violent, politically motivated upheavals that took place in the second half of the fourth century, one of the main candidates explaining destruction at archaeological sites is the Gallus Revolt (352 CE). However, none of the sources that describe this revolt mention Caesarea Maritima (Geller-Nathanson 1986:34)

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

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

WHEN Masada was thus taken, the general left a garrison in the fortress to keep it, and he himself went away to Caesarea; for there were now no enemies left in the country, but it was all overthrown by so long a war.

We have clear proof that the bath-house was in use in the period of the Roman garrison - in particular, a number of "vouchers" written in Latin and coins which were found mainly in the ash waste of the furnace (locus 126, see p. 42). Of particular importance is a coin from the time of Trajan, found in the caldarium, which was struck at Tiberias towards the end of the first century C.E.*

Russell (1980) reported that

Excavations in Jerusalem revealed a domestic structure just south of the pier of "Robinson's Arch" (Mazar, 1975: 247, Mazar, 1976: 36-38). Numerous coins were recovered from beneath the rubble and ash that marked the destruction of this house. The latest of these dated to the reign of Julian II. Mazar interpreted this destruction as probable evidence of Jewish preparations for the reconstruction of the Temple.

The Constantinian structures near the Western Wall may have been destroyed by Jews who, encouraged by Julian, began preparations for the reconstruction of the Temple—which project came to nought upon the emperor's death (Mazar 1976: 38).

A Hebrew inscription citing Isaiah 66:14 was discovered by B. Mazar on one of the stones of the western wall. Mazar dated it to the mid-fourth century CE, the days of Julian the Apostate. However, it may now be understood as having been directly related to the cemetery, and should thus be dated to around the eleventh century CE.

What is the date of the stone collapse near Robinson’s Arch?

A full publication of the stone collapse unearthed by Mazar has still not been made, so we still do not know what ceramics and coins were found between the ashlars and the fallen debris. However, Mazar excavated a building adjacent to Robinson’s Arch (Building 7066, the “bakery” in Area VII) and it was built immediately on top of ruined walls from the Second Temple period (Mazar(1971:20-21)). This structure reportedly had two building phases, the first from the Late Roman period, and the second from the beginning of the Byzantine period. The latter building was burnt in a fire and on the basis of numismatic finds its destruction was dated by Mazar to the time of Julian’s death in 363 CE. The excavation of this building has now been fully published by Eilat Mazar (2011, 145-183). The bulk of the coins (more than 200 of Constantius II, with a few of Julian II) seem to indicate a termination of the building in 363 CE at the time of the earthquake (see further on this, below). The few coins from this building which happen to post-date 363 appear to be intrusive or perhaps they represent squatter activities in the area in the aftermath of the earthquake. The fact that the foundations of this bakery and the adjacent bath-house to its north (Mazar 2011, 1-83) do not seem to have encroached much on the Herodian street, does suggest that the position of this street was taken into account by the architects of these two building complexes during the major planning and construction activities in this area c. 120 CE (see more on this in Weksler-Bdolah, 2014 a; idem 2014 b). Therefore, the Early Roman (Herodian) stone-paved street was maintained as a thoroughfare in the Late Roman period as well, with a slight build-up of soil surfaces and fills in places, and with the construction of channels and various other small features, as was noted by the excavators. Hence, I would suggest that the massive collapse of the marginal-drafted stones from the western Temple Mount wall down on to the surface of the paved street does not date to 70 CE, as so many previous commentators have suggested, but to the time of the earthquake of 363 CE instead.

Hence, I would argue that the massive stone collapse seen today above the level of the Early Roman (Herodian) street pavement just north of Robinson’s Arch, is the direct result of this devastating earthquake and is not evidence of a deliberate destruction at the hands of the Romans in 70 CE as has hitherto been claimed.

a mighty earthquake tore up the stones of the old foundations of the temple and dispersed them all together with the adjacent edifices.

If the earthquake of 363 AD did destroy the Western Wall, where is the evidence? The heap of fallen Herodian stones is only three meters (10 feet) high. No stones were ever added on top of this, as this Roman destruction was covered by a late Roman bath house and Byzantine street level and drain. The Roman floor level was later covered over by the floor of an Umayyad palace. If the Western Wall was destroyed in 363 AD, then a large pile of stones would have been found on top of the Roman bath house and Byzantine street level which would have been completely destroyed, but no sign of this was found.

Ben Ami and Tchekhanovets (2013) excavated a large peristyle building of the Late Roman period located to the south-west of the Temple Mount in the Givati site of the City of David. Ben Ami et al, 2013) dated its construction to the third century CE based on a coin found in one of its walls. The coin was a provincial Roman coin from the reign of Diocletian (Alexandria mint) of the year 285 CE. This provided a terminus post quem for the foundation of the building (Ben Ami et. al. (2013)). The building collapsed violently with scores of coins buried under the collapse in various rooms dated to no later than 361 CE providing a terminus post quem for the destruction (Ben Ami and Tchekhanovets, 2013).

Three tombstones discovered in Ghor-es-Safi (Byzantine Zoara) provide an explicit date for the southern Cyril Quake. All three tombstones state that the victims died during the earthquake. Collective chronological information is presented below:

• All three tombstones specified a date of 28 Artemisios which corresponds to 18 May/
• All three tombstones specified a year of 258 of the era of Province Arabia which spanned from 22 March 363 to 21 March 364 CE (using CHRONOS).
• Two tombstones specified Monday as the day of the week. The other tombstone did not specify a day of the week. Since 18 May 363 CE fell on a Sunday and 19 May 363 CE fell on a Monday (using CHRONOS), the day of the week from the Safi tombstones may be incorrect. This is not unusual. Meimaris and Kritikakou (2005:51) noted that 47 out of 151 epitaphs at Ghor es-Safi specified a day of the week that was incompatible with the date. Further, they noted that these incongruities [] are more frequent from the early fourth until the early fifth centuries.

• Siltha and Kyra died during the earthquake on 28 Artemisos (18 May). The day of the week was not specified.
• Obbe died during the earthquake on a Monday on 28 Artemisos (18 May).
• Samakon died during the earthquake on a Monday on 28 Artemisos (18 May).

Karcz and Kafri (1978: 244-245) reported that tilted and distorted walls and subsiding arches were encountered in the excavations of the Byzantine town of Antipatris (Aphek) which led Kochavi (1976) and Kochavi (personal communication to Karcz) to attribute the end and decay of the town to the earthquake of 419 AD. In his preliminary report on excavations Kochavi (1975) reported that very little was uncovered in the Early Byzantine Period and suggested that Byzantine Antipatris, as a city of any importance, probably came to its end around the beginning of the 5th century B.C.E. while Kochavi (1981) reports that the entire city of Antipatris was destroyed by an earthquake in 419 CE. Golan (2008) does not present any earthquake evidence but mentions that Kochavi thought that the city was destroyed by the Cyril Quake of 363 CE.

The fact that most of the coins dated to the second half of the fourth century CE suggests that the cardo may have been abandoned at the beginning of the Byzantine period, which seems to corroborate the excavators’ conclusions (Kochavi 1989) that assumed the city was destroyed in the year 363 CE.

Caution must be exercised in interpreting the numismatic data, however, as the ceramic fords included PRS 3 forms dating to the mid-5th-6th century (Golan 2008: fig. 5.5-6). More troubling is the apparent presence of `Mefjar ware' (i.e. Islamic Cream Ware), which dates no earlier than the late 7th century (see Walmsley 2001), in the `earthquake stratum' (Neidinger 1982: 167). This may indicate multiple destructions, but without more complete publication of the excavations, this is difficult to evaluate. It is, however, worth noting the presence of a bishop of Antipatris at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Dauphin 2000; Frankel and Kochavi 2000: 23, 31). This may be explained, as Fischer (1989: 1806) suggests, by assuming that the role of Antipatris `was filled with a great number of smaller settlements' like Khirbat Dhikrin (Zikrin) after the 418/419 earthquake, but it is equally likely that Antipatris was simply not abandoned in the early 5th century.

Erickson-Gini (2010:87-88) reports that Avbat/Oboda sustained some damage in the 363 earthquake. In the Late Roman/Early Byzantine Residential Quarter, Erickson-Gini (2010:91-95) reports that Room 7 apparently collapsed in the 363 earthquake as it was found filled with collapsed building stones, loose soil, rubble and air pockets. Further structural damage was indicated in Room 4 where a row of fallen arch stones were found and doorways between Room 4 and Rooms 3 and 7 were blocked. Tali Erickson-Gini in Stern et al (2008:1984-1985) also reported a blocked doorway(s) in Room 17 and possibly Room 7 as well. Dating of the collapse in Room 7 may have been assisted via pottery, coins, and other items which were recovered in a protected corner of the room (Erickson-Gini, 2010:91-95).

Korjenkov and and Mazor (2005) surmised that the first earthquake struck in the Byzantine period between the end of the 3rd and the mid-6th centuries A.D.. Citing Avraham Negev, they discussed this evidence further

Negev (1989) pointed out that one earthquake, or more, shattered the towns of central Negev between the end of the 3rd and mid-6th centuries A.D.. Literary evidence is scarce, but there is ample archeological evidence of these disasters. According to Negev a decisive factor is that the churches throughout the whole Negev were extensively restored later on. Negev found at the Haluza Cathedral indications of two constructional phases. One room of the Cathedral was even not cleaned after an event during which it was filled with fallen stones and debris from the collapsed upper portion of a wall. In the other room the original limestone slabs of the floor had been removed but the clear impression of slabs and ridges in the hard packed earth beneath suggests that they remained in place until the building went out of use (Negev, 1989:135).

The dating of the discussed ancient strong earthquake may be 363 A.D., as has been concluded for other ancient cities around Haluza, e.g. Avdat³⁷, Shivta³⁸, and Mamshit³⁹. However, Negev (1989:129-142) noticed inscriptions on walls and artifacts.

A severe earthquake afflicted Sobata [aka Shivta].
...
The epigraphic evidence of Sobata may help in attaining a close as possible date both for the earthquake and for the subsequent reconstruction of the North Church. One of these inscriptions, that of 506 A.D., is clearly a dedicatory inscription of a very important building, which justified the participation of a Vicarius, a man of the highest rank, in the dedication of this building. This inscription was not found in situ. However, there is no question about the inscription of A.D. 512, in which year the mosaic floor of one of the added chapels was dedicated by a bishop and the local clergy. It is thus safe to assume that the whole remodeling of the North Church began in the first decade of the sixth century.

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) identified archaeoseismic evidence in the Roman Camp which they associated with one (or both) of the 363 CE Cyril Quakes. Erickson-Gini (2010:97) noted that it was observed that the [Roman] camp was nearly demolished by the earthquake in 363 and, according to Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019), this earthquake damaged the Roman Camp, the Fort and the Bathhouse. The camp was subsequently reconstructed and remained in use until the sometime in the sixth century CE.

In Room 45, Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) found collapsed arches and a presumably collapsed wall (W785). Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) reported additional archaeoseismic evidence in Room 53 (aka the underground Treasury Vault) where, according to 1994–1995 field notes by Area E supervisor Y. Kalman, the room (53) was filled with collapsed debris, stone slabs that were used for roofing, arch stones and other building stones. Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) suggested that the Room 53 structure probably collapsed in the 363 CE earthquake.

Coins below the collapsed arches in Room 45 provided a terminus post quem of 324 CE while coins above an associated floor dated from the late 3rd or early 4th century to the early 6th century CE. Erickson-Gini (2010:97-99) noted that chronological reconstruction at En Haseva was adversely affected by secondary deposition where in the case of the cavalry [aka Roman] camp, a large amount of soil containing earlier material was used in its reconstruction after the 363 earthquake. She added that the majority of loci from the site contain finds from more than one occupational period with some of the only exceptions finds of in situ pottery from the destruction layer of 363 CE in the fort which was sealed and covered by the next occupational phase, post-dating the earthquake.

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) also noted possible post 363 CE rebuilding evidence where wall W587 (an extension of wall W785) was constructed, presumably, after the 363 CE earthquake. This, according to Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019), indicated that the original gatehouse was blocked, probably after it was damaged in the earthquake, and the entrance to the camp was removed to a different location.

Erickson-Gini (2010:129) indicated that the Cavalry (aka Roman) Camp was more badly damaged than the Roman fort due to weaker foundations. The walls in the Cavalry (aka Roman) Camp were constructed on shallow foundations in soil while the Roman Fort was founded on the walls of earlier buildings on the tell.

Erickson-Gini (2010:83) reports that the Mampsis appears to have experienced extensive damage in one of the 363 CE Cyril Quakes while noting that the damage predates structural changes in buildings at the site and the construction of two churches. Building XXV was said to have been particularly hard hit. This building, according to Erickson-Gini (2010:129), sustained such heavy damage that it was abandoned and never rebuilt. Room 2, apparently used as a kitchen, preserved a rich lode of pottery sealed and found in situ on the floor of the collapsed room. Some of the pottery was interpreted as having fallen from shelves in the "kitchen". Erickson-Gini (2010:80) reports that in situ coins were found in the earthquake debris in Building XXV. Erickson-Gini (2010:129) reports that the walls of adjacent Rooms 1 and 2 ("kitchen") of Building XXV were rather insubstantial additions to the original structure which were constructed in a shallow layer of soil which appears to have contributed to the collapse of the kitchen.

Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003) characterized this as a strong earthquake with an epicenter at the north, and an EMS-98 scale intensity of IX or more with an epicenter some distance away

Kamai and Hatzor and Kamai and Hatzor (2007) estimate Intensity of ~7 - 8 based on DDA of a dropped keystone in an arch in Mampsis.

Davies et al (2015) excavated a Roman Fort at Yotvata from 2003-2007. A monumental Latin inscription discovered earlier (1985) outside of the east gate suggests that the fort at Yotvata was built when Diocletian transferred the Tenth Legion Fretensis from Jerusalem to Aila in the last decade of the third century. Two destruction layers were described after establishment of the fort - a burned layer and a collapse layer. The authors noted that the first phase of Roman occupation at our fort, which is associated with coins that go up to ca. 360, ended with a violent destruction evidenced by intense burning throughout. Reconstruction is said to have occurred immediately after this destruction as documented by a series of successive floor layers throughout. The cause of the burned layer was not established but the authors suggested a a possible connection with the Saracen revolt against Rome led by Queen Mavia, ca. 375–378 noting the documented successes of her forces against Roman field armies and that the inclusion of former foederati among her troops suggest that her forces would have been capable of taking and destroying the fort at Yotvata. Whatever the specific cause, the excavators strongly believed that human agency rather than the southern Cyril Quake of 363 AD was the general cause noting that there was no visible evidence of structural damage or a collapse layer. One of the excavators, Gwyn Davies (personal communication, 2020) noted that

We are confident that the fort was destroyed in a violent attack as we encountered signs of intense burning across most contexts and, even more suggestively, the stone frame of the main gate was fire-seared as well. If the fire had been more localized and associated with signs of toppling collapse, then ‘natural causes’ may have been more persuasive or, indeed, that this represented an accidental destruction. Instead, the evidence suggests to us that the fort was put to the torch quite deliberately

In addition to the lack of evidence of visible structural damage that could be attributed to an earthquake in the earliest destruction level, the absence of whole (restorable) pottery vessels and other objects in that level suggests an earthquake did not cause the destruction, as one would expect these artifacts to be buried in a sudden collapse. Therefore, we attributed the destruction by fire to human agents.

Although the Phase X destruction layer was initially misdated to the Crete earthquake of 365 CE, Hammond (1980) later acknowledged this as a mistake. The corrected correlation of the Phase X destruction layer would then be to the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. See also Area I near the Temple of the Winged Lions. Jones (2021) noted that

Ward (2016: 144) has pointed out that the evidence for dating the major destruction to 363 is quite limited, although this is still the most reasonable date for this destruction.

During the seasons of 1975-1977, Hammond (1978) excavated at a location north of the Cardo Maximus and encountered some chronologically precise archeoseismic evidence for the Cyril Quake(s). Ken Russell served as one of two supervisors on these excavations and provided a detailed account of the archeoseismic evidence encountered in his article from 1980. In the 1976 and 1977 seasons at what was termed the "middle house" structure of Area I, Russell (1980) reports the discovery of a destruction layer containing numerous domestic articles such as lamps, shattered ceramics and glass, spindle whorls, and coins. In Room II, a hoard of 85 bronze coins was discovered of which 45 were identifiable. All 45 identifiable coins were minted during the reign of Constantius II who ruled from 337-361 AD. Further, 40 of these 45 coins were identified as being minted after 354 AD. This coin evidence provided a terminus post quem - i.e. the earliest possible date of destruction was between 354 and 361 AD. This points to the southern Cyril Quake as the probable cause of the destruction layer in the "middle room" in Petra.

Tholbecq et al (2019:36-37) attributed a destruction layer (see Figures 11 and 12) to the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE based on excavations of the western Temple Staircase (peribole) in Zone F of Qasr al Bint. The dating is approximate - to the 3rd or 4th century CE - apparently based on pottery fragments (Schmidt phase 4 and North African Sigillata) and oil lamps. Colluvium atop the destruction layer suggests partial abandonment of the site after the destructive earthquake. Renel (2013:351-352) also reports archaeoseismic evidence for this event in the southern part of the apse monument in the southern part of the temenos abutting the "beginning" of the peribole. He attributed the stone tumble there to collapse of the apse.

Phase label is based on Augé et al. (2016) and date range is based on Tholbecq et al (2019).

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) acknowledged difficulties in dating this presumed seismic destruction arriving at a date based on ceramics of the 4th century CE. It was suggested that the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE could have been responsible.

Joukowsky (2009) attributed the Phase IX earthquake to the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE.

Bedal et al (2007) report seismic destruction in Phase V as follows:

The architectural elements of the pool complex suffered serious damage in the mid-4th century AD, most likely a result of the well-documented earthquake of 363 AD. The upper courses of the pavilion walls collapsed into the pool, forming a dense layer of large stone rubble in a reddish-brown sandy matrix overlying the Phase IV fill (trench 1) (Fig. 24). In the south-west corner, stones falling from the South Wall and the Great Temple's East Perimeter Wall formed a similar destruction layer (Fig. 23).

While it is possible that this destruction resulted from neglect and structural decay over a long period of time, it more likely that the island-pavilion fell victim to the major earthquake of 363 CE that caused irreparable damage to many of the major monuments at Petra and destruction throughout the region (Russell 1980; 1985:42; Amiran et al. 1994:265). ⁷⁴

Footnotes

74 The much-debated earthquake at the beginning of the 2nd century CE (Schmidt 1997) can be ruled out here because of the late (4th century CE) pottery underlying the destruction debris.

Kanellopoulos (2001:16) speculated that a partial collapse of the upper story of Room 28 was caused by the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. Fiema (2008) further speculates that in the area of the Colonnaded Street, damage must have included shifted walls, collapsed columns and arches, and a damaged pavement. Fiema (2008) added that the [collonaded] street area appears to have been only partially rebuilt after the earthquake and that subsequent constructions were erected on the sidewalk with reused material, such as column drums, and even inscribed blocks. adding that the drums used in the construction of these structures indicate that at least some parts of the colonnade had fallen down and were not restored. Fiema (1998:398) also discussed archaeoseismic evidence uncovered from previous excavations.

The disastrous earthquake which affected Petra on May 19, AD 363 (Russell 1980), would have spelled the end to some of the shops, or at least seriously limited their function. The shop excavated by Parr was definitely abandoned then, displaying a layer of destruction debris - Phase XV (Parr 1970: 366-368).

Fiema and Schmid (2014:429) suggest that Structure 2 in the NEPP area was destroyed by the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. Fiema and Schmid (2014:429-430) suggest that Structure 1 in the NEPP area was destroyed by the 363 earthquake, but [was] later restored although in much altered form and appearance with final destruction and abandonment taking place afterwards, perhaps sometime in the early 5th century. They suggest that final destruction and abandonment may have been due to the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE.

Fiema and Frosen (2008 Appendix C:34) report that evidence was found in Room 25 of an early destruction, followed by a period of decay before the monastery at Jabal Harun was constructed. Archaeoseismic evidence included a shattered second story floor (O.41) some of which was protruding from a Wall G (e.g. Fig. 8). They also surmised that the core of the western building partially collapsed and the 2nd story floor was destroyed entirely. Remains of that floor were incorporated in the Byzantine structures. Finally, they suggest that the superstructure and arches of the southern cistern (Room 36) may also have collapsed.

Fiema et al (2001:18) surmised that Phase II ended with an earthquake based on rebuilding evidence discussed below:

The type of construction activity in Phase III [] included massive backfilling of certain spaces with material clearly originating from a demolition. Furthermore, there was seemingly no shortage of architectural elements - including doorjambs, drums, cornices and ashlars - which were reused. This evidence all indicates that Phase II ended in disaster and was followed by a period of intense restoration and construction. This hypothesis, combined with the available absolute dating, suggests that the earthquake of A.D. 363 is the best candidate for such a disaster. That earthquake is a historically documented, major natural calamity which beset Petra during the Byzantine period. The severity of its destructive power left numerous Nabataean and Late Roman period structures in ruins, e.g., the domestic structures at ez-Zantur, the Temple of the Winged Lions and Area I, the Theater, the Colonnaded Street area, and the Southern Temple. Afterwards, some buildings were either partially abandoned or never rebuilt. Whether the Phase II structures in the excavated area were seriously affected is not apparent, but it remains a possibility. At any rate, Phase II most probably represents the 3d century A.D. and the first half of the following century, ending in A.D. 363.

... One telling indication that Phase III was initiated after a devastating earth tremor is the amount of reused stone material, presumably readily available after the disaster. In all the stone-tumble layers excavated in the interiors of the northern rooms and courts - almost 4 m deep - the number of reused doorjambs was simply astonishing. In total, 275 complete stones or recognizable fragments were retrieved from that area.

Bikai et al (2020:41) surmise that cleaning and restoration after the 363 CE earthquake may have removed evidence of one of the 363 CE Cyril Quakes.

Thomas et al (2007) identified earthquake destruction (Earthquake V) in a collapse layer which they dated to the southern Cyril Quake. A terminus post quem of 360 CE for Earthquake V was established with coins and pottery.

Thin wall construction and surface layers produced pottery from the mid to late fourth century A.D. (similar types to Phase 2 described earlier). The latest pottery dates from about A.D. 360 onward (based on several examples of African Red Slip form 67, introduced ca. A.D. 360; Hayes 1972). However, over 100 coins were found on the final floor of this phase. The majority of these coins were found associated with the remains of a broken box in Room 2. The latest coins date to the reign of Constantius II who reigned from A.D. 337 to 361 (Parker 1999a) and provide a terminus post quem for this building phase.

The very refined pottery and coin dates give a secure post A.D. 360 date for the Earthquake V event. The scarcity of post A.D. 360 pottery and the location of the coin hoard at the interface between occupation surface and collapse horizon indicate that this event cannot have occurred long after A.D. 360. We have interpreted this earthquake to be the historically attested earthquake of May 19, A.D. 363 (Russell 1980; Guidoboni 1994: 264-67).

At the end of thetroubled third century, the Legio X Fretensis was transferred from Jerusalem to bolster Diocletian’s new Limes Arabicus, to the effect that the population increased substantially and the city emerged as a regional centre.⁶¹ A church was built in c. 300 – one of the oldest in the world – testifying to the early progress of Christianity in Palestine; it was apparently destroyed by the earthquake of 363 and subsequently covered by the new city wall. This stone and mud-brick wall was complete by the late fourth or early fifth century, suggesting something of the seriousness which the continued threat of Saracen raiding was taken.⁶²

Footnotes

61 Parker, 1996: 234, 253; 2000: 392. Eusebius, Onomasticon, 6.17-21 (1904).
62 Parker, 2003: 332.

The second earthquake is believed to have tilted the scaenae wall approximately 8 degrees to the north where the upper 2/3 of that wall is now missing. Al-Tawalbeh et. al. (2020:8) suggest this event led to final abandonment of the theater as so much was left unrepaired. Later, an adjacent buttress wall was built providing a terminus ante quem for the second event. They dated this terminus ante quem to the 4th to 5th centuries CE. Sediment infill in the theater provides a second later terminus ante quem based on ceramics of Late Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad ages and radiocarbon dating of ash bands within the sediment infill which indicated that most of the sediment was deposited between 521 and 667 CE ( Al-Tawalbeh et. al., 2020:10). While their evidence strongly suggests earthquake damage, the dating of the causative event is unfortunately not well constrained. Al-Tawalbeh et al (2020) estimated a local intensity of 8-9.

Lapp et al (1980:8-9) identified a possible seismic destruction layer between Stratum I and Stratum II.

Stratum II

Following the construction of the Qasr, left unfinished by the Hellenistic builders, the monumental buildings were not used for sedentary occupation until early in the Byzantine period. Stratum II represents reoccupation by the Byzantines when they made use of the internal Qasr wall foundations, added walls to support their roofs especially outside the east and west Qasr walls, and laid soil and plaster floors. Two floors of Stratum II were distinguished at a number of places at the Qasr with the earliest at the level of the Hellenistic pavement either replacing the Hellenistic pavement or providing one where the early builders had never done so. Stratum II at the Square Building is the period of the construction of the "square" building which was the distinguishing feature be fore the 1962 excavations took place. One floor of Stratum II was delineated there.

Fourth century A.D. pottery is characteristic of Stratum II both at the Qasr and in the Square Building. At the Qasr the tumbled megaliths of the wall onto the Stratum II floors separate Stratum II from the one above. A Theodosius I coin dating to A.D. 393-395 (reg. no. 51) from the fill for the second floor above the destruction debris provides a terminus ante quem for the catastrophic event, probably an earthquake. A major earthquake is known to have taken place in Transjordan in A.D. 365 (Kallner-Amiran 1950-51: 225) [JW: should be 363 CE. 365 CE date is a common mistake in earlier archeological literature attributing the Crete Earthquake of 365 CE for the Cyril Quakes of 363 CE]. At the Square Building a Constantine II coin, dated A.D. 335-337 (reg. no. 180) was found in the Stratum II floor east of the building so a terminus post quem is provided. The dates, A.D. 335-365, Early Byzantine I (according to Sauer's terminology, 1973:4), may tentatively be assigned Stratum II, though a detailed study of the pottery may refine these dates.

Stratum I

Following the earthquake at the Qasr a leveling off, which in some areas meant the importation of a massive fill, was necessary to cover the earthquake debris. The main line of the Stratum III Qasr walls continued to be followed with only slight deviations. Two floors were distinguished inside some rooms of the Qasr and outside on the west. On the porches fallen debris precluded occupation. At the Square Building almost a meter of debris and three floors were associated with Stratum I, but no earthquake destruction separated Stratum I from Stratum II. The floors were distinguished both inside and outside the Square Building and some of the Stratum II building features were reused.

The Byzantine pottery of Stratum I is typologically later than that of Stratum II, and more absolute dates can be assigned the stratum by some coins. The Theodosius I coin (A.D. 393-395) was in the fill for the I A floor, that is the second floor above the earthquake debris. Thus a period of time, perhaps about thirty years, can be allowed for the first phase of occupation in Stratum I. At the Square Building a coin of Arcadius, dated A.D. 383-408 (reg. no. 179), was found laying on the earliest Stratum I floor. In the fill above the latest floor inside the Qasr was a coin of Zeno, A.D. 476-491 (reg. no. 24), suggesting occupation to the end of the fifth century, and the pottery indicates heavy occupation in the latter half. Stratum I can tentatively be dated A.D. 365-500, Early Byzantine II-IV (according to Sauer's terminology, 1973:4).

Evidence for the one of the 363 CE Cyril Quakes is claimed in Area A. Durand (2015:14) attributes abandonment of A2 baths to this earthquake. In addition, Durand et al. (2018:607) noted that finds from excavations suggest that the house [V1] was founded between the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, while the material from the destruction/abandonment layers is no later than the 4th century (al-Muheisen and Villeneuve, 2000). In what was interpreted as a Roman Mansio in Area A, Durand et al. (2018:616) wrote that ceramic finds associated with the destruction [tumble] levels [on the western side of open space/courtyard A12] are dated to the late 3rd or early 4th c. AD. Interpretation is apparently complicated by later looting of the area. For example, al-Muheisen and Villeneuve (2000) state that, after the one of the 363 CE Cyril Quakes struck, the site was abandoned for about two centuries and then towards the middle of the 6th century, a Christian community settled on this ruin, which it partly transformed into a quarry. Durand (2015:14) states that during the Byzantine era, around the 6th century, the bathing building was almost completely dismantled to recover building materials.

Jones (2021:Table 1) suggested that there may be archeoseismic evidence at Khirbet Faynan for the Southern Cyril Quake in Area 16, Terrace 3, local stratum 2a in as yet unpublished work. A preliminary report can be found at Levy et al (2012:430-435).

Period III ended when a violent earthquake undoubtedly destroyed [the] entire temple (Glueck, 1965:122). McKenzie et al (2013:47,62) date the end of Period III to the middle of the 4th century CE attributing Period III destruction to the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. McKenzie et al (2013:159) used the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE as a terminus ante quem for some glassware that they concluded were of a 3rd or early to mid 4th century CE date indicating that they may have used the date of the 363 CE earthquake to refine dating of some artefactual remains rather than the other way around. Hence although they may be right that Period III ended in 363 CE, I am expanding the possible dates for this seismic destruction to the 3rd-4th centuries CE.

Lain and Parker (2006:130) established a terminus post quem of 355 CE in the aedes where architectural installations from a rebuild after the 1st earthquake included a new floor. Underneath the new floor was a layer which yielded Early Byzantine pottery and two coins dated to 330-340 CE and 355 - 385 CE. A terminus ante quem comes from Room A.13 where Lain and Parker (2006:149) report on a 0.25-0.33 m thick beaten earth floor which was constructed from fill and leveled after the first earthquake. In an intrusive pit (A.13.009), a coin hoard was discovered with 249 bronze coins all dated from 326 to 383-384. The latest coin (Coin #461) was an issue of Arcadius dated to 383-384 which provides a terminus ante quem of 384 CE. This earthquake appears to have struck between 355 and 384 CE indicating that it is probable that the southern Cyril Quake was responsible for the seismic damage.

Clark (1987) identified some wall charring which could be earthquake related.

Stones of the adjacent barrack walls (H.2:001 and 002) were charred at this level. This may represent a localized fire or possibly extensive conflagration, perhaps the result of the 363 earthquake (note also the ash in H.1:012, 014, and 015). Ceramics from this ash were predominantly Late Roman IV to Early Byzantine, but a query is raised by a single sherd which may be Umayyad