Transliterated Name | Source | Name |
---|---|---|
Mamshit | Hebrew | ממשית |
Kurnub | Modern Arabic | كورنوب |
Kurnub | Nabatean ? | |
Kurnub | Arabic | |
Mampsis | Byzantine Greek | Μαμψις |
Memphis | Ancient Greek | Μέμφις |
Sion and Israeli (2022:247-250) described Mampsis as follows:
[Mampsis had] three major phases, turning from a guarded roadside caravanserai in the Nabatean period (1st century BC–1st century AD) into a flourishing and rich Middle Roman city (2nd–3rd centuries AD) and eventually becoming a Christian Byzantine city with two impressive churches (4th–mid-6th centuries AD).
The recent identification of a military camp and commander residency point to a military attendance at Mampsis already in the Nabatean Period. Two Latin inscriptions from the military cemetery, dated to Trajan and Hadrian eras, identify two of the burials: a Legio III centurion and an eques of the Cohors I Augusta Tracum.
Based on the sums of money specified in the Nessana Papyrus 39, dated to the mid-6th century AD, it seems that the city’s financial sustenance was based upon payments given by the authorities to the limitanei for their military service. Once this support ceased by Iustinian, probably after AD 532, and no money was available to pay the Saracens off, they invaded Mampsis burning down its main gate.
... Mampsis is situated on the southern margins of a valley in the northeastern Negev Highlands, c. 40km southeast of Be’er Sheva‘ and 5km southeast of Dimona (map ref. 206/548; 460–478 m asl). Three ancient roads led to the city (Figure 2): the road leading from the prosperous Nabatean region around the southern end of the Dead Sea towards Be’er Sheva‘, the road leading from the copper mining district of Faynan (Phaino) by way of Mezad Hazeva, and the road that connected Mampsis with Oboda.
The city (130 × 150–270m), spanning over 10.5 acres, is set on two hills, eastern (6.5 acres) and western (4 acres, Figure 3), with a ravine running between them, and is bordered by two shallow ravines on the east and the west. A deep seasonal streambed, Nahal Mamshit, runs along the southern margins of the city, then turning to the southeast, cutting through the hard dolomite rock of the Ẓafit Formation along the Hatira anticline and exposing rocks that served as building material in the city.
... The residential area covers 15,245sq. m and including public structures sums to 24,540 sq. m (c. 60% of the city territory). The city is divided into four quarters: western, central, southwestern, and eastern. Outside the city wall are a caravanserai (VIII) and buildings that Avraham Negev suggested to be an architecture school (XXIII) and a gymnasium (XXII). A large area (40%) within the city remained unbuilt and the empty grounds between the huge buildings served as streets, alleys and piazzas (Figure 5: 1–10).
Buildings were well-preserved and the quality of workmanship exceeds any other city in the Negev.
The urban development is based on Negev’s publications and chronology, updated, and slightly revised by Erickson-Gini (2010: 83–86).
Period | Time Span | Discussion |
---|---|---|
Nabatean | 30 BC— AD 106 |
Discussion
|
Middle Roman | AD 106-300 |
Discussion
Footnotes
7 Tali Erickson-Gini suggests that earthquake destruction in the late 1st or early 2nd century AD prompted a wave of construction at Mampsis and Oboda (Erickson-Gini 2014: 100; Erickson-Gini and Tuttle 2017: 141). The eastern quarter is located on the high ground which observes the city and its environment. Its complexes (R, P, Q) are of public nature. Insula P has two Middle Roman period structures (P/1, P/4), over which a bathhouse (P/3) and a pool (P/2) were built later.8 Structure Q, attached to the city wall and excavated at its northern part, is 25m long and has rooms on its eastern and western sides with a courtyard in between. At the southern high ground of the hill are two structures surrounded by a wall (R/1, R/2; Figures 9-10). The first was well preserved, while the other was destroyed in the 4th century AD, when the Eastern Church was erected. Negev assumed that Structure R/1 (Building XII) was the governor's house, while Structure R/2 (Building IV) was a market (Negev 1988a: 75-78). |
Byzantine | 4th— 6th c. AD |
Discussion
Footnotes
9 However, later excavations by Erickson-Gini in the courtyard entrance of Building XII revealed ceramic evidence dated to the 2nd half of the 6th and the early 7th centuries AD (Erickson-Gini 1999b: 101; Figs. 17: 6; 18: 5; 21: 3). Subsequent excavations in Building III between 2017–2020 substantiate the presence of ceramic wares beyond the mid-sixth century AD (Erickson-Gini pers. comm. 9.9.21). |
Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003) analyzed damage patterns at Mampsis utilizing 250 cases of 12 different types of deformation patterns
which they were able to resolve into two separate earthquake events on the basis of
the age of the buildings which showed damage. The fact that the two different events showed distinct directional patterns - the first earthquake with an indicated epicenter to the
north and the second with an epicenter to the SW - was taken as confirmation that they had successfully separated out archeoseismic measurements for each individual event. The first earthquake, according to
Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003) struck around the end of the 3rd/beginning of the 4th century CE
and the second struck in the 7th century CE - at the end of the Byzantine period
. They
provided the following comments regarding dating of the earthquakes
To determine exact ages of the destructive earthquakes, which destroyed the ancient Mamshit, was not possible by methods used in given study. It has to be a special pure archeological and historical research by specific methods related to that field. Age of the first earthquake was taken from a work of Negev (1974) who has conducted main excavation activity in the site. As concern to the second earthquake – the archeological study reveals that the seismically destroyed Byzantine cities were not restored. So, most probably, one of the strong earthquakes in VII Cent. A.D. caused abandonment.Deciphering chronology at Mampsis has unfortunately been problematic.
Mamshit thrived, in spite of its location in a desert, thanks to runoff collecting dams, and storage of the precious rain water in public ponds and private cisterns. These installations were most probably severely damaged during the earthquake, cutting at once the daily water supply, forcing the inhabitants to seek refuge in the more fertile regions. This situation was most probably followed by looting by local nomads, turning a temporal seek of shelter into permanent abandonment.
Russell (1985)
cited Negev (1971:166) for evidence of early second century earthquake destruction at Mamphis.
Negev (1971) reports extensive building activity in Mamphis in the early second century AD
obliterating much of the earlier and smaller infrastructure. However, neither a destruction layer nor an earthquake is mentioned.
Citing
Erickson-Gini (1999) and
Erickson-Gini (2001),
Korzhenkov and Erickson-Gini (2003) cast doubt on Russell (1985)'s
assertion of archeoseismic damage at Mamphis stating that recent research indicates a continuation of occupation throughout the 1st and 2nd cent. A.D..
Continuous occupation could indicate that seismic damage was limited rather than absent.
Negev (1974) dated the first earthquake to late 3rd/early 4th century via coins and church architectural styles
however he dates construction of the East Church, where some archaeoseismic evidence for the first earthquake was found, to the 2nd half of the 4th century CE.
Erickson-Gini (2010:83) asserted that the Mampsis appears to have experienced extensive damage
in one of the Cyril Quakes of 363 CE noting that
the damage predates structural changes in buildings at the site and the construction of two churches
.
The date for the second earthquake also seems tenuous as
Negev (1974:412) and Negev (1988) indicate that Mampsis
suffered destruction by human agency long before the official
Arab conquest of the Negev
and the town ceased to exist
as a factor of any importance after the middle of the 5th century
.
However, Magness (2003) pointed out that there is evidence for some type of occupation at
Mampsis beyond the middle of the 5th century CE.
The small amount of Byzantine pottery published to date from Mamshit also indicates that occupation continued through the second half of the sixth and seventh centuries. There are examples of dipinti on amphoras of early fifth to mid seventh century date. Early Islamic presence is attested by Arabic graffiti on the stones of the apse of the East Church (Negev, 1988). More recently published evidence for sixth to seventh century occupation, as well as for early Islamic occupation, comes from a preliminary report on the 1990 excavations. The description of Building IV, which is located on the slope leading to the East Church, states that "the building continued to function in the Early Islamic period (7th century c.E.) with no architectural changes 122. The large residence, Building XII, contained mostly material dating to the fifth century, but pottery of the "Late Byzantine and Early Islamic periods" was also present 123. In 1993-94, T. Erickson-Gini conducted salvage excavations in several areas at Mamshit, under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The pottery she found includes Fine Byzantine Ware Form lA bowls, and examples of Late Roman "C" (Phocean Red Slip Ware) Form 3, African Red Slip Ware Form 105, and Cypriot Red Slip Ware Form 9 (Erickson-Gini, 2004). This evidence indicates that the occupation at Mamshit continued through the late sixth century and into the seventh century. The Arabic graffiti on the apse of the East Church reflect some sort of early Islamic presence at the site, the nature of which is unclear.Considering this dating difficulty, I am labeling the date for the second earthquake as "5th -7th centuries CE ?".
Damage Type | Location | Figure | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
Systematic Tilting of Walls | E of West Church![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) Entire Site |
3a
![]() ![]() Tilted walls. South side of the north wall of a room east of the west Church, the wall has a trend of 86° and the average inclination is 79°. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 3b ![]() ![]() Tilted walls. North side of the same wall, the lower stone rows are tilted northward by up to 60° Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 3c ![]() ![]() Tilted walls. Summary of measurements: direction of tilting patterns observed at the lower parts of walls at Mamshit (Tab. 1), as a function of the direction of the walls, revealing that out of 30 cases of walls trending ENE (55° to 105°), 26 were found to be tilted northward, 180 and only 4 cases are tilted southward, whereas the perpendicular walls (trending 145° to 185°) show only 9 tilting cases with no preferred direction Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 3d ![]() ![]() Tilted walls. Stress directions concluded from the observed tilting patterns Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observed damage pattern: tilted walls or wall segments (Figs. 3 a. b). By convention, the direction of tilting is defined by the direction pointed by the upper part of the tilted segment. Only cases of tilting of most of the wall were included in this study. |
Lateral Shifting of Building Elements | E of West Church![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
4
![]() ![]() Lower stone of a N-S trending (175°) arch, shifted 8cm northward (the original position is marked by dashed lines). This is the fourth arch of the eastern line of fodder-basins of the Stables. The lowest stone of the arch has been severely cracked during the seismically caused shifting Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observed damage pattern: northward shifting by 8 cm, as well as severe cracking of the lowest stone in a 175° trending arch (Fig.4). Thus, a large building element was shifted, and in addition slightly rotated clockwise. The location is at the eastern line of fodder-basins of a complex of stables, at a residential quarter east of the West Church. |
Rotation of Wall Fragments around a Vertical Axis | ENE of West Church![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) Near Frescoes House ![]() ![]() East Church and House of Frescoes Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) Entire Site |
5a
![]() ![]() Rotation patterns at walls of the Roman period. Clockwise rotation of stones of the lowest row of a 172° trending wall of a room ENE of the West Church; stone A was rotated by 5° and stone B by 10°, the horizontal displacement of the two stones being 21.5cm. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 5b ![]() ![]() Rotation patterns at walls of the Roman period. A 2° counterclockwise rotation of stones in the lower part of a 59° trending wall at a yard near the Frescoes House. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 5c ![]() ![]() Rotation patterns at walls of the Roman period. Angle of rotation as a function of wall trends: SES (150°-185°) trending walls reveal mainly clockwise rotation, whereas walls trending NEN (60°-95°) reveal mainly counterclockwise rotations Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 5d ![]() ![]() Rotation patterns at walls of the Roman period. Stress directions concluded from the observed rotation patterns Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observed damage pattern: 1. An example of clockwise rotation of stones within a wall trending 172°, in a room located ENE of the West Church (Fig. 5 a). Stone A was rotated 5° clockwise and stone B was rotated 10° clockwise, the horizontal displacement between these rotated stones being 21.5 cm.. An example of a counterclockwise rotation in the northern wall of the Frescoes House (Fig. 5 b); the trend of the wall was 59° and the azimuth of the rotated wall fragment is 57°. |
Cracking of Door Steps, Staircases and Lintels | Administrative Tower![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) E of West Church ![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) Entire Site |
6a
![]() ![]() Cracks in the southern (left) edge of a doorstep and the southern doorpost, at an entrance trending N-S (175°), leading to a room west of the Administrative Tower. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 6b ![]() ![]() A similar set of cracks in the entrance to a room east of the Administrative Tower. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 6c ![]() ![]() Stress directions concluded from the observed cracked patterns, disclosing movement of the adjacent walls Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 7a ![]() ![]() Open cracks at the bottom and closed cracks at the top of a E-W (83°) trending staircase inside a Late Nabatean Building, and tilted side walls Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 7b ![]() ![]() Stress directions concluded from the observed open and closed crack patterns, disclosing northward movement of southern walls. Thus the seismic push arrived from north Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 8 ![]() ![]() Number of cracks observed in doorsteps, staircases and lintels as a function of the direction of the latter. The number of observations in N-S structures is three times greater than the observations in the perpendicular walls, leading to the conclusion that the seismic shock arrived from north Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observed damage pattern: A 175° trending doorstep of the entrance into one of the rooms of the Administrative Tower was cracked at its southern part (Fig. 6 a) and a similar damage pattern is seen in the doorstep of another room, located eastward within the same building (Fig. 6 b). |
Slipped Keystones of Arches | W of Eastern Church![]() ![]() East Church and House of Frescoes Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) Stables - E of West Church ![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
9a
![]() ![]() Keystone, slipped down 6cm in a N-S (174°) trending arch in a room west of the Eastern Church Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 9b ![]() ![]() Two central stones, slipped 3cm down in an N-S (175°) trending arch above the third fodder-basin in the Stables Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 9c ![]() ![]() Diagram of the operating stresses, leading to the conclusion that the seismic wave propagation was approximately parallel to the damaged arches, i.e. along a N-S direction Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observed damage pattern: A 174° trending arch, located in a room west of the Eastern Church, exhibits a keystone that slipped 6cm down of its original position, as can be seen in Fig. 9 a. A pair of keystones slipped 3cm down in a 175° trending arch located above the third fodder-basin in the Stables (Fig. 9 b). An important auxiliary observation is that in these cases the arches themselves were not deformed. |
Jointing | Administrative Tower![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
10a
![]() ![]() Examples of jointing A 88cm joint crossing two adjacent stones in the West wall (175° trending) of the Administrative Tower Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 10b ![]() ![]() Examples of jointing A 70cm joint crossing the lower part of a 178° trending arch support in a courtyard west of the Administrative Tower. Such joints are indication of a strong earthquake, around VII–VIII in the EMS-98 scale Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observed damage pattern: At the western wall of the Administrative Tower, trending 178°, an 88cm long joint is seen crossing two stones (Fig.10 a). A 70cm long joint is seen at the lower support stone of a 178° trending arch, located in a room west of the Administrative Tower (Fig.10 b). |
Pushing of Walls by Connected Perpendicular Walls | Entire site | 11
![]() ![]() Both, clockwise and counterclock-wise rotations of adjacent stones in a wall, caused by a strong seismic push of a connected perpendicular wall Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observed damage pattern: Clockwise and counterclockwise rotations of adjacent stones in a wall, caused by a push of a connected perpendicular wall (Fig. 11). |
Percentage of Heavily Damaged Buildings | Entire site | The destroyed Roman buildings were rebuilt and, thus, many of the destroyed building parts were cleared away. The large number of deformation patterns that seen in the remaining parts of the Roman period buildings makes room to the assessment that practically all houses were damaged. Thus, the intensity of the tremor was IX EMS-98 scale or more. |
Damage Type | Location | Figure | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
Tilting of Walls | S of West Church![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) Entire Site |
12a
![]() ![]() Upper stones tilted 75° westward at a N-S (176°) trending wall, located at the west in a room south of the West Church Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 12b ![]() ![]() Tilting westward of upper stones of the N-S (174°) trending east wall in a room south of the main premises of the West Church – stone A has a dip of 61° and stone B has a dip of 74° Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 12c ![]() ![]() Tilting direction of the upper parts of walls of the Byzantine period, as a function of the wall directions – an overwhelming portion of the SES trending walls has been tilted to the WNW, and significantly less cases are seen in the perpendicular walls and with no direction preference Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 12d ![]() ![]() Indicating the seismic push arrived from SW Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observed damage pattern: The upper row of stones of a N-S (176°) trending wall, in a room south of the West Church, is tilted westward by an angle of 75° (Fig. 12 a). The upper stones of a wall trending N-S (174°), in a room south of the premises of the West Church, are also tilted westward, in an angle of 75° (Fig. 12 b). |
Rotation of Wall Fragments around a Vertical Axis | E of West Church![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) House of Frescoes ![]() ![]() East Church and House of Frescoes Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) Entire Site |
13a
![]() ![]() Examples of rotation Clockwise rotation (on 4°) of stones in the upper part of a N-S (172°) trending wall in a room at the Late Nabatean Building Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 13b ![]() ![]() Examples of rotation Counterclockwise rotation (on 5°) of a part of a ENE (62°) trending wall at the House of Frescoes. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 13c ![]() ![]() Examples of rotation Direction and angle of rotation observed at the upper parts of walls, the Byzantine period, as a function of the trend of the walls – a clear directional preference is observable, leading to the conclusion. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 13d ![]() ![]() Examples of rotation Indicating the seismic push arrived from SW Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observed damage pattern: A 4° clockwise rotation is seen in the upper part of a N-S (172°) trending wall, situated in a room of the Late Nabatean Building (Fig. 13 a). In contrast, a counterclockwise rotation of 5° is seen in part of an E-W (62°) trending wall in the House of Frescoes (Fig. 13 b). |
Damage Type | Location | Figure | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
Blocking of Entrances | West City Wall![]() ![]() City plan of ancient Mamshit Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) XII quarter ![]() ![]() East Church and House of Frescoes Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
14a
![]() ![]() Examples of rebuilding Blockage by smaller stones to support a damaged entrance at the west city wall, close to the SW corner – tilted stones at the south (right) side of the entrance indicate damage (marked by dashed lines) during a previous earthquake. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 14b ![]() ![]() Examples of rebuilding Blocking of an entrance in the east wall of a room in the XII quarter, in order to support the lintel that was cracked (marked by arrows) at an earlier earthquake. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observation: Fig. 14 a depicts a gate in the western city wall, close to its SW corner, that was blocked by smaller stones. The wall edge is tilted towards the former entrance, disclosing that the latter was blocked in order to support the wall that was damaged, most probably by an earthquake. The blocking stones are tilted as well, possibly disclosing the impact of another earthquake. Fig. 14 b shows an entrance in the eastern wall of a room of the XII quarter that was blocked to support the lintel that was cracked (marked by arrows), most possibly during a former earthquake. |
Mismatch of Lower Stone Rows and Upper Parts of Buildings | E of East Church![]() ![]() East Church and House of Frescoes Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
15
![]() ![]() Rebuilding disclosed by the protrusion of the lowest row of stones at the west wall of a room, east of the East Church (the recent restoration line is higher above – marked by arrows) Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observation: The lower row of stones of the western wall of a room, east of the East Church, protrudes from the plane of the rest of the wall (Fig. 15). |
Supporting Walls | South City Wall![]() ![]() City plan of ancient Mamshit Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
16
![]() ![]() A 66° trending section of the south city wall, tilted by 81° to SES (marked by a dashed line), supported by an added wall (shown by an arrow). Part of the support wall was dissembled during the archeological excavations, to expose the tilting of the original wall Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observation: Fig. 16 discloses a section of the southern city wall (trending 66°) that is tilted by 81° to SES (marked by a dashed line), and connected to it are seen the remains of a special support wall (shown by an arrow). Part of the support wall was dissembled during the archeological excavations, to expose the tilting of the original wall. |
Secondary Use of Building Stones | East Church![]() ![]() East Church and House of Frescoes Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
17a
![]() ![]() Examples of secondary use of building stones Section of a column reused as part of a bench along the west wall of the main hall of the East Church. Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 17b ![]() ![]() Examples of secondary use of building stones E wall of a room at East Church Quarter: the lower-right part protrudes 7 to 12cm, as compared to the upper-left part, that is built of reused smaller stones (the contact is marked by + signs) Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observation: Fig. 17 a shows a secondary use of a segment of a column, western wall of the main hall of the East Church. Fig. 17 b displays the eastern wall of a room at the East Church quarter, disclosing a lower- right part that protrudes 7 to 12cm, as compared to the upper-left part that is built of reused smaller stones, disclosing a stage of repair and rebuilding. |
Incorporation of Wooden Beams in Stone Buildings | Administrative Tower![]() ![]() The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters Roman numbers denote residential quarters Arabic numbers the location of Figures Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
18a
![]() ![]() Examples of the incorporation of elastic wooden beams in stone buildings Wooden beam incorporated as second lintel above a door in a room at the Administrative Tower Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 18b ![]() ![]() Examples of the incorporation of elastic wooden beams in stone buildings Wooden beam incorporated at the same building between two doorsteps Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observation: A high quality wooden beam is incorporated as a second lintel above a door in a room at the Administrative Tower (Fig. 18 a). Another beam is incorporated in the same building between two door steps (Fig. 18 b). |
Bulging of Wall Parts | West City Wall![]() ![]() City plan of ancient Mamshit Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
19a
![]() ![]() Westward bulging of the central part of the western city wall, trending SES (152°). Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) 19b ![]() ![]() The angles of the displaced stones Korjenkov and Mazor (2003) |
Observation: The central part of the western city wall, trending SES (152°), is bulged westwards, as is seen in Fig. 19 in a photo and a sketch. |
Percentage of Heavily Damaged Buildings | Entire Site | Practically all the buildings of the Byzantine period were damaged, more that 50% are estimated to have been destroyed. Thus, the intensity of the tremor was IX at the EMS-98 scale or more. |
Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003) provided the following analysis for the first earthquake:
The Lower Parts of the Buildings, Reflecting Mainly the Earthquake of the End of the 3rd cent. or Beginning of the 4th cent.
The walls of the houses of Mamshit had a general orientation of around ENE (~ 75°) and SES (~165°). Hence, a quadrangle of these directions may serve as the basis for a general discussion of the observed damage patterns, in order to deduce the direction of arrival of the seismic movements.
Arrival of the seismic motions from north has been concluded for the 4th cent. event. Let us discuss in this context three possibilities:
The systematic directional deformation patterns disclose that the hypocenter was not beneath Mamshit, but to the north of it, and the concluded intensity of IX or more, suggests the epicenter was in several-first tens of km away. Future field investigations are recommended to check for evidence of recent tectonic activity in the Judean Desert.
- If the strong seismic pulses would have arrived from NWN, the walls perpendicular to this direction (ENE) would experience quantitative and systematic tilting (as well as collapse) toward the epicenter, whereas the perpendicular walls (SES) would have distinctly less cases of tilting and they would be in random to both NEN and NWN (Fig. 20 a
). Rotations would be scarce and at random directions. This is not the case of the lower parts of buildings (Roman period) at Mamshit.![]()
Figure 20a
Analysis of the direction of the epicenter in the devastating earthquake of the 4th cent. Systematic of expected damage patterns
a. If the seismic movement would have arrived from NWN
Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)- If the strong seismic shocks would have arrived along the bisector of the trend of the walls (i.e. from NEN), the walls trending ENE would have undergone both systematic tilting toward NWN and anticlockwise rotation, whereas the perpendicular walls (trending SES) would experience systematic tilting toward NEN and clockwise rotation (Fig. 20 b
), but this is not the case of the lower parts of buildings (Roman period) at Mamshit.![]()
Figure 20b
Analysis of the direction of the epicenter in the devastating earthquake of the 4th cent. Systematic of expected damage patterns
b. If the epicenter would have been at NEN
Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)- If the epicenter was at the north, the ENE trending walls would undergo systematic tilting to the NWN and systematic counterclockwise rotations, whereas the SES trending walls would suffer of a few cases of random tilting but systematic clockwise rotations (Fig. 20 c
). This combination of damage pattern orientations fits the observations at the lower parts of the buildings at Mamshit, leading to the conclusion that the epicenter of the devastating earthquake at the end of the 3rd cent. or beginning of the 4th cent. was north of Mamshit.![]()
Figure 20c
Analysis of the direction of the epicenter in the devastating earthquake of the 4th cent. Systematic of expected damage patterns
c. If the seismic movement came from north – the case met by the observations
Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003) provided the following analysis for the second earthquake:
The Upper Parts of the Buildings, Reflecting Mainly the 7th cent. Earthquake
The direction of the epicenter of the 7th cent. strong earthquake has been concluded to have been SW of Mamshit. In this connection let us examine three possibilities, bearing in mind that the walls of the houses of Mamshit had a general orientation of around ENE (~ 75°) and SES (~165°):The systematic directional deformation patterns disclose that the hypocenter was not beneath Mamshit, but to the SW of it, and the concluded intensity of IX or more suggests the epicenter was in several-first tens of km away. Future field investigations are recommended to check for evidence of recent tectonic activity along E-W trending faults in the Negev Desert.
- If the strong seismic shocks would have arrived from WSW, the walls perpendicular to this direction (SES) would experience quantitative and systematic tilting toward the epicenter, whereas the perpendicular walls (ENE) would have distinctly less cases of tilting and they would be in random directions and not to the epicenter (Fig. 21 a
). Rotations would be scarce and at random directions. This is not the case of the upper parts of buildings (Byzantine period) at Mamshit.![]()
Figure 21a
Analysis of the direction of the epicenter in the devastating earthquake of the 7th cent. Systematic of expected damage patterns
a. If the epicenter would be at WSW
Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)- If the strong seismic pulses would have arrived along the bisector of the trend of the walls (i.e. from SWS), the walls trending ENE would have under¬gone both systematic tilting toward NWN and counterclockwise rotation, whereas the perpendicular walls (trending SES) would experience systematic tilting toward NEN and clockwise rotation (Fig. 21 b
), but this is not the case of the upper parts of buildings (Byzantine period) at Mamshit.![]()
Figure 21b
Analysis of the direction of the epicenter in the devastating earthquake of the 7th cent. Systematic of expected damage patterns
b. If the seismic waves would have come from NEN
Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)- If the epicenter was at SW, the SES trending walls would undergo systematic tilting to the SW and systematic clockwise rotations, whereas the ENE trending walls would suffer of a few cases of random tilting but systematic counterclockwise rotations (Fig. 21 c
). This combination of damage pattern orientations fits the observations at the upper parts of the buildings at Mamshit, leading to the conclusion that the epicenter of the devastating seventh century earthquake was SW of Mamshit.![]()
Figure 21c
Analysis of the direction of the epicenter in the devastating earthquake of the 7th cent. Systematic of expected damage patterns
c. If the seismic movement came from SW – the case met by the observations
Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
Effect | Location | Intensity |
---|---|---|
Tilted Walls | E of West Church | VI+ |
Displaced Masonry Blocks | E of West Church ENE of West Church Near Frescoes House |
VIII+ |
Folded Steps and Kerbs | Administrative Tower | VI+ |
Dropped Keystones in Arches | W of Eastern Church Stables - E of West Church |
VI+ |
Penetrative fractues in Masonry Blocks | Administrative Tower | VI+ |
Displaced Walls | Entire Site | VII+ |
Collapsed Walls | Entire Site | VIII+ |
This was a strong earthquake with an epicenter at the north, and an EMS-98 scale intensity of IX or more. This is a minimum value because the wrecks of the most badly struck buildings had most probably been completely removed, leaving no trace. Thus, our observations are biased toward the lower end of the intensity scale.
...
In the present study the two earthquakes were resolved by the archeological identification that the Roman town was rebuilt at the Byzantine period, and the latter fell into ruins as well. The archeoseismological resolution of the two earthquakes is validated in the present case by the observation that the epicenters were at different directions – north in the first event and SW in the second.
...
The percentage of collapsed buildings of the Roman town is hard to estimate as most of them have been cleared away and rebuilt. Yet, an estimate can be done by the extended rebuilding - most of the second floors or upper parts of high structures were rebuilt at the Byzantine stage, leading to an estimate that at lest 15% of the Roman period buildings were destroyed at the end of the 3rd cent. or beginning of the 4th cent. earthquake. Thus, according to the European Macroseismic Scale of 1998 (EMS-98) an earthquake intensity of IX or more is concluded.
...
Zero distance is ruled out in both studied earthquakes on the basis that most of the observed seismic deformations were caused by lateral movements. Hence, the hypocenter was not beneath Mamshit.
...
The observed dominance of lateral movements in both earthquakes indicates the epicenter was away at some distance from the epicenter. Future studies will have to address this point.
...
The large body of damage patterns surveyed at Mamshit provides a fairly simple picture: devastation was caused mainly by lateral movements that arrived from the fault rupture zone. These observations were made for both earthquakes – the one at the end of the 3rd cent. or beginning of the 4th cent. that had its epicenter at the north, and the second at the 7th cent. that had its epicenter at SW.
Kamai and Hatzor (2005) performed Discontinuous Deformation Analysis (DDA) on a model
strong fluctuationsand high frequencies (e.g. 5 and 10 Hz.) resulted in
a "locking" of the structure and very little displacement. Accelerations between 0.32 and 0.8 g produced reasonable values of keystone displacement although 0.5 g produced the most amount of displacement and the closest amount of displacement to what is observed in the field.
Variable | Input | Units | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
g | Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration | ||
Variable | Output - Site Effect not considered | Units | Notes |
unitless | Conversion from PGA to Intensity using Wald et al (1999) |
Model Values
Property | Value | Units |
---|---|---|
Friction angle of arch | 35 | degrees |
Friction angle of wall | 40 | degrees |
Young's Modulus of arch | 17 | Gpa |
Young's Modulus of wall | 1 | Mpa |
Height of Wall above arch | 0 | m |
Property | Value | Units |
---|---|---|
Density | 1890 | kg./m3 |
Porosity | 30 - 38 | % |
Dynamic Young's Modulus | 16.9 | Gpa |
Dynamic Shear Modulus | 6.17 | Gpa |
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio | 0.37 | unitless |
Interface friction angle | 35 | degrees |
Effect | Location | Intensity |
---|---|---|
Tilted Walls | S of West Church Entire Site |
VI+ |
Displaced Masonry Blocks | E of West Church House of Frescoes |
VIII+ |
Collapsed Walls | Entire Site | VIII+ |
At the end of the Byzantine period a second earthquake hit the place, the epicenter being this time to the SW, and the intensity was IX or more.
...
The percentage of collapsed buildings of the Byzantine town can be well estimated as the ruins were left untouched. The survey disclosed that at least 15% of the well built stone buildings of Byzantine Mamshit collapsed – practically no second floor structures survived with no severe damage. Hence, according to the EMS-98 an earthquake intensity of IX or more is deduced as well.
...
Zero distance is ruled out in both studied earthquakes on the basis that most of the observed seismic deformations were caused by lateral movements. Hence, the hypocenter was not beneath Mamshit.
...
The observed dominance of lateral movements in both earthquakes indicates the epicenter was away at some distance from the epicenter. Future studies will have to address this point.
...
The large body of damage patterns surveyed at Mamshit provides a fairly simple picture: devastation was caused mainly by lateral movements that arrived from the fault rupture zone. These observations were made for both earthquakes – the one at the end of the 3rd cent. or beginning of the 4th cent. that had its epicenter at the north, and the second at the 7th cent. that had its epicenter at SW.
Articles and Books
Erickson-Gini T. 1999 Mampsis: A Nabataean Roman Settlement in the Central Negev Highlands in Light of the Ceramic and Architectural Evidence Found in Archaeological Excavations During 1993 1994,
Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Erickson-Gini, New Excavations in the Late Roman Quarter in Avdat, Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh
Archaeological Congress in Israel, Bar Ilan University April 2–3, 2001
Erickson-Gini, T. (2004). Crisis and Renewal-settlement in the Central Negev in the Third and Fourth Centuries C. E.:
With an Emphasis on the Finds from Recent Excavations in Mampsis, Oboda and Mezad 'En Hazeva, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Erickson-Gini, T. (2010:47). Nabataean settlement and self-organized economy in The Central Negev: crisis and renewal, Archaeopress.
Erickson-Gini, T. (2010). Nabataean settlement and self-organized economy in the Central Negev :
crisis and renewal, Oxford : Archaeopress.
Kamai, R. and Y. Hatzor (2005). Dynamic back analysis of structural failures in archeological sites to
obtain paleo-seismic parameters using DDA. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on the Analysis of Discontinuous Deformation (ICADD-7).
Kamai, R. and Y. H. Hatzor (2008).
"Numerical analysis of block stone displacements in ancient masonry structures: A new method to estimate historic ground motions."
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 32(11): 1321-1340.
Korzhenkov, A. and E. Mazor (2003). "Archeoseismology in Mamshit (Southern Israel):
Cracking a Millennia-old Code of Earthquakes Preserved in Ancient Ruins." Archäologischer Anzeiger: 51-82.
A. Negev (1971), The Nabatean Necropolis of Mamshit (Kurnub), IsrExplJ 21, 1971, 110–129
Negev, A. (1974). "THE CHURCHES OF THE CENTRAL NEGEV
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY." Revue Biblique (1946-) 81(3): 400-421.
Sion, O., Israeli, Shoshana (2022). Mampsis:Mapping the City Following a New Survey.
Cities, Monuments, and Objects in the Roman and Byzantine Levant, Archaeopress: 247-260.
Excavation Reports
Negev, A. (1988). The architecture of Mampsis : final report. 1. The Middle and Late Nabatean periods, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Negev, A. (1988) The Architecture of Mampsis, Final Report, Vol. II: The Late Roman and Byzantine Period, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Websites
Mamshit at biblewalks.com
Mamshit National Park
Mamshit Park Brochure
Description | Photo |
---|---|
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit Front View Long Shot |
![]() ![]() Front View Long Shot Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 |
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit Rear View Long Shot |
![]() ![]() Rear View Long Shot Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 |
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit Front View Closeup |
![]() ![]() Front View Closeup Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 |
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit Orientation Az = 174° |
![]() ![]() Orientation Az = 174° Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 |
Arch of Dropped Keystone of Mamshit Corner Crack of Voussoir |
![]() ![]() Corner Crack of Voussoir Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 |
Arch of Dropped Keystone of Mamshit Corner Crack of Voussoir - another side |
![]() ![]() Corner Crack of Voussoir - another side Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 |
Arch of Dropped Keystone of Mamshit Closeup on Spalled Voussoir |
![]() ![]() Closeup on Spalled Voussoir Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 |
Cracked Lintel in Mamshit Orientation not recorded Long Shot |
![]() ![]() Orientation not recorded Long Shot Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 |