Heshbon

Transliterated Name	Language	Name
Hesban		‎
Heshbon	Biblical Hebrew	חשבון
Heshbon	Arabic	حشبون‎
Tell Hisban	Arabic	‎تيلل هيسبان
Tell Ḥesbān	Arabic	تيلل هيسبان‎
Esebus	Latin
Esbus	Latin
Hesbonitis	Greek	Εσεβωνιτις
Hesebon	Ancient Greek	Ἐσεβών
Esbous	Ancient Greek	Ἐσβούς
Exbous	Ancient Greek	Ἔξβους
Esbouta	Ancient Greek	Ἐσβούτα
Essebōn	Ancient Greek	Ἐσσεβών
Esb[untes]

Identification

from Lawrence T. Geraty in Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

For both geographical and linguistic reasons, Heshbon is identified with Tell Hesban, an 895-m-high, 15-a. mound guarding the northern edge of the rolling Moabite plain. Here, a southern tributary to Wadi Hesban begins to cut sharply down toward the Jordan River, about 25 km (15.5 mi.) to the west (map reference 226.134). Eusebius locates "Hessebon, now called Hesbous" 20 Roman miles (c. 30 km) east of the Jordan River, in the mountains opposite Jericho (Onom. 84:5). A ground course from the Jordan River would place the approximate location of Tell Hesban, here. Several milestones along the Roman road from the Jordan Valley and the Bible's reference to Heshbon's location confirm this identification. It is about 60 km (37 mi.) east of Jerusalem, 20 km (12 mi.) southwest of 'Amman, 9 km (5.6 mi.) north of Medeba, 8km (5 mi.) northeast of Mount Nebo, and 3 km (2 mi.) southeast of (and 200 m higher than) 'Ain Hesban, the perennial spring with which it is associated.

The excavations at Tell Hesban have so far produced no evidence for an occupation earlier than the twelfth century BCE. This poses a problem for locating Sihon's capital (see below) here. It may not have been found because it is elsewhere on the site, which is unlikely, or, which is more likely, because its seminomadic (impermanent) nature left no trace to be discovered. More extreme options are to consider the biblical account unhistorical or at least anachronistic (now favored by such scholars as J. M. Miller, H. 0. Thompson, and others) or to seek the Amorite capital at another location - for example, Jalul (an identification favored by S. H. Horn) or 'Umeiri (a view favored by R. D. Ibach). Most, at least, would identify Tell Hesban with Greco Roman Hesbus, based on numismatic and milestone evidence coupled with the geographical specifications as provided by Ptolemy and Eusebius. If F. M. Cross's reading of the Ammonite ostracon (A.3), found at the site in 1978, is accepted, it would support such an identification for Iron Age Heshbon, as well.

History

from Lawrence T. Geraty in Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

Heshbon is first mentioned in the Bible in Numbers 21:21-30 (cf. Dt. 2:16-37), where it is referred to as the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, whose kingdom extended "from Aroer, which is on the edge of the valley of Arnon, and from the middle of the valley as far as the river Jabbok, the boundary of the Ammonites, that is, half of Gilead" (Jos. 12:2; cf. Jos. 13:10, Jg. 11:22). Numbers 21:26-31 may be - in the writer's opinion - an attempt to justify Israel's occupation, under Moses, of territory claimed at various times by Moab. This passage claims that at least the southern half of Sihon's kingdom, the tableland known in Hebrew as the Mishor (Dt. 3:10, 4:43), had indeed been Moabite but that Sihon had earlier wrested it from Moabite control (Num. 21:26). As proof, the so-called Song of Heshbon (Num. 21:27-30), ostensibly an Amorite war taunt, was inserted in the narrative. This claim was again made in Judges 11:12-28, where Jephthah denies the Ammonites ownership of the region between the Jabbok and Arnon on the basis that Israel originally took it from the Amorites and not the Ammonites.

The tribes of Reuben and Gad requested the territory that had been encompassed by Sihon's kingdom for their tribal allotment on the basis of its being good for their cattle (Num. 32: 1-5). It was, however, actually Reuben that built Heshbon and other nearby towns (Num. 32:37) which, according to the difficult and cryptic next verse, "changed as to name ... and they called by (other?) names the names of the cities which they built." Joshua 13:15-23 confirms the allotment of Heshbon to Reuben, although the next few verses (24-28) indicate it was contiguous with Gad's allotment. When Heshbon became a Levitical city, it was considered a city of Gad (Jos. 21:34-40; cf. 1 Chr. 6:8) - apparently because Reuben lost its tribal identity and was absorbed by Gad.

Although Heshbon is not mentioned by name in connection with the history of the United Monarchy, 1 Kings 4:19 puts "the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites" in Solomon's twelfth district. The Mesha Stone (ninth century BCE) does not mention Heshbon, but because Medeba, Nebo., and Jahaz all came back into Moabite hands at that time, presumably Heshbon did as well. At least by the close of the eighth century and into the seventh century BCE, Heshbon appears to be under firm Moabite control, for it figures in both extant recensions of a prophetic oracle against Moab (Is. 15:4, 16:8-9; Jer. 48:2, Jer. 48:34-35), where its fields, fruit, and harvest are mentioned. In Jeremiah 49:3, Heshbon appears again in the oracle against the Ammonites; perhaps it had changed hands again. Heshbon's final biblical mention is in Nehemiah 9:22, where it is part of a historical allusion to the Israelite conquest.

In the post-biblical literary sources, Heshbon is commonly called Hesbus (although there are many variant spellings). Josephus relates that in the second century BCE, Tyre of the Tobiads was located "between Arabia and Judea, beyond Jordan, not far from the country of Hesebonitis (Εσεβωνιτις)" (Antiq. XII, 233). Further on he lists Heshbon among the cities (perhaps the capital) of the Moabites (Antiq. XIII, 397). The Maccabean John Hyrcanus captured the cities of Medeba and Samaga in 129 BCE (Antiq. XIII, 255). Even though Hesbus is not specifically mentioned, it probably came into the hands of John Hyrcanus at this time because it is listed among the Jewish possessions in Moab during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE), not as a city captured by him (Antiq. XIII, 397).

Josephus includes Hesebon among several fortresses and fortified cities built by Herod the Great to strengthen his kingdom (Antiq. XV, 294); he populated it with veterans, probably to protect his border with the Nabateans. Under Herod's son, Antipas (4 BCE-39 CE), Jewish Peraea was on the south "bounded by the land of Moab, and on the east by Arabia, Hesebonitis, Philadelphia, and Gerasa" (War III, 4 7). At the beginning of the [1st] Jewish War (66 CE), the Jews sacked Heshbon (War II, 458). When the Roman province of Arabia Petraea was created in 106 CE, Hesbus was certainly a part of it; at least it is assigned to Arabia in Ptolemy's Geography (V, 17, 6).

W. Vyhmeister has summarized the evidence with regard to the Roman road: "Around 129-130, in preparation for the visit of the Emperor Hadrian, a road was built to connect Esbus with Livias, Jericho, and Jerusalem ... " Three milestones (5-7) recording distances from Hesbus have been discovered. Two bear inscriptions naming several emperors and are so dated to the years 219,307 and 364-375 (no. 5) and 162,236 and 288 (no. 6). The mention of Hesbus as caput viae in Greek and Latin is an indication of its relative importance in this period.

Elagabalus (218-222 CE) raised Hesbus to municipal status, and in the early third century it minted its own bronze coins inscribed "Aurelia Esbus" (BMC Arabia, XXXIII, 29-30). At the turn of the century the town is frequently mentioned in Eusebius' Onomasticon as a reference for locating other towns in its district. In the next century, Hesbus appears for the first time as an episcopal see in the Acts of the Council of Nicaea. Again Hesbus sent its bishop to the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (457). Some correspondence of Pope Martin I(649) shows that Hesbus was still an important bishopric in the middle of the seventh century (R. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, II, cols. 863-864).

A number of Greek Christian inscriptions were discovered at Heshbon (IGLS, Jordanie, nos. 58-62). Moreover, the town is represented in two eighth-century mosaic pavements featuring cities of Palestine, Arabia and Egypt, at Ma'in and Umm er-Rasas.

After the eighth century, the name Hesbus disappears from literary and epigraphic sources, reappearing only in its Arabic form, Hesban. It is mentioned in the Abbasid period by the Arab geographer, Yaqut - who says there was a strong fortress here in the early ninth century- and Abu Dja'far Muhammad at-Tabari (839-923). The next clear reference to Hesban as an inhabited place comes in 1184, in connection with a campaign of Saladin recorded by Beha ed-Din. In the fourteenth century, Hesban became the capital of the Belqa district and is mentioned by Ibn Fadl Allah al-'Umari (1301-1348), Dimishqi (d. 1327), Abu el-Feda (d. 1331), and several others. Finally, several Western travelers and explorers visited Hesban, particularly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, from U. J. Seetzen in 1806 to N. Glueck in the early 1930s.

Excavations between 1968 and 1978

from Lawrence T. Geraty in Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

Six seasons of excavations have been carried out at Tell Hesban, the first five by the Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, and the last by the Baptist Bible College, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, both with the cooperation of the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Jordan Department of Antiquities. The first three seasons (1968, 1971, 1973) were directed by S. H. Horn, and the fourth and fifth (1974 and 1976) by L. T. Geraty. R. S. Boraas provided continuity throughout as chief archaeologist. In 1978, J. Lawlor directed the continued excavation of the northern Byzantine church (found two years earlier), with the assistance of Geraty as senior advisor and L. G. Herr as chief archaeologist.

In the first season of excavation, the site was marked off by a major north-south and east-west pair of axes centered on the summit. The initial strategy was to cut a series of squares along the west and south lines of the intersection, providing a continuous stratigraphic connection from the west perimeter of the mound up to the center of the summit, then down the south slope to the edge. Eventually this was accomplished through the gradual expansion of four work areas (areas A-D, with 32 squares). These were carried down to bedrock and augmented in later seasons by investigations scattered around the perimeter of the site (22 squares), by tomb research carried out in four widely separated cemeteries (43 tombs), by a sounding at Umm es-Sarab to the north, and by a survey team seeking sites within a 10-km (6-mi.) radius of Tell Hesban (155 sites). On the mound itself, a series of nineteen superimposed, distinguishable strata was identified. These covered a period from about 1200 BCE to 1500 CE, with only two primary gaps in occupation in evidence: Persian and Early Hellenistic (c. 500-250 BCE) and Ottoman (c. 1500-1870).

Renewed Excavations

from Stern et. al. (2008)

Renewed excavations took place at Heshbon (see Vol. 2, pp. 626–630) under the direction of Ø. LaBianca and B. Walker in 1997, 1998, and 2001. The primary interest of the excavations, part of the Madaba Plains Project, is to clarify the Islamic occupation of the site. A few small soundings reexamined alleged earlier architecture. More of the early Iron Age I trench-pit was excavated in area D to the east of the previous excavations, confirming the date of the fill. No new data was revealed to interpret the enigmatic construction understood by some as a small moat. A very minor reevaluation of the stratigraphy in area C confirmed that Iron Age IIC walls were indeed present, as reported earlier. The Hellenistic date of the acropolis fortification wall, determined on the southern side of the fortress by soundings in the 1970s, was confirmed by two soundings on its northern and eastern sides. In the process, a faintly inscribed Thamudic inscription was discovered, engraved onto one of the large stones near the northeastern corner.

...

The renewed excavations at Heshbon (Ḥisban) took place between 1996 and 2001. The results rectify some of the impressions left by the 1970s excavations at the site, in which the Early Islamic period was mainly represented by provisional ovens and pottery. The present excavations not only uncovered clear Umayyad architectural activity at the tell (field N, to the northwest), but also material evidence of its continued use throughout the Abbasid period. Another highlight is that the residence of the Mameluke governor of the Belqa is believed to have been found. Heshbon was the administrative capital of the region, mainly due to its geographically advantageous location. The structure exposed includes rooms organized around an open courtyard, with a defensive tower and a bathhouse. The archaeological value of the above findings is further enhanced by the fact that the Mameluke layer was sealed by the building collapse as a result of an earthquake in the late fourteenth–early fifteenth century. This collapse helped preserve in situ the contents of a storeroom on the southern side of the residence, full of sugar jars and glazed wares, including the typical molded ware usually decorated with inscriptions.

Aerial Views and Plans

Aerial Views

Heshbon in Google Earth

Heshbon

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Fig. 3 - Aerial Photo of Heshbon

Figure 3

Aerial photo of Tall Hisban a mediaeval village below (courtesy of Ivan LaBianca)

Walker et al (2017)

from Walker et al (2017)

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)
Fig. 2 - Area Map from

Figure 2

Fields of excavation (courtesy of Qutaiba Dasouqi)

Walker et al (2017)

Walker et al (2017)

Magnified

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)
Fig. 2 - Area Map from

Figure 2

Fields of excavation (courtesy of Qutaiba Dasouqi)

Walker et al (2017)

Walker et al (2017)

Area Plans

Normal Size

Fig. 4 - Floor plan of Mamluk

Figure 4

Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08.

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

and Umayyad buildings from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Magnified

Fig. 4 - Floor plan of Mamluk

Figure 4

Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08.

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

and Umayyad buildings from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Caveat regarding archaeoseismic evidence before the 7th century CE

Dating earthquakes at this site before the 7th century CE is messy. Earlier publications provide contradictory earthquake assignments, possibly due to difficulties in assessing stratigraphy and phasing, but also due to uncritical use of older error prone earthquake catalogs. A number of earlier publications refer to earthquakes too far away to have damaged the site. Dates provided below are based on my best attempt to determine chronological constraints based on the excavator's assessment of primarily numismatic and ceramic evidence. Their earthquake date assignments, at the risk of being impolite, have been ignored.

Stratigraphy

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

from Walker and LaBianca (2003:448 Table 1)

Stratum	Political periodization	Cultural Period	Absolute Dates
I	Late Ottoman-modern	‎Late Islamic IIb-modern Pioneer, Mandate, and Hashemite	‎1800 CE-today
II	Middle Ottoman	Late Islamic IIa Pre-modern tribal‎	1600-1800 CE‎
IIIb	Early Ottoman	Late Islamic Ib Post-Mamluk - Early Ottoman‎	1500-1600 CE‎
IIIa	Late Mamluk (Burji)	Late Islamic Ia‎	1400-1500 CE‎
IVb	Early Mamluk II (Bahri)	Middle Islamic IIc‎	1300-1400 CE‎
IVa	Early Mamluk I (Bahri)	Middle Islamic IIb‎	1250-1300 CE‎
IVa	Ayyubid/Crusader	Middle Islamic IIa‎	1200-1250 CE‎
V	Fatimid	Middle Islamic I	1000-1200 CE‎
VIb	Abbasid	Early Islamic II	800-1000 CE‎
VIa	Umayyad	Early Islamic I	600-800 CE‎
VII	Byzantine	Byzantine	300-600 CE‎
VIII	Roman	Roman	60 BCE - 300 CE‎
IX	Hellenistic	Hellenistic	300-60 BCE‎
X	Persian	Persian	500-300 BCE‎
XIb	Iron II	Iron II	900-500 BCE‎
XIa	Iron I	Iron I	1200-900 BCE‎

Mitchel (1980)

Mitchel (1980:9) provided a list of 19 strata encountered over 5 seasons of excavations between 1968 and 1976.
Mitchel (1980) wrote about Strata 11-15.

Stratum	Dates	Comments
1	1870-1976 CE	‎
2	1400-1456 CE	‎
3	1260-1400 CE	‎
4	1200-1260 CE	‎
5	750-969 CE	‎
6	661-750 CE	‎
7	614-661 CE	‎
8	551-614 CE	‎
9	408-551 CE	‎
10	365-408 CE	‎
11	284-365 CE	‎Stratum 11 is characterized by another building program. On the temple grounds a new colonnade was built in front (east) of the temple, perhaps a result of Julian's efforts to revive the state cult.
12	193-384 CE	‎Stratum 12 represents a continuation of the culture of Stratum 13. On the summit of the tell a large public structure was built; partly following the lines of earlier walls. This structure is interpreted to be the temple shown on the reverse of the so—called "Esbus Coin", minted at Aurelia Esbus under Elagabalus (A.D. 218 — 222).
13	130-193 CE	‎Stratum 13 began with a major building effort occasioned by extensive earthquake destruction [in Stratum 14] The transition from Stratum 13 to Stratum 12 appears to nave been a gradual one.
14	63 BCE - 130 CE	‎the overall size of the settlement seems to have grown somewhat. Apart from the continued use of the fort on the summit, no intact buildings have survived. A large number of underground (bedrock) installations were in use during Stratum 14 The stratum was closed out by what has been interpreted as a disastrous earthquake
15	198-63 BCE	architecture interpreted to be primarily a military post or fort, around which a dependent community gathered
16	7th-6th century BCE	‎
17	9th-8th century BCE	‎
18	1150-10th century BCE	‎
19	1200-1150 BCE	‎

Stratum 15 Destruction Layer (Mitchel, 1980) - 2nd - 1st century BCE

Site Plans

Normal Size

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Magnified

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Discussion

Mitchel (1980:21) noted chronological difficulties dating Stratum 15.

Though evidence for Stratum 15 occupation at Tell Hesban occurs in the form of ceramic remains found across the entire site, evidence of stratigraphic value is greatly limited in quantity and extent.

Mitchel (1980:47) noted that there was limited evidence for destruction and/or abandonment in Stratum 15 though most of the evidence was removed by subsequent building activities particularly in Stratum 13. Destruction layers were variously described as debris, a rubble layer, or tumble. Due to slim evidence, Mitchel (1980:70) did not form firm conclusions about the nature of the end of Stratum 15

The transition to Stratum 14 may be characterized as a smooth one, although the evidence is slim. There is currently no evidence of a destroying conflagration at the end of Stratum 15. In fact, I do not believe it is likely that we shall know whether Stratum 15 Heshbon was simply abandoned or destroyed by natural or human events.

Stratum 14 Earthquake (Mitchel, 1980) - 1st century BCE - 2nd century CE

Site Plans and Tables

Site Plans

Normal Size

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Magnified

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Tables

Table 7 from Mitchel (1980)
Table 7

Abbreviations

DOM = Dominant

TABF = Tabun Fragment

BOD = Body Sherd

IRN1 = Iron Age I

IRN1A = Iron Age IA

IRN2 = Iron Age II

I2/P = Iron Age II/Persian

HELL = Hellenistic

LHEL = Late Hellenistic

EROM = Early Roman

Dates

Iron Age I - 1200-1000 BCE*

Iron Age IA - 1200-1150 BCE*

Iron Age II - 1000-586 BCE*

Iron Age II/Persian - 1000*-332 BCE

Hellenistic - 332-63 BCE

Late Hellenistic - 198-63 BCE

Early Roman I - 63-37 BCE

Early Roman II - 37-4 BCE

Early Roman III - 4 BCE-73 CE

Early Roman IV - 73-135 CE

*Dates from Stern et al (1993)

Mitchel (1980)

Discussion

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

Mitchel (1980:73) reports that, over a wide area from northern square D.3 into southern square B.4, a majority of caves used for dwelling collapsed at the top of Stratum 14 which could be noticed by:

bedrock surface channels, presumably for directing run-off water into storage facilities, which now are totally disrupted, and in many cases rest ten to twenty degrees from the horizontal; by caves with carefully cut steps leading down into them whose entrances are fully or largely collapsed and no longer usable; by passages from caves which can still be entered into formerly communicating caves which no longer exist, or are so low-ceilinged or clogged with debris as to make their use highly unlikely — at least as they stand now.

Mitchel (1980:73) also noticed that new buildings constructed in Stratum 13 were leveled over a jumble of broken-up bedrock. Mitchel (1980:95) reports that Areas B and D had the best evidence for the massive bedrock collapse - something he attributed to the "softer" strata in this area, more prone to karst features and thus easier to burrow into and develop underground dwelling structures. Mitchel (1980:96) reports discovery of a coin of Aretas IV (9 BC – 40 AD) in the fill of silo D.3:57 which he suggests was placed as part of reconstruction after the earthquake. Although Mitchel (1980:96) acknowledges that this suggests that the causitive earthquake was the 31 BCE Josephus Quake, Mitchel (1980:96) argued for a later earthquake based on the mistaken belief that the 31 BCE Josephus Quake had an epicenter in the Galilee. Paleoseismic evidence from the Dead Sea, however, indicates that the 31 BCE Josephus Quake had an epicenter in the vicinity of the Dead Sea relatively close to Tell Hesban. Mitchel (1980:96-98)'s argument follows:

The filling of the silos, caves, and other broken—up bedrock installations at the end of the Early Roman period was apparently carried out nearly immediately after the earthquake occurred. This conclusion is based on the absence of evidence for extended exposure before filling (silt, water—laid deposits, etc.), which in fact suggests that maybe not even one winter's rain can be accounted for between the earthquake and the Stratum 13 filling operation. If this conclusion is correct, then the Aretas IV coin had to have been introduced into silo D.3:57 fill soon after the earthquake. which consequently could not have been earlier than 9 B.C.

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

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

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

This case is surely not incontrovertible but seems to me to carry the weight of the evidence which was excavated at Tell Hesban.

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

Stratum 11 Earthquake (Mitchel, 1980) - 4th century CE - possibly 363 CE Cyril Quake

Site Plans and Tables

Site Plans and Plates

Site Plans

Normal Size

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Magnified

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Plates

Plate 25A - The Great Stairway

Plate 25A

East Margin of Monumental Stairway, D.3. View East

Mitchel (1980)

from Mitchel (1980)

Discussion

Mitchel (1980:181) noted that a destruction of some sort tumbled the wall on the east side of the great stairway (Plate 25 A above), 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.

That said, if Mitchel (1980:193) is correct that a retaining wall collapsed on the monumental stairway, unless it was tilted and at the point of collapse beforehand, it's collapse suggests high levels of local Intensity.

Stratum 9 Earthquake (?) - ~6th century CE

Site Plans

Normal Size

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Magnified

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Discussion

Following the stratigraphy listed by Mitchel (1980:9), Storfjell (1993:113) noted archaeoseismic evidence which he dated to 500-525 CE.

There is scattered evidence for a destruction, probably caused by an earthquake. This evidence comes from Area C, and Probes G.11 and G.16. If there was evidence of destruction in Area A, it would have been removed in the subsequent reconstruction and enlargement of the church. The ceramic evidence suggests that the destruction occurred in the Late Byzantine period. Placement in the overall stratigraphic sequence would suggest a destruction date in the first quarter of the sixth century for Stratum 9.

Storfjell (1993:110) discussed dating of Stratum 9 as follows:

The evidence is not precise enough to specify with certainty the exact dates for Stratum 9, although the ceramic horizon is predominantly Early Byzantine (ca. AD 408-527). It is this period that first reveals the Christian presence at Tell Hesban.

The Christian presence was apparently the construction of a Christian church on the remains of the Roman Temple possibly damaged by an earthquake in the 4th century CE. This church was apparently rebuilt in Stratum 8 which has a terminus ante quem of 614 CE according to Storfjell (1993:113). Sauer (1993:259), in the same publication, disputes the early 6th century earthquake evidence at Tall Hisban stating that thus far, there is no earthquake evidence at Hesban in this period.

7th century CE Earthquake

Plans and Photos

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Magnified

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Area Plans

Normal Size

Fig. 4 - Floor plan of Mamluk

Figure 4

Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08.

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

and Umayyad buildings from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Magnified

Fig. 4 - Floor plan of Mamluk

Figure 4

Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08.

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

and Umayyad buildings from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Photos

Fig. 16 - Crushed Ceramic Vessels

Figure 16

Ceramic vessels crushed by fallen vault in Early Islamic Room N.1.

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Discussion

Walker and LaBianca (2003:453-454) uncovered 7th century CE archeoseismic evidence which they attributed to the Jordan Valley Quake of 659/660 CE from an excavation of an Umayyad-period building in Field N of Tall Hesban (Fig. 4). They report a badly broken hard packed yellowish clay floor which was pocketed in places by wall collapse and accompanied by crushed storage jars, basins, and cookware. An excerpt from their article follows:

Two roughly square rooms, each approximately 4 x 4 meters wide and built against the inner face of the Hellenistic wall, occupied most of N.l and N.2. Masonry walls, four courses high, delineated the space. The original rooms were separated by what appears to have been an open air corridor; a door in the east wall of N.l and one in the west wall of N.2 allowed passage between the two rooms. The floors of these rooms (N.1: 18, N.2: 16) were made of a hard packed, yellowish clay, which was badly broken and pocketed in many places by wall collapse. Upper courses of the walls of the rooms had fallen onto the floor and crushed several large storage jars and basins and cookware (Fig. 16), dated in the field to the transitional Byzantine-Umayyad period. The only foundation trench identified (N.2: 25) yielded no pottery. The fill above these floors contained pottery that was late Umayyad and Abbasid in date. While it is not possible at this early stage of excavation to determine when this structure was first built, it was clearly occupied in the middle of the seventh century, suffered a catastrophic event, and was reoccupied (at some point) and used into the ninth century. Fallen architecture, crushed pottery, badly damaged floors that appeared to have "melted" around the fallen blocks, and wide and deep ash pits and lenses bare witness to a major conflagration. The most likely candidate for this is the recorded earthquake of 658/9, which was one of the most destructive in Jordan's history since the Roman period, rather than the Islamic conquests of the 630's ( El-Isa 1985: 233).

Mamluk Earthquake - late 14th - early 15th centuries CE

Plans and Photos

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)
Fig. 2 - Area Map from

Figure 2

Fields of excavation (courtesy of Qutaiba Dasouqi)

Walker et al (2017)

Walker et al (2017)

Magnified

Site Plan with excavation

Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas.

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)

areas from Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 2 - Areas of excavations

Figure 2

Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University).

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

at Tell Heshbon from Walker and LaBianca (2003)
Fig. 2 - Area Map from

Figure 2

Fields of excavation (courtesy of Qutaiba Dasouqi)

Walker et al (2017)

Walker et al (2017)

Area Plans

Normal Size

Fig. 4 - Floor plan of Mamluk

Figure 4

Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08.

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

and Umayyad buildings from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Magnified

Fig. 4 - Floor plan of Mamluk

Figure 4

Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08.

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

and Umayyad buildings from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Photos

Fig. 8 - Partially Collapsed Vault

Figure 8

Remains of partially collapsed barrel vault in L2.

Walker and LaBianca (2003)

from Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Discussion

Walker and LaBianca (2003:447-453) uncovered late 14th - early 15th century CE archaeoseismic evidence from excavations undertaken in 1998 and 2001 of Mamluk-period constructions in Field L. They identified a complex of rooms previously called the bathhouse complex as the residence of the Mamluk governor of the al-Balqa' (Fig. 4). Walker and LaBianca (2003:447) described and dated the storeroom complex (L.1 and L.2) as follows:

The storeroom complex of L.1 and L.2 was built in three phases, all dated to the fourteenth century (and assigned to Stratum IVb) on the basis of associated pottery. Architectural Phases I and II correspond, respectively, to the original construction (the narrow storeroom in L.1 and the rooms east of it in L.2) and an extension of the L.1 storeroom to the east that followed a short time later (Fig. 7). Phase III, on the other hand, represents a relatively brief reoccupation of the rooms associated with the storeroom's doorway (square L.2).

In L.1 and L.2, earthquake damage was discovered at the end of Phase II.

Phase II Excavations at tall Hisban, the 1998 and 2001 Seasons: The Islamic Periods (Strata I-VI)

... Earthquake damage was everywhere evident in the L.2 part of the storeroom, with walls knocked out of alignment; collapsed vaults (Fig. 8); and extensive ash cover, the result of a large conflagration likely brought on by oil lamps that had fallen from the upper stories. Thousands of fragments of glazed pottery, crushed by the vault stones that fell on them; nearly complete sugar storage jars (Fig. 9); dozens of channel-nozzle and pinched lamps (Fig. 10), many interspersed among fallen vault stones; fragments of bronze weaponry; painted jars and jugs (Fig. 11); and occasional fragments of metal bowls were recovered from L.1:17 - L.2:12, the beaten earth floor of the Mamluk-period (Stratum IVb) storeroom. There is evidence that the earth floor was originally plastered, as traces of white plaster were noticeable in the corners of the room, along the base of the walls at some places, and at the doorway. Earthquake and fire damage was so severe, however, that most of the plaster was destroyed.

Overlying strata was described as follows:

A meter-thick fill of loess (L.1:3, L.2:7) covered the floor (L.1:17, L.2:12), bearing witness to centuries of abandonment after the partial collapse of the covering vaults. The uppermost levels of the storeroom (L.2:3) above this fill were largely disturbed by a Stratum I, Ottoman-period cemetery

Walker et al (2017) also noted archeoseismic evidence which appears to be from the same earthquake in field M (aka Area M - see Fig. 2) which is described below:

Middle Islamic 3/Post-Middle Islamic 3

... earthquake (misaligned stones in architecture throughout field; collapse of vaulting and walls) destroys parallel chambers in M4, M5, M8 and M9; area abandoned.

Stratum 15 Destruction Layer (Mitchel, 1980) - 2nd - 1st century BCE

Effect	Location	Image	Description
Tumble Layers			Mitchel (1980:47) noted that there was limited evidence for destruction and/or abandonment in Stratum 15 though most of the evidence was removed by subsequent building activities particularly in Stratum 13. Destruction layers were variously described as debris, a rubble layer, or tumble. Due to slim evidence, Mitchel (1980:70) did not form firm conclusions about the nature of the end of Stratum 15
Rebuilding			Mitchel (1980:47) noted that there was limited evidence for destruction and/or abandonment in Stratum 15 though most of the evidence was removed by subsequent building activities particularly in Stratum 13. Destruction layers were variously described as debris, a rubble layer, or tumble. Due to slim evidence, Mitchel (1980:70) did not form firm conclusions about the nature of the end of Stratum 15

Stratum 14 Earthquake (Mitchel, 1980) - 1st century BCE - 2nd century CE

Effect	Location	Image	Description
Collapsed Caves	from northern square D.3 into southern square B.4 Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas. Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2) Figure 2 Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University). Walker and LaBianca (2003)		Mitchel (1980:73) reports that, over a wide area from northern square D.3 into southern square B.4, a majority of caves used for dwelling collapsed at the top of Stratum 14 which could be noticed by: bedrock surface channels, presumably for directing run-off water into storage facilities, which now are totally disrupted, and in many cases rest ten to twenty degrees from the horizontal; by caves with carefully cut steps leading down into them whose entrances are fully or largely collapsed and no longer usable; by passages from caves which can still be entered into formerly communicating caves which no longer exist, or are so low-ceilinged or clogged with debris as to make their use highly unlikely — at least as they stand now.
"jumble of broken-up bedrock"	Areas B and D had the best evidence for the massive bedrock collapse Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas. Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2) Figure 2 Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University). Walker and LaBianca (2003)	Table 7 Abbreviations DOM = Dominant TABF = Tabun Fragment BOD = Body Sherd IRN1 = Iron Age I IRN1A = Iron Age IA IRN2 = Iron Age II I2/P = Iron Age II/Persian HELL = Hellenistic LHEL = Late Hellenistic EROM = Early Roman Dates Iron Age I - 1200-1000 BCE* Iron Age IA - 1200-1150 BCE* Iron Age II - 1000-586 BCE* Iron Age II/Persian - 1000-332 BCE Hellenistic - 332-63 BCE Late Hellenistic - 198-63 BCE Early Roman I - 63-37 BCE Early Roman II - 37-4 BCE Early Roman III - 4 BCE-73 CE Early Roman IV - 73-135 CE Dates from Stern et al (1993) Mitchel (1980)	Mitchel (1980:73) noticed that new buildings constructed in Stratum 13 were leveled over a jumble of broken-up bedrock. Mitchel (1980:95) reports that Areas B and D had the best evidence for the massive bedrock collapse - something he attributed to the "softer" strata in this area, more prone to karst features and thus easier to burrow into and develop underground dwelling structures. The filling of the silos, caves, and other broken—up bedrock installations at the end of the Early Roman period was apparently carried out nearly immediately after the earthquake occurred. This conclusion is based on the absence of evidence for extended exposure before filling (silt, water—laid deposits, etc.), which in fact suggests that maybe not even one winter's rain can be accounted for between the earthquake and the Stratum 13 filling operation. If this conclusion is correct, then the Aretas IV coin had to have been introduced into silo D.3:57 fill soon after the earthquake. which consequently could not have been earlier than 9 B.C. The nature of the pottery preserved on the soft, deep fills overlying collapsed bedrock is also of significant importance to my argument in favor of the A.D. 130 earthquake as responsible for the final demise of underground (bedrock) installations in Areas B and D. Table 7 provides a systematic presentation of what I consider to be the critical ceramic evidence from loci in three adjacent squares, D.3, D.4, and B.7. The dates of the latest pottery uniformly carry us well beyond the date of the earthquake which damaged Qumran, down, in fact, closer to the end of the 1st century A.D. or the beginning of the 2nd. In addition to these three fill loci, soil layer D.4:118A (inside collapsed cave D.4:116 + D.4:118) yielded Early Roman I-III sherds, as well as two Late Roman I sherds (Square D.4 pottery pails 265, 266). Contamination of these latter samples is possible, but not likely. I dug the locus myself. Obviously, this post-31 B.C. pottery could have been deposited much later than 31 B.C.. closer, say, to the early 2nd century A.D., but the evidence seems to be against such a view. I personally excavated much of locus D.4:101 (Stratum 13). It was a relatively homogeneous, unstratified fill of loose soil that gave all the appearances of rapid deposition in one operation. From field descriptions of the apparently parallel loci in Squares D.3 and B.7. I would judge them to be roughly equivalent and subject to the same interpretation and date. And I repeat, the evidence for extended exposure to the elements (and a concomitant slow, stratified deposition) was either missed in excavation, not properly recorded, or did not exist. This case is surely not incontrovertible but seems to me to carry the weight of the evidence which was excavated at Tell Hesban. - Mitchel (1980:96-98)

Stratum 11 Earthquake (Mitchel, 1980) - 4th century CE - possibly 363 CE Cyril Quake

Effect	Location	Image	Description
Collapsed Walls	retaining wall at the east margin of the stairs (D.3:16A) Heshbon: map of the mound and excavation areas. Stern et. al. (1993 v. 2) Figure 2 Areas of excavations (Bert de Vries, Calvin College; Paul Ray, Jr., Andrews University; Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University; and Marvin Bowen, Andrews University). Walker and LaBianca (2003)	Plate 25A East Margin of Monumental Stairway, D.3. View East Mitchel (1980)	a destruction of some sort tumbled the wall on the east side of the great stairway - Mitchel (1980:181) 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)

7th century CE Earthquake

Effect	Location	Image	Description
Crushed Jars and dented floor due to collapsed walls	rooms (N.1:18, N.2:16) Figure 4 Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08. Walker and LaBianca (2003)	Figure 16 Ceramic vessels crushed by fallen vault in Early Islamic Room N.1. Walker and LaBianca (2003)	The floors of these rooms (N.1:18, N.2:16) were made of a hard packed, yellowish clay, which was badly broken and pocketed in many places by wall collapse. Upper courses of the walls of the rooms had fallen onto the floor and crushed several large storage jars and basins and cookware (Fig. 16), dated in the field to the transitional Byzantine-Umayyad period. - Walker and LaBianca (2003:453-454)
Collapsed walls and fire	Figure 4 Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08. Walker and LaBianca (2003)		Fallen architecture, crushed pottery, badly damaged floors that appeared to have "melted" around the fallen blocks, and wide and deep ash pits and lenses bare witness to a major conflagration. - Walker and LaBianca (2003:453-454)

Mamluk Earthquake - late 14th - early 15th centuries CE

Effect	Location	Image	Description
Displaced walls	L.2 part of the storeroom Figure 4 Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08. Walker and LaBianca (2003)		Earthquake damage was everywhere evident in the L.2 part of the storeroom, with walls knocked out of alignment; collapsed vaults (Fig. 8) - Walker and LaBianca (2003:447-453)
Collapsed vaults	L.2 part of the storeroom Figure 4 Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08. Walker and LaBianca (2003)	Figure 8 Remains of partially collapsed barrel vault in L2. Walker and LaBianca (2003)	Earthquake damage was everywhere evident in the L.2 part of the storeroom, with walls knocked out of alignment; collapsed vaults (Fig. 8) - Walker and LaBianca (2003:447-453)
Fallen and crushed objects	L.1:17 - L.2:12, the beaten earth floor of the Mamluk-period (Stratum IVb) storeroom Figure 4 Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08. Walker and LaBianca (2003)		Thousands of fragments of glazed pottery, crushed by the vault stones that fell on them; nearly complete sugar storage jars (Fig. 9); dozens of channel-nozzle and pinched lamps (Fig. 10), many interspersed among fallen vault stones; fragments of bronze weaponry; painted jars and jugs (Fig. 11); and occasional fragments of metal bowls were recovered from L.1:17 - L.2:12, the beaten earth floor of the Mamluk-period (Stratum IVb) storeroom. - Walker and LaBianca (2003:447-453)
Fire	L.2 part of the storeroom Figure 4 Floor plan of Mamluk and Umayyad buildings, 2001 season (map by Ernest Cowles, Oklahoma State University). The bathhouse is the three-room structure occupying A08. Walker and LaBianca (2003)		Earthquake damage was everywhere evident in the L.2 part of the storeroom, with walls knocked out of alignment; collapsed vaults (Fig. 8); and extensive ash cover, the result of a large conflagration likely brought on by oil lamps that had fallen from the upper stories. ... There is evidence that the earth floor was originally plastered, as traces of white plaster were noticeable in the corners of the room, along the base of the walls at some places, and at the doorway. Earthquake and fire damage was so severe, however, that most of the plaster was destroyed. - Walker and LaBianca (2003:447-453)
Collapsed walls	Field M - M4, M5, M8, and M9 Figure 2 Fields of excavation (courtesy of Qutaiba Dasouqi) Walker et al (2017)		earthquake (misaligned stones in architecture throughout field; collapse of vaulting and walls) destroys parallel chambers in M4, M5, M8 and M9; area abandoned - Walker et al (2017)
Collapsed vaults	Field M - M4, M5, M8, and M9 Figure 2 Fields of excavation (courtesy of Qutaiba Dasouqi) Walker et al (2017)		earthquake (misaligned stones in architecture throughout field; collapse of vaulting and walls) destroys parallel chambers in M4, M5, M8 and M9; area abandoned - Walker et al (2017)
Displaced Masonry blocks	Field M - M4, M5, M8, and M9 Figure 2 Fields of excavation (courtesy of Qutaiba Dasouqi) Walker et al (2017)		earthquake (misaligned stones in architecture throughout field; collapse of vaulting and walls) destroys parallel chambers in M4, M5, M8 and M9; area abandoned - Walker et al (2017)

7th century CE Earthquake

Modified by JW from Fig. 4 of Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 4 of Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Mamluk Earthquake - late 14th - early 15th centuries CE

Modified by JW from Fig. 4 of Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 4 of Walker and LaBianca (2003)

Stratum 15 Destruction Layer (Mitchel, 1980) - 2nd - 1st century BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)