• Map showing location of Khirbet Tannur
  Figure 2
  
  Map showing the location of Khirbet et-Tannur, other Nabataean sites, and the King’s Highway
  
  Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  from Whiting and Wellman (2016)
• Plan of Khirbet Tannur from McKenzie et al (2013)
  Fig 6.4
  
  Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal
  
  Mckenzie et al (2013)
• Axonometric reconstruction of Khirbet Tannur
  Figure 1
  
  Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction
  
  (Sheila Gibson)
  
  Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  from Whiting and Wellman (2016)
• Axonometric reconstruction of Khirbet Tannur
  Figure 54
  
  Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform
  
  (Sheila Gibson)
  
  Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  from Whiting and Wellman (2016)

As the Temple at Khirbet Tannur was built in a seismically active area, it is thought that most rebuilding episodes were initiated soon after earthquakes damaged parts of the Temple. Glueck (1965:128) and Glueck (1965:138) identified three separate building phases (Periods I, II, and III) and a post-Temple Byzantine squatter occupation. McKenzie et al (2013) redated Periods I, II, and III utilizing an improved understanding of the chronology that can be derived from pottery as well as comparison to other excavated sites in the region. Both Glueck (1965:138) and McKenzie et al (2013) anchored their chronology to the start of Period II which was then extrapolated to starting dates for Periods I and III. Glueck (1965:138) dated the start of Period II to the last quarter of the 1st century BCE based on a dedicatory inscription found during excavations. The inscription created a terminus ante quem of 8/7 BCE as it referred to the second year of a Nabatean King whose wife was named Huldu. This would refer to Aretas IV whose first wife was Huldu and whose reign began in 9 BCE. McKenzie et al (2002:50), however, noticed that the the inscription was not found in situ and that a bowl found underneath paving stones that were put in place soon before Period II construction dates to the late first century CE along with two other bowls which date to the first half of the second century CE. This pottery and comparison to other sites led them to date Period II construction to the first half of the second century CE. McKenzie et al (2013:72) considered it likely that the inscription with a 7/8 BCE date referred to the Period I Temple rather than the Period II Temple as was assumed by Glueck (1965:138). It is unclear why McKenzie et al (2013) date initial Nabatean worship at the site to the late 2nd century BCE if the inscription suggests that Period I construction began shortly before 8/7 BCE. Perhaps initial worship at the site preceded construction of surviving structures. McKenzie et al (2013)'s dates are used in the table below:

Period	Start Date	End Date	Comments
I	Late 2nd century BCE	1st half of 2nd century CE	Glueck (1965:138) describes the first altar as box-like and resting on top of a crude rubble platform.
II	1st half of 2nd century CE	3rd century CE	Glueck (1965:138) reports construction during this period of an inner Altar-Base with steps on its west side which was built around the previous altar. Glueck (1965:106) was not entirely sure that Period II ended with an earthquake stating that earthquake tremors or age or both may have brought about the collapse of the Period II Altar-Base. McKenzie et al (2013:62) suggests that Period III construction which would have occurred soon after the end of Period II probably began in the 3rd century CE in association with other repairs after an earthquake.
III	3rd century CE	363 CE	McKenzie et al (2013:62) suggests that Period III construction probably began in the 3rd century CE in association with other repairs after an earthquake McKenzie et al (2013:47,62) dates 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.
Byzantine	363 CE	634 CE ?	A squatter's house was later constructed on the site. Based on pottery finds, this construction was dated to the Byzantine period. (Glueck, 1965:140).

A dedicatory inscription dated to 8/7 BCE indicates building activity around this time which could have been a response to seismic damage.

Glueck (1965:92) found Altar-Base I from Period I severely damaged probably by an earthquake which may have precipitated the rebuild that began Period II. McKenzie et al (2013:47) dated Period II construction, which would have occurred soon after the End of Period I earthquake, to the first half of the 2nd century CE. McKenzie et al (2002:50) noted that a bowl found underneath paving stones that were put in place soon before Period II construction dates to the late first century CE along with two other bowls which date to the first half of the second century CE. This pottery and comparison to other sites led them to date Period II construction to the first half of the second century CE.

The end of Period II would have occurred shortly before Period III construction which McKenzie et al (2013:62) suggests probably began in the 3rd century CE in association with other repairs after an earthquake. It appears that this date is extrapolated from the date for Period II construction which is chronologically anchored by pottery found in stratigraphic position. McKenzie et al (2002:73) noted similarities in the sculpture of Period III with late antique sculpture in Egypt which suggests the possibility of a date in the third century A.D.. Glueck (1965:106) was not entirely sure that Period II ended with an earthquake stating that earthquake tremors or age or both may have brought about the collapse of the Period II Altar-Base. Glueck (1965:106) characterized Altar-Base II as aesthetically attractive but architecturally weak noting shoddy internal construction particularly the bottom foundation stones (Glueck, 1965:107).

McKenzie et al (2013:62) reports a further earthquake after Period II construction damaged the colonnades of the Court and that the steps of the Altar Platform were repaired using column drums.

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.

Maps and Plans

• Plan of Khirbet Tannur from McKenzie et al (2013)
  Fig 6.4
  
  Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal
  
  Mckenzie et al (2013)

• Glueck (1965:90) found that the entire eastern face facade of the Period I Altar had been destroyed, perhaps by an earthquake except for part of the molded angle block on the southeast corner.
• Glueck (1965:142) reports that the eastern facade of the Period I Altar had been destroyed, down to the bases of three of it's columns
• Glueck (1965:92) reports that the Period I Altar had to be rebuilt because it had been damaged severely, probably by an earthquake. In addition to the east face being almost completely destroyed, it's north side [was] leaning dangerously outward
  Plate 112a
  
  Sub-II pavement laid against base of north side of Altar-Pedestal of Period I
  
  Glueck (1965

Maps and Plans

• Plan of Khirbet Tannur from McKenzie et al (2013)
  Fig 6.4
  
  Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal
  
  Mckenzie et al (2013)

• The ornate pylon of the east facade of the raised inner temple enclosure collapsed at the end of Period II. (Glueck, 1965:156) - speculative
• Near the northeast corner of the forecourt are the remains, now only one course high, of the outline of a 2 m square altar, seemingly originally to have belonged to Period II. Destroyed or badly damaged at the end of that period, it was repaired and enlarged in Period III. (Glueck, 1965:157)

Notes

• Glueck (1965:106) characterized Altar-Base II as aesthetically attractive but architecturally weak noting shoddy internal construction particularly the bottom foundation stones. (Glueck, 1965:107)
• Glueck (1965:106) states that earthquake tremors or age or both may have brought about the collapse of the Period II Altar-Base indicating that he was not entirely sure that the end of Period II coincides with earthquake destruction.

Maps and Plans

• Plan of Khirbet Tannur from McKenzie et al (2013)
  Fig 6.4
  
  Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal
  
  Mckenzie et al (2013)

• McKenzie et al (2013:62) reports a further earthquake after Period II construction damaged the colonnades of the Court and that the steps of the Altar Platform were repaired using column drums.

Maps and Plans

• Plan of Khirbet Tannur from McKenzie et al (2013)
  Fig 6.4
  
  Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal
  
  Mckenzie et al (2013)

• The violent earthquake that undoubtedly destroyed the entire Temple of Tannur in Period III, caused what was left of the south wall of Altar-Base III to bulge out and made its steps sag. (Glueck, 1965:122)

• Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
  Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
  
  Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
  of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls	Glueck (1965:90) found that the entire eastern face facade of the Period I Altar had been destroyed, perhaps by an earthquake except for part of the molded angle block on the southeast corner.	VIII +
Tilted Walls	Glueck (1965:92) reports that the walls of the Period I Altar was leaning dangerously outward on it's north side Plate 112a Sub-II pavement laid against base of north side of Altar-Pedestal of Period I Glueck (1965	VI +
Fallen Columns	Glueck (1965:142) reports that the eastern facade of the Period I Altar had been destroyed, down to the bases of three of it's columns	V +

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

• Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
  Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
  
  Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
  of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Description	Intensity
Displaced Walls	The ornate pylon of the east facade of the raised inner temple enclosure collapsed at the end of Period II. (Glueck, 1965:156) - speculative	VII +
Collapsed Walls	Near the northeast corner of the forecourt are the remains, now only one course high, of the outline of a 2 m square altar, seemingly originally to have belonged to Period II. Destroyed or badly damaged at the end of that period, it was repaired and enlarged in Period III. (Glueck, 1965:157)	VIII +

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224). However, there are indications that this may have been a weak structure. Glueck (1965:106) characterized Altar-Base II as aesthetically attractive but architecturally weak noting shoddy internal construction particularly the bottom foundation stones (Glueck, 1965:107). Glueck (1965:106) was also unsure that an earthquake damaged Period II structures stating that earthquake tremors or age or both may have brought about the collapse of the Period II Altar-Base. Considering this, the Intensity estimate is downgraded to VI-VII (6-7).

• Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
  Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
  
  Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
  of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Description	Intensity
Fallen Columns	McKenzie et al (2013:62) reports a further earthquake after Period II construction damaged the colonnades of the Court and that the steps of the Altar Platform were repaired using column drums.	V +
Displaced Masonry Blocks in Columns	McKenzie et al (2013:62) reports a further earthquake after Period II construction damaged the colonnades of the Court and that the steps of the Altar Platform were repaired using column drums.	VIII +

This Intensity estimate should be considered tentative as it is based on secondary use of building stones making it difficult to know how those building stones were damaged and when they were damaged. Although the archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224), the Earthquake Archeological Effects listed are speculative and beset with uncertainty. Because of this Intensity is bracketed to between V and VIII.

• Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
  Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
  
  Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
  of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Description	Intensity
Displaced Masonry Blocks	The violent earthquake that undoubtedly destroyed the entire Temple of Tannur in Period III, caused what was left of the south wall of Altar-Base III to bulge out and made its steps sag. (Glueck, 1965:122)	VIII +
Folded steps and kerbs	The violent earthquake that undoubtedly destroyed the entire Temple of Tannur in Period III, caused what was left of the south wall of Altar-Base III to bulge out and made its steps sag. (Glueck, 1965:122)	VI +

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Articles and Books

Glueck, N. (1965). Deities and Dolphins.

McKenzie, J., et al. (2002). "Reconstruction of the Nabataean Temple Complex at Khirbet Et-tannur." Palestine exploration quarterly 134: 44-83.

McKenzie, J. S., Reyes, A. T., and Greene, J. A., “The Context of the Khirbet et-Tannur Zodiac, Jordan” ARAM 24 (2012 [2014]): 379–420.



Excavation Reports

McKenzie, J. S., et al. (2013) The Nabataean Temple at Khirbet et-Tannur, Jordan, Volume 1 Architecture and Religion. Final Report on Nelson Glueck's 1937 Excavation. Annual of ASOR. 67

McKenzie, J. S., et al. (2013). The Nabataean Temple at Khirbet et-Tannur, Jordan, Volume 2 — Cultic Offerungs, Vessels, and other Specialist Reports. Annual of ASOR. 68



Websites

Khirbet et-Tannur Nabataean Temple Project, Jordan - University of Oxford

Khirbet et-Tannur Nabataean Temple Project, Jordan - University of Oxford - Another webpage

Khirbet Tannur Booklet from Oxford University

Khirbet Tannur photostream from APAAME