Open this page in a new tab

Mamshit/Mampsis

SE Mampsis Aerial View of Mamshit

Click on Image to open a high resolution magnifiable image in a new tab

Biblewalks.com


Names

Transliterated Name Source Name
Mamshit Hebrew ממשית‎
Kurnub Modern Arabic كورنوب
Kurnub Nabatean ?
Kurnub Arabic
Mampsis Byzantine Greek Μαμψις
Memphis Ancient Greek Μέμφις
Introduction
Introduction

Mampsis was initially occupied at least as early as the 2nd century BCE when it was a station on a secondary part of the Incense Road (Avraham Negev in Stern et al, 1993). It appears on the Madaba Map as Μαμψις (Mampsis). It went into decline or was abandoned in the 7th century CE.

Identification

Kurnub (Mampsis) is in the central Negev desert, 40 km (25 mi.) southeast of Beersheba at the junction of the Jerusalem-Hebron-AHa (Elath) road and the road to Arabah and Edom (map reference 156.046). In antiquity there were probably also roads that connected Mampsis with Gaza and Oboda. Medieval Arabic lexicons explain the name Kurnub - the Arabic name by which the site is known today - as a kind of food made of palm dates and milk. Some of them suggest that the noun and verb may have come from the Nabatean language. R. Hartman's suggestion to identify Kurnub with Mampsis is generally accepted.

History

Mampsis is first mentioned in the mid-second century CE by Ptolemy (Geog. V, 16, 10), where Μαψ (other readings Μαψις, Μαψα) and 'Ελουσα [Elusa] are listed with the cities in ldumea. The city is later mentioned in Late Roman and Byzantine sources. Eusebius (Onom. 8, 8) relates that the village and military post of Thamara (probably 'En Haseva) is one day's journey from Μαμψις, on the road from Hebron to Aila. In Saint Jerome's translation of this passage the site is called Mampsis. It seems that Mampsis also appears in the sixth century tax edict of Beersheba (Alt, GIPT, no. 1, the date is uncertain). Hierocles (Synecdemos 721.8; c. 530 CE) and Georgius Cyprius (Descriptio orbis Romani 1049; c. 600 CE) list Mampsis with the other cities in the province of Palaestina Tertia. On the Medeba map, an arched gateway flanked by towers, above which a red-roofed building rises, possibly the city's cathedral, appears under the name Μαμψις.

There is another reference to Μαμψις in one of the Nessana papyri (P Nessana no. 39, probably of the mid-sixth century CE). This papyrus contains two rosters of cities together with sums of money. In the first list, Mampsis appears fourth in the list, preceded by Nessana and followed by Oboda, with slight differences in amounts between the three. The scholar who published the document suggested that the sums of money in the list refer to taxes on agricultural products paid by wealthy farmers and the limitanei. According to this writer, this is unlikely because Mampsis's arable land is only a small fraction of that at Nessana and Oboda, and the estimated population of Mampsis (around 1,500) was far smaller than Nessana's (around 4,000) and half of Oboda's. This writer suggests that the list originated in an imperial or provincial office and records the annona militaris (military rations sometimes reckoned in money) paid to army units and units of the militia recruited in the three above-mentioned fortified cities.

Some scholars have identified Mampsis with mmst on lamelekh seal impressions from the Iron Age II. There is, however, no archaeological proof for such an identification because no Israelite pottery has been found at Mampsis or its surroundings. It is, furthermore, not at all certain that mmst is indeed the name of a town. The modern Hebrew name Mamshit was not adopted on the strength of this identification, but in an attempt to restore the original Semitic form of the name Mampsis.

Exploration

In a marginal note on the map of U. J. Seetzen's voyage (1807) the name Kurnupp appears with the Arab names of the other Negev towns. At Kurnupp, Seetzen saw the remains of a fortress at the foot of a low hill, as well as traces of vineyards and orchards. E. Robinson viewed the site from a distance in 1838 and described it as a city built of cut stones. He subsequently distinguished what appeared to be churches or other public buildings. E. H. Palmer visited the site in 1871 but left only a short description of the ruins. The first detailed description of the site was provided by A. Musil (l901), who also drew a plan of the ruins. Musil noted that the city was surrounded by a wall flanked by towers and had churches in both its western and eastern parts. On Musil's plan the Eastern Church is shown in a separate walled area shaped like a triangle. The description is of particular importance because this eastern area was subsequently damaged by later building activity. Musil also noted the large tower in the western part of the town and the well in the valley to its south. C. L. Woolley and T. E. Lawrence drew up another plan of the remains in 1914 but without furnishing much detail. They did, however, record the dams and watchtowers around the city. They described the city as rather weakly defended against the Bedouin. They also noted both the gates of the city and, in its western part, remains of a large building near the tower. A large structure north of the Eastern Church is called the serai by them. In their opinion, the public buildings occupied about one quarter of the total area of the city. J. H. Illife visited Kurnub in 1934 and found Nabatean pottery and terra sigillata ware.

The most recent and most detailed survey was carried out by G. E. Kirk and P.L.O. Guy in 1937, on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund, following the construction of a police station on the site. Dissatisfied with Woolley and Lawrence's plan, they drew up a new, more detailed one. North of the town, near the northern gate, they found the remains of two very large buildings that had been covered by dunes. They also discovered a cemetery about one km (0.6 mi.) north of the town, with Nabatean pottery, terra sigillata ware, and black-glazed sherds on the surface. In the city proper, the surveyors noted two large ashlar buildings (appearing on their plan as A and B) and attributed them to the Roman rather than the Byzantine period. They further established that the two churches had probably been squeezed into a town plan that already existed before their construction. In the eastern quarter of the city, the surveyors noted a large building about 40 m long, with a row of rooms on either side of a central corridor.

In 1956, S. Applebaum, on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, carried out trial soundings near the inner side of the city's western wall. He discovered nine levels in four occupational strata, as follows:
  • level II: fifth to seventh centuries CE
  • level V: fourth to fifth centuries CE
  • level VIII: fourth century CE
  • level IX: third century CE or earlier
Applebaum dated the beginning of settlement in the excavated area (2.5 by 2.5 m) to the third century CE. At the end of that century, building activity was resumed, and at the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth, a large part of the settlement was destroyed. At that time, the Western Church (see below), erected only a short time earlier, was also damaged. In the sixth or seventh century, there was a short period of intensive building activity, and during that time the city's street plan - visible today - was drawn up. Applebaum ascribed the construction of the city wall to this period. Applebaum's conclusions are now being challenged in view of the new excavations' results.

From September 1965 to October 1967, and again in 1971-1972, excavations were carried out at Kurnub, on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, under the direction of A Negev. The excavations were conducted in five main areas: the city fortifications, the western quarter, the eastern quarter, the caravanserai, and the Nabatean and Roman cemeteries. The pottery and building remains date from the Middle Nabatean period (the end of the first century BCE and the first century CE), the Late Nabatean period (second and third centuries CE), the Late Roman period (fourth century CE), the Byzantine period, and the Early Arab period.

Excavations were resumed in 1990, on behalf of the Hebrew University, again under the direction of A. Negev. Excavations were carried out in some of the buildings partially excavated from 1965 to 1967, and in two newly discovered buildings north of the city.

Description

[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.

Maps, Aerial Views, and Plans
Maps, Aerial Views, and Plans

Maps

Normal Size

  • Incense Road Map with Mamshit
    Incense Road Map

    Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
    from BibleWalks.com
  • Fig. 1.6 - Towns and Forts
    Figure 1.6

    Towns and Forts in the Central Negev and Arava Valley. Early Roman through Byzantine periods.

    Erickson-Gini (2010)
    in the Central Negev and Arava Valley during Early Roman through Byzantine periods from Erickson-Gini (2010)

Magnified

  • Incense Road Map with Mamshit
    Incense Road Map

    Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
    from BibleWalks.com
  • Fig. 1.6 - Towns and Forts
    Figure 1.6

    Towns and Forts in the Central Negev and Arava Valley. Early Roman through Byzantine periods.

    Erickson-Gini (2010)
    in the Central Negev and Arava Valley during Early Roman through Byzantine periods from Erickson-Gini (2010)

Aerial Views

  • Fig. 8 - Aerial View of Mampsis
    Figure 8

    Mampsis, looking west (photo G. Fitoussi).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    from Sion and Israeli (2022)
  • Mamshit in Google Earth
    Mamshit in Google Earth

    click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
  • Mamshit on govmap.gov.il
    Mamshit on govmap.gov.il

    click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il
  • Fig. 7 - Aerial photo of
    Figure 7

    The eastern hill, looking northeast (photo G. Fitoussi).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    the eastern hill - from Sion and Israeli (2022)
  • Fig. 10 - Aerial photo
    Figure 10

    Commander residency (photo G. Fitoussi).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    of Commander residency - from Sion and Israeli (2022)
  • Fig. 14 - Aerial photo
    Figure 14

    Western church compound, looking north (photo G. Fitoussi).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    of Western Church Compound - from Sion and Israeli (2022)

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

  • Plan of Mamshit from
    Kurnub [aka Mamshit]: plan of the town.

    1. Building I, palace
    2. Building II, tower
    3. Western Church
    4. Building XV
    5. Building V, bathhouse
    6. Building VII, pool
    7. Building XII
    8. Eastern Church
    9. Main gate
    10. Water gate
    11. Building VIII, caravanserai


    Stern et. al. (1993 v.3)
    Stern et. al. (1993 v.3)
  • Fig. 2a - City plan from
    Figure 2a

    City plan of ancient Mamshit

    Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
    Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
  • Fig. 5 - City Plan from
    Figure 5

    City plan (O. Sion, S. Israeli and D. Porotsky).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    Sion and Israeli (2022)
  • Fig. 6 - Plan of Mampsis
    Figure 6

    Insulae and Structures according to periods (O. Sion, S. Israeli and D. Porotsky).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    by period - from Sion and Israeli (2022)
  • Site plan of Mamshit
    Site plan of Mamshit

    Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
    from BibleWalks.com
  • Plan 1 - Site plan of
    Plan 1

    General plan of Mampsis

    Negev (1988b)
    Mamshit from Negev (1988b)

Magnified

  • Plan of Mamshit from
    Kurnub [aka Mamshit]: plan of the town.

    1. Building I, palace
    2. Building II, tower
    3. Western Church
    4. Building XV
    5. Building V, bathhouse
    6. Building VII, pool
    7. Building XII
    8. Eastern Church
    9. Main gate
    10. Water gate
    11. Building VIII, caravanserai


    Stern et. al. (1993 v.3)
    Stern et. al. (1993 v.3)
  • Fig. 2a - City plan from
    Figure 2a

    City plan of ancient Mamshit

    Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
    Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
  • Fig. 5 - City Plan from
    Figure 5

    City plan (O. Sion, S. Israeli and D. Porotsky).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    Sion and Israeli (2022)
  • Fig. 6 - Plan of Mampsis
    Figure 6

    Insulae and Structures according to periods (O. Sion, S. Israeli and D. Porotsky).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    by period - from Sion and Israeli (2022)
  • Site plan of Mamshit
    Site plan of Mamshit

    Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
    from BibleWalks.com
  • Plan 1 - Site plan of
    Plan 1

    General plan of Mampsis

    Negev (1988b)
    Mamshit from Negev (1988b)

Area Plans

Army Camp

Normal Size

  • Fig. 9 - Plan of army camp
    Figure 9

    Plan of army camp and commander residency (O. Sion and D. Porotsky).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    from Sion and Israeli (2022)

Magnified

  • Fig. 9 - Plan of army camp
    Figure 9

    Plan of army camp and commander residency (O. Sion and D. Porotsky).

    Sion and Israeli (2022)
    from Sion and Israeli (2022)

Chronology
Phasing

Notes

Sion and Israeli (2022:252 n. 6) note that the urban development [i.e. Phasing Table] is based on Negev’s publications and chronology, updated, and slightly revised by Erickson-Gini (2010: 83–86).

Phasing Table

Period Time Span Discussion
Nabatean 30 BC— AD 106
Discussion

Controlling the Arabian aromatic and spice trade from Arabia to the Mediterranean coast enriched the Nabatean kingdom. In the end of the 1st century BC, Mampsis was founded as a road station on a secondary caravan route leading from the southern coast of the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean. In that period, a fortress was constructed on top of the hill, a caravanserai and watchtowers were erected on the hill slope and a cemetery to the north of the settlement.

The fortress (R/5; Building XIV) is the earliest structure dated by Negev from the last quarter of the 1st century BC to mid-first-century AD (Negev 1988a: 30-32). It was built on the southeastern hill — the highest place overlooking the road (Figure 7). The square fortress has a courtyard at the center, in which a small structure of two rooms is situated. The outer walls are extremely wide and other rooms are built align them.

The fortress was ruined on several occasions: between the Nabatean and Middle Roman periods, in the Byzantine period when walls were constructed between the Eastern Church and Building XII, and in the 20th century AD when a British Police building was erected. Near the fortress, a small watchtower was found under the southwestern corner of Structure R2 (Building IV). Another watchtower was uncovered in the southwestern corner of the city wall (Building VI) and a third watchtower is in Building II. All three protected the settlement over the steep cliff of Nahal Mamshit (Negev 1988a: 4, 28).

Three structures were built to the north of the fortress. The first has a central small courtyard (P/1; Building XIX) with storage rooms at its southern side, resembling those at Masada. Nabatean and Herodian lamps (somewhat rare in Nabatean assemblages) were revealed in the courtyard, in one of the richest assemblages uncovered at the site (Negev 1988a: 34). An ash layer was observed between the Nabatean period remains and the wall, which was constructed in the Late Roman period over the northern and eastern rooms of the building (Negev 1988a: 32-34). Adjacent to the west is Structure P/4 (Building Va) that joins a wall with contemporary Structure P/1. Half of Structure P/4 has rooms surrounding a courtyard and a second floor. Negev proposed that the remains of a stylobate and a staircase-tower attest to domestic architecture that was well developed already in Nabatean period (Negev 1988a: 34-37). To the north, Structure K was revealed, which was later integrated into the city wall (Negev 1988a: 44). A large caravanserai (S; Building VIII) was raised outside the city wall, at the foot of the hill. Negev suggested that the large structure (U; Building XXIII) further north was founded in the 2nd half of the 1st century AD as a school for the study of architectural and applied arts (Negev 1993b: 259). The settlement of the Nabatean period probably extended over a larger area than Middle Roman period (Negev 1988a: 27, 30).

Pottery of the earlier Nabatean period was revealed in several buildings of the Middle Roman period, such as Structures D (Building I) and O/1 (Building XI; Negev 1988a: 40-44, 74-75 respectively). The foundations of a watchtower were exposed under the bell tower of the Eastern Church (R/7; Building IX) and early building remains were present under Structure R/2 (Building IV; Negev 1988a: 27, 29, 48-49).

A Nabatean cemetery, discovered by Kirk 1 km northeast of the city was excavated by Negev, and it comprised of primary and secondary burials; it was in constant use for the first four centuries of the settlement (Negev 1971a; Negev and Sivan 1977: 111). The finds from the cemetery enhance our knowledge of the funerary customs, the dating of the settlement and the connection between Mampsis and other administrative centers such as Petra, Rabbathmoba and Characmoba (see below; Negev 1969).

According to Negev, evidence of a settlement gap between the Nabatean and post-annexation periods were revealed in the `palace' (D, Building I; Negev 1988a: 74-77) and in both stages of the cemetery (Negev and Sivan 1977: 118-119).

Middle Roman AD 106-300
Discussion

History

Following the death of the Nabatean king Rabel II in AD 106, the Romans annexed the Nabatean kingdom to the Roman Empire and founded the new Provincia Arabia. New security arrangements led to the construction of a new road—the Via Trajana Nova—completed at AD 114-116. The III Cyrenaica Legion paved the road network in the province and Mampsis appears to have been renovated in the late 1st to early 2nd centuries AD (Negev 1971b).7

During the Middle Roman period, in the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD, Mampsis was rebuilt as an unwalled city and most of the preserved buildings are ascribed to that period. They are spacious (average size: 570 sq. m), highly decorated two-story buildings and the rooms surround a central courtyard or several courtyards. They were built like a small fortress surrounded by a wall and the empty spaces between them served as alleys or piazzas. Most buildings on the western hill were residential; shops and workshops were built near the northern gate, while public complexes were on the eastern quarter.

A Roman military necropolis dated to the time of Trajan and Hadrian was discovered east of the city. Two Latin inscriptions mention the burial of a centurion of the Legio III Cyrenaica and of an eques of Cohors I Augusta Thracum (Negev 1967a: 52-53; 1971a: 124 and see references therein).

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 Western Quarter

Twenty-one houses were constructed on the western hill (Figures 3, 6). Insulae A and B included 9 and 3 structures, respectively. Three pairs (G, F, E) and three single structures (C, D, I), mostly residential (10 of 15), occupied the quarter. Structure D (Building I; Figure 8), dated to the Middle Roman period (2nd-3rd centuries AD), was identified as a palace with a reception hall and special decorative architectural elements (Negev 1988a: 66; 50-77). Structure F/2 (Building II) was an administrative center containing a tower, a courtyard, halls, and storage rooms (Negev 1988a: 77-78). Structure O/1 (Building XI) had an upper floor, stables, and a private shrine. It was partly destroyed in the second half of the 4th century AD, probably during the earthquake of AD 363, whereafter the western church was built (Negev 1988a: 88-109). Eastwards, Structure O/2 (Building XIa) was probably constructed in the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD (Negev 1988a: 109–110). In Structure S (Building VIII), arches were constructed in a new direction during the 2nd half of the 3rd century AD. Structure A/5 (Building XVI), southeast of the northern city gate, was dated to the current period based on its masonry carving style. Structure F/1 (Building XVII) was identified as stores and workshops of the period along with three rooms in Structure C (Building XVIII), located northwest of Building I (Negev 1988a: 191-197). The so-called gymnasium (T; Building XXII), a one-story structure, has many rooms surrounding a court (Negev 1993: 246-261).

Following the survey, other structures were attributed to the current period (A/8, A/5, B/3, E/1, G/1, G/2, H, I, N/1), due to their dimensions, construction style and location (see Figure 6). Three small structures (A/6: 88sq. m; A/7: 84sq. m; F/3: 24sq. m), composed of 2-3 rooms were identified as stores or workshops. Two of them (A/6; A/7) are near the northern gate and the third (F/3) is in the northern fringes of Piazza 6.

The Eastern Quarter

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).

Structure R/1 (Building XII; see Figure 9), the largest and most magnificent structure at the site (c. 1500sq. m), was constructed at the late 1st or 2nd century AD. It was entered from the north with protecting towers on both sides and has three sections (see Figure 10): the northern is a large, domestic two-story residential area with rooms adorned with mosaic floors, ornamented door posts, decorated arches posts and Nabatean capitals with ritual decorations, an inner court with wall paintings and a cistern (Negev 1988a: 146-147); in the west are service rooms; and in the southeast, stables. In its various sections the building has inner courts. Four strata were observed (Negev 1988a: 145-147): phase I, the beginning of the commercial activity, was dated by earliest coins from a hoard of 10,500 silver coins, from the years AD 98-137 to AD 222, hidden in a bronze jar under a staircase. The building was abandoned probably following a local epidemic, and the hidden coins jar, that indicates a wealthy owner, was never recovered. The coins, minted at northern Syria and Asia Mainor, indicate a wide and rich trade network that dealt with Nabatean racehorses (Negev 1988a: 77). At phase II (c. AD 300), based on coins retrieved from the stables (Figure 11) and a reusage of Tomb 108 in the Nabatean necropolis, the complex was re-inhabited in AD 300. In phase III, dated to the 1st half of the 4th century AD, various changes were observed in the complex and entrances between rooms were blocked; it might have been inhabited by the army in the era of Diocletian. In phase IV, the complex was inhabited by Christians, as crosses were carved over lintels and door posts and a surrounding wall was erected around the building, the Eastern Church and Building IV; Negev suggested (1988a: 146-147) that it might have served the bishop.

We propose that Structure R/1 (Building XII), adjacent to the army camp (see below), might have served the commander of the Roman garrison and its stables were probably used by the cavalry, one of which — Diogenes the son of Alexander of the Cohors I Augusta Thracum was buried in the Roman cemetery (Negev 1967b: 52, Pl. 9c). Fabian (2005: 219) suggested that the existence of the Roman cemetery indicates a military attendance which participated in roadbuilding.

Structure R/2 (Building IV; see Figure 9) has three rows of rooms running north—south along two streets; most of the floors in the rooms were made of beaten earth. Two entrances led to the building from the north and the rooms were entered from the streets with no entrances between them. The building, constructed over the remains of a watchtower of Mid-Nabatean period, was identified as a market (Negev 1988a: 163). Fabian (2005: 217) suggested to identify it as a military camp. We agree with his identification for the following reasons: its location on the highest place observing the road leading to the city; its plan resembling other military camps with long rows of rooms (Fabian 2005: 217, see references therein); and its wide external walls, build of large ashlars on the outer face with two corner watchtowers beside the entrance in the northern wall (1.5m wide; Figures 9: 1; 12; 13).

The military camp has a trapezoid plan (53m long, 25/36.5m wide). On its eastern side are six similar rooms (see Figure 9: 2-7). South of the watchtower are three wide, fortified rooms, presumably serving the watchtower and south of it is the southwestern entrance to the camp. The central row has six similar rooms (Figure 14: 15-20) with entrances in the east, apart from room 18, in which the entrance is in the west. Outstanding is room 14 that has benches along its walls (see Figure 13); its northern side is open to the western street, and it might have served as an inner training area. The eastern rooms were well-preserved up to the northern wall of the Eastern Church. In the northern section, that is attached to Structure R/1, are two rooms (see Figure 9: 25, 26), a watchtower (see Figure 9: 23) and a narrow room in the south (2.6 x 2.35m; see Figure 9: 24). It would be reasonable to assume that they were guard rooms. The third room in the eastern row is unique and large (10.0 x 3.8m) and has a connection to the commander's residency at the northeastern corner. It has benches along its walls and might have been a reception room of the command office.

A bathhouse (P/3, Building V) was built north of the army camp and the commander residency. It has a Roman imperial plan with two connected units built on two levels. The upper holds an apodyterium, a frigidarium and a tepidarium and the lower holds the partly subterranean furnaces and a caldarium. It was built above two structures of the Middle-Nabatean period (P/1, P/4) and was used during the Roman and Byzantine periods. Water was supplied to the bath by pipes from the public pool (P/2; Building VII), which was built from ashlars, was plastered on the interior, and roofed by arches. The building was integrated with the city wall that was dated to c. AD 300 (Negev 1988a: 167-190).

Byzantine 4th— 6th c. AD
Discussion

History

In the Late Roman period during the reign of Diocletian, the city was surrounded by a wall, dated, based on coins revealed at its foundations and related architecture to around AD 300 (Negev 1988a: 64; 1988b: 9-29; Erickson-Gini 2010: 84-85).

In the 2nd half of the 4th century AD, two churches were constructed (see Figure 14; Negev 1988b: 30-63). Other structures were identified in three areas: five structures next to the city wall, west of Structure A/8, eighteen in the central quarter between the eastern and western hills (Insulae L, M, see below) and several others (B/1, B/2, O/4,O/5,O/6,O7, Q, T) next to the city wall. The average dimension of each structure is about 350 sq. m.

The Central Quarter

Eighteen structures were observed in two insulae (L, M) at the central quarter, and in the ravine between both hills, out of which 5 and 8 structures (respectively) were identified. Most of these structures are domestic and they are relatively small and rather poorly built. Larger structures (L/1 — 925sq. m; L/2 — 750sq. m) have spacious rooms and their plan and location next to the city gate may indicate that they were storage facilities. Outstanding is Structure J, which is poorly built and Structure N/22, which is rather small (320 Sq. m).

An estimate of the number of inhabitants at Mampsis during the late 5th and early 6th century AD is based upon the size of the built area within the wall (24540 Sq. m) and the number of structures (56, of which 43 are domestic buildings). Broshi and Finkelstein (1990:4) estimated that 25 persons per dunam sums up with 1135 persons (see also Shor 1988: 252). Safrai (1995: 287-289) surveyed several sites and estimated 30-35 persons per dunam, which sums to 1239-1445. Shershevsky estimated between 1060-1500 inhabitants for Mampsis. Hence, we can assume 1000-1500 inhabitants in Mampsis. According to Avraham Negev, based on numismatic data, the end of Mampsis occurred during Justinian's reign, when the northern city gate was burned.9

As limitanei, the existence of Mampsis was based on the annona militaris. When the regular pavement to the limitanei was discontinued by Justinian during the 2nd quarter of the 6th century AD, the compact and isolated city may not have been able to thrive on the agricultural production alone. When the regular payment to the neighboring Saracen tribes ceased, the city was possibly attacked, and the gate was burnt.

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).

Site Map

Figure 6

Insulae and Structures according to periods (O. Sion, S. Israeli and D. Porotsky).

Sion and Israeli (2022)


Archaeoseismic Study by Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)

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.

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.
Deciphering chronology at Mampsis has unfortunately been problematic.

Before the First Earthquake - Early 2nd century CE earthquake

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.

First Earthquake - Early Byzantine

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.

Second Earthquake - 5th - 7th centuries CE ?

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.
Footnotes

122 S. Israeli, Mamshit-1990, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12 (1994) 103.

123 S. Israeli, Mamshit-1990, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12 (1994) 103.

Considering this dating difficulty, I am labeling the date for the second earthquake as "5th -7th centuries CE ?".

Seismic Effects
First Earthquake - Early Byzantine

  • from Lower parts of buildings (built in Nabatean and Roman Periods)
Effect Location Image(s) Description
Systematic Tilting of Walls E of West Church
Figure 2b

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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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.
Statistical observations: The data of surveyed cases of tilting are summed up in Tab. 1. 30 cases of tilting were observed at walls trending 55° to 105°, out of these 26 are tilted northward, and only 4 are tilted southward (Tab. 1 and Fig.3 c). In contrast, only 8 cases of tilting were observed in the perpendicular walls, with a 135° to 185° trend, and out of these the tilting is in 4 cases eastward and in 4 cases westward. Thus, a clear preference of northward tilting is observed at the Roman ruins of Mamshit.

Interpretation: Preferentially oriented tilts of the walls is becoming a common technique for recognition of a seismic nature of damage applied in archeoseimology ... An analysis of the seismic motions and resulting stresses in Mamshit is given in Fig. 3 d, leading to the conclusion that a seismic shocks arrived from north. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Lateral Shifting of Building Elements E of West Church
Figure 2b

The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
4
Figure 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.

Statistical observations: 14 cases of shifting were observed.

Interpretation: Displacement of the building elements is a known phenomenon of earthquake deformation in ancient buildings and was used for the determination of the seismic motions’ directions as wall tilt or collapse. The only process that could cause such shifting is an earthquake – no other mechanism is known. In Mamshit the seismic shocks arrived from north and the push movements were transmitted from the ground to the building foundations, causing the arch to move in an opposite direction, i e. towards the epicenter, due to inertia. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Rotation of Wall Fragments around a Vertical Axis ENE of West Church
Figure 2b

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
Figure 2c

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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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°.
Statistical observations: Walls trending 150° to 175° revealed 22 cases of rotation, and out of them 16 are clockwise and only 6 counterclockwise (Fig. 5 c). The perpendicular walls, trending 60° to 95° revealed 27 cases of rotation, out of which 24 cases are counterclockwise and only 3 cases are clockwise. Thus, a clearly systematic picture of rotations is seen: counterclockwise in ENE walls and clockwise in SSE walls (Fig. 5 c).

Interpretation: Rotation of individual stones, fragments of the walls, or whole walls around a vertical axis is common phenomenon during strong recent and ancient earthquakes. Pulling out of foundation stones accompanying by their rotation in spite of their solid cement testifies on just dynamic beating out of them in the process of sharp horizontal oscillations of the all wall (and not only of its upper part) relatively the foundation. Seismic ground motion is the only mechanism that can cause rotation of building elements, a conclusion well supported by the large number of observed rotation cases and the obvious directional systematics. The theoretical background of this phenomenon in the buildings was described in details by Korzhenkov and Mazor (1999a) and Korzhenkov and Mazor (1999b). In Mamshit an analysis of the direction of the seismic motion, as derived from the dominant rotation patterns is presented in Fig. 5 d, revealing that the epicenter was approximately at NNE. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Cracking of Door Steps, Staircases and Lintels Administrative Tower
Figure 2b

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
Figure 2b

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
Figure 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
Figure 6b

A similar set of cracks in the entrance to a room east of the Administrative Tower.

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)

6c
Figure 6c

Stress directions concluded from the observed cracked patterns, disclosing movement of the adjacent walls

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
7a
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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).
Cracks in a staircase of the Late Nabatean Building, located east of the West Church, is seen in Fig. 7 a. Double arrays there show direction of walls swinging. Because of pressure from tilting wall the doorstep got extra-loading which led to cracking of it.
Statistical observations: Fig. 8 reveals that out of 44 observed cases of distinct cracking in Roman buildings, 32 are in northward trending structures (mainly 180°), and only 12 cases are seen in structures included in the perpendicular walls (trending around 90°).

Interpretation: Cracks breaking special building elements, like doorsteps, staircases and lintels, are an important indicator for evaluation of the seismic damage. The cracking process of the doorsteps shown in Figs. 6 a. b are suggested in Fig. 6 c, and the damages seen in the staircase shown in Fig. 7 a is discussed in Fig. 7 b. The conclusion in each of these cases is that the southern wall was tilted northward by inertia in reaction to seismic shocks from the north, indicating the epicenter location was northward of Mamshit. The clear preferential occurrence of cracks in N-S trending walls is in agreement with this conclusion. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Slipped Keystones of Arches W of Eastern Church
Figure 2c

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
Figure 2b

The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
9a
Figure 9a

Keystone, slipped down 6cm in a N-S (174°) trending arch in a room west of the Eastern Church

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Rear View Long Shot

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
9b
Figure 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
Figure 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.

Statistical observations: Two cases of slipped keystones were observed, both in N-S trending arches.

Interpretation. Hanging keystones themselves are a strong evidence of seismic origin of such type of deformations, but they also can be used as a kinematic indicator telling about seismic motions direction of a historical earthquake. Displacement of an arch keystone reflects an event of brief extension, during which the keystone slipped, followed by rapid return to the regular state of compression that fixed the keystone in its present state. Such a brief state of extension discloses arrival of seismic shocks that was transmitted to the base of the arch, causing its upper part to be momentarily tilted in the direction of the epicenter, the part facing the epicenter being more effected, as depicted in Fig. 9 c. The observed slipping of the keystone could have occurred in a number of steps during a series of oscillations of the upper part of the arch. The observation that otherwise the arch remained in its original position indicates that the seismic push arrived from a direction parallel to the trend of the arch, as otherwise the arch would be tilted and collapse side wards. Thus, the described cases indicate that the seismic motions were parallel to the direction of the respective arches, i. e. along a N-S direction. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Jointing Administrative Tower
Figure 2b

The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
10a
Figure 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
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: 12 through-going joints were observed.

Interpretation: Joints crossing a few adjacent stones is one of the strong evidences of seismic origin of the deformations. Formation of such joints has been reported in many macroseismic studies. For example, Korjenkov and I. N. Lemzin described such joints formed in modern buildings during the Kochkor-Ata (Southern Kyrghyzstan) 1992 earthquake of a magnitude MLH = 6.2. Such through-going joints are formed only as a result of high intensity earthquake – high energy is necessary to overcome the stress shadow of free surfaces at the stone margins (i. e., the free space between adjacent stones). ... At Mamshit the joints occurred together with the other listed seismic damage patterns. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Pushing of Walls by Connected Perpendicular Walls Entire site 11
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: 6 cases of such pushes were observed in Mamshit ruins.

Interpretation: A strong seismic event pushed the perpendicular wall. Hence, the seismic motions came along an axis parallel to the pushed wall. In the case of Mamshit this was along a N-S direction. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
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. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)

Second Earthquake - 5th -7th centuries CE ?

  • from Upper parts of buildings (repaired and built in the Byzantine Period)
Effect Location Image(s) Description
Tilting of Walls S of West Church
Figure 2b

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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: 50 cases of tilting have been found on 145° to 185° trending walls, out of which 47 are tilted WSW and only 3 cases are tilted ENE (Fig. 12 c). In contrast, 50° to 100° trending walls revealed only 14 cases of tilting and with no systematic direction.

Interpretation: The seismic pulses arrived from WSW. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Rotation of Wall Fragments around a Vertical Axis E of West Church
Figure 2b

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
Figure 2c

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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: Walls trending 60° to 85° reveal 9 cases of counter-clockwise rotation versus just 1 case of clockwise rotation (Fig. 13 c). In contrast, out of 14 cases of rotation in 155° to 180° trending walls, 13 are rotated clockwise, and only 1 counterclockwise.

Interpretation: The seismic shocks arrived from SW, i.e. in the direction of the bisector to the trend of the walls (Fig. 13 d). - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)

Additional Imprints of Severe Earthquakes

Effect Location Image(s) Description
Blocking of Entrances West City Wall
Figure 2a

City plan of ancient Mamshit

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
XII quarter
Figure 2c

East Church and House of Frescoes Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
14a
Figure 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
Figure 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.

Statistical observations: 4 cases of blocked entrances one can observe in Mamshit ruins.

Interpretation: Earthquake(s) is one of possible reasons for such type of building activity. ... So, the entrances in some places at Mamshit were possibly blocked in a number of cases in order to repair observable seismic damage. In other instances damaged structures had to be turn down and occasionally rebuilt. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Mismatch of Lower Stone Rows and Upper Parts of Buildings E of East Church
Figure 2c

East Church and House of Frescoes Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
15
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: 12 cases of mismatching were observed in Mamshit.

Interpretation: Two stages of building are disclosed: the original structure was destroyed by an earthquake, dismantled, and a new wall was built, using the old foundation, but following a somewhat different direction. Such phenomenon was also observed in adjacent ruins of ancient Avdat and Shivta, which were damaged by strong historical earthquakes. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Supporting Walls South City Wall
Figure 2a

City plan of ancient Mamshit

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
16
Figure 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.

Statistical observations: One supporting wall was observed in Mamshit ruins.

Interpretation: Various segments of city wall were tilted at an earlier earthquake (most probably during the Roman period) and repaired later on (most probably during the Byzantine stage of rebuilding). Such supporting walls were observed in another cities in the Negev desert, like Avdat, Shivta, Rehovot-ba-Negev and Sa’adon. Together with another "pure" features of the seismic deformations, they can be used as additional supportive evidence of earthquake damage. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Secondary Use of Building Stones East Church
Figure 2c

East Church and House of Frescoes Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
17a
Figure 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
Figure 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.

Statistical observations: 9 walls with secondary use of building stones were found in Mamshit.

Interpretation: The rather common secondary use of building materials in the Byzantine buildings may well reflect the destruction of the Roman buildings that were severely damaged by the earthquake that is identified by the long list of damage patterns discussed so far. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Incorporation of Wooden Beams in Stone Buildings Administrative Tower
Figure 2b

The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
18a
Figure 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
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: 2 cases of wooden beams were found in Mamshit ruins.

Interpretation: The builders of Mamshit were aware of the seismic danger and incorporated wooden beams to absorb future seismic shocks. Horizontally placed beams lowered mainly the effect of the vertical component of seismic motions. Laying inside the walls of a regular longitudinal-diametrical framework from the wooden beams is a typical antiseismic method of Medieval Turkish construction noticed by A. A. Nikonov (1996) during his archeo-seismological study in Crimean Peninsular. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
Bulging of Wall Parts West City Wall
Figure 2a

City plan of ancient Mamshit

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
19a
Figure 19a

Westward bulging of the central part of the western city wall, trending SES (152°).

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)

19b
Figure 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.

Statistical observations: 11 cases of bulging of central parts of the walls were observed in Mamshit.

Interpretation: The city wall is well built of massive stones and, thus, deformation due to poor building most probably can be ruled out. This seems to be the result of a strong earthquake. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
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)

Archaeoseismic Analysis
First Earthquake - Early Byzantine

Figures
Figures

  • Fig. 20a - Seismic movement
    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)
    from NWN in Early Byzantine Quake which does not match observations - from Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
  • Fig. 20b - Seismic movement
    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)
    from NEN in Early Byzantine Quake which does not match observations - from Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
  • Fig. 20c - Seismic movement
    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)
    from N in Early Byzantine Quake which matches observations - from Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)

Discussion

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:
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.
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.

Second Earthquake - 5th -7th centuries CE ?

Figures
Figures

  • Fig. 21a - Seismic movement
    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)
    from WSW in 2nd Earthquake which does not match observations - from Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
  • Fig. 21b - Seismic movement
    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)
    from NEN in 2nd Earthquake which does not match observations - from Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)
  • Fig. 21c - Seismic movement
    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)
    from SW in 2nd Earthquake which matches observations - from Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)

Discussion

The Upper Parts of the Buildings, Reflecting Mainly the 7th cent. Earthquake [JW: 5th -7th centuries CE ?]

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°):
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.
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.

Deformation Maps
First Earthquake - Early Byzantine

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Plan 1 of Negev (1988b)

Second Earthquake - 5th -7th centuries CE ?

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Mampsis site plan in Stern et. al. (1993 v.3)

Intensity Estimates
First Earthquake - Early Byzantine

Intensity Estimate from EAE Chart

  • from Lower parts of buildings (built in Nabatean and Roman Periods)
  • Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE) chart
    Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

    Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
    of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Effect Location Image(s) Description Intensity
Systematic Tilting of Walls E of West Church
Figure 2b

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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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.
Statistical observations: The data of surveyed cases of tilting are summed up in Tab. 1. 30 cases of tilting were observed at walls trending 55° to 105°, out of these 26 are tilted northward, and only 4 are tilted southward (Tab. 1 and Fig.3 c). In contrast, only 8 cases of tilting were observed in the perpendicular walls, with a 135° to 185° trend, and out of these the tilting is in 4 cases eastward and in 4 cases westward. Thus, a clear preference of northward tilting is observed at the Roman ruins of Mamshit.

Interpretation: Preferentially oriented tilts of the walls is becoming a common technique for recognition of a seismic nature of damage applied in archeoseimology ... An analysis of the seismic motions and resulting stresses in Mamshit is given in Fig. 3 d, leading to the conclusion that a seismic shocks arrived from north. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)		 VI+
Lateral Shifting of Building Elements (displaced masonry blocks) E of West Church
Figure 2b

The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
4
Figure 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.

Statistical observations: 14 cases of shifting were observed.

Interpretation: Displacement of the building elements is a known phenomenon of earthquake deformation in ancient buildings and was used for the determination of the seismic motions’ directions as wall tilt or collapse. The only process that could cause such shifting is an earthquake – no other mechanism is known. In Mamshit the seismic shocks arrived from north and the push movements were transmitted from the ground to the building foundations, causing the arch to move in an opposite direction, i e. towards the epicenter, due to inertia. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)		 VIII+
Rotation of Wall Fragments around a Vertical Axis (displaced masonry blocks) ENE of West Church
Figure 2b

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
Figure 2c

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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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°.
Statistical observations: Walls trending 150° to 175° revealed 22 cases of rotation, and out of them 16 are clockwise and only 6 counterclockwise (Fig. 5 c). The perpendicular walls, trending 60° to 95° revealed 27 cases of rotation, out of which 24 cases are counterclockwise and only 3 cases are clockwise. Thus, a clearly systematic picture of rotations is seen: counterclockwise in ENE walls and clockwise in SSE walls (Fig. 5 c).

Interpretation: Rotation of individual stones, fragments of the walls, or whole walls around a vertical axis is common phenomenon during strong recent and ancient earthquakes. Pulling out of foundation stones accompanying by their rotation in spite of their solid cement testifies on just dynamic beating out of them in the process of sharp horizontal oscillations of the all wall (and not only of its upper part) relatively the foundation. Seismic ground motion is the only mechanism that can cause rotation of building elements, a conclusion well supported by the large number of observed rotation cases and the obvious directional systematics. The theoretical background of this phenomenon in the buildings was described in details by Korzhenkov and Mazor (1999a) and Korzhenkov and Mazor (1999b). In Mamshit an analysis of the direction of the seismic motion, as derived from the dominant rotation patterns is presented in Fig. 5 d, revealing that the epicenter was approximately at NNE. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)		 VIII+
Cracking of Door Steps, Staircases and Lintels (penetrative fractures) Administrative Tower
Figure 2b

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
Figure 2b

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
Figure 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
Figure 6b

A similar set of cracks in the entrance to a room east of the Administrative Tower.

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)

6c
Figure 6c

Stress directions concluded from the observed cracked patterns, disclosing movement of the adjacent walls

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
7a
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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).
Cracks in a staircase of the Late Nabatean Building, located east of the West Church, is seen in Fig. 7 a. Double arrays there show direction of walls swinging. Because of pressure from tilting wall the doorstep got extra-loading which led to cracking of it.
Statistical observations: Fig. 8 reveals that out of 44 observed cases of distinct cracking in Roman buildings, 32 are in northward trending structures (mainly 180°), and only 12 cases are seen in structures included in the perpendicular walls (trending around 90°).

Interpretation: Cracks breaking special building elements, like doorsteps, staircases and lintels, are an important indicator for evaluation of the seismic damage. The cracking process of the doorsteps shown in Figs. 6 a. b are suggested in Fig. 6 c, and the damages seen in the staircase shown in Fig. 7 a is discussed in Fig. 7 b. The conclusion in each of these cases is that the southern wall was tilted northward by inertia in reaction to seismic shocks from the north, indicating the epicenter location was northward of Mamshit. The clear preferential occurrence of cracks in N-S trending walls is in agreement with this conclusion. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)		 VI+
Slipped Keystones of Arches (arch damage) W of Eastern Church
Figure 2c

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
Figure 2b

The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
9a
Figure 9a

Keystone, slipped down 6cm in a N-S (174°) trending arch in a room west of the Eastern Church

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Rear View Long Shot

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
9b
Figure 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
Figure 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.

Statistical observations: Two cases of slipped keystones were observed, both in N-S trending arches.

Interpretation. Hanging keystones themselves are a strong evidence of seismic origin of such type of deformations, but they also can be used as a kinematic indicator telling about seismic motions direction of a historical earthquake. Displacement of an arch keystone reflects an event of brief extension, during which the keystone slipped, followed by rapid return to the regular state of compression that fixed the keystone in its present state. Such a brief state of extension discloses arrival of seismic shocks that was transmitted to the base of the arch, causing its upper part to be momentarily tilted in the direction of the epicenter, the part facing the epicenter being more effected, as depicted in Fig. 9 c. The observed slipping of the keystone could have occurred in a number of steps during a series of oscillations of the upper part of the arch. The observation that otherwise the arch remained in its original position indicates that the seismic push arrived from a direction parallel to the trend of the arch, as otherwise the arch would be tilted and collapse side wards. Thus, the described cases indicate that the seismic motions were parallel to the direction of the respective arches, i. e. along a N-S direction. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)		 VI+
Jointing (penetrative fractures in masonry blocks) Administrative Tower
Figure 2b

The West Church and Administrative Tower Quarters

Roman numbers denote residential quarters

Arabic numbers the location of Figures

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)
10a
Figure 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
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: 12 through-going joints were observed.

Interpretation: Joints crossing a few adjacent stones is one of the strong evidences of seismic origin of the deformations. Formation of such joints has been reported in many macroseismic studies. For example, Korjenkov and I. N. Lemzin described such joints formed in modern buildings during the Kochkor-Ata (Southern Kyrghyzstan) 1992 earthquake of a magnitude MLH = 6.2. Such through-going joints are formed only as a result of high intensity earthquake – high energy is necessary to overcome the stress shadow of free surfaces at the stone margins (i. e., the free space between adjacent stones). ... At Mamshit the joints occurred together with the other listed seismic damage patterns. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)		 VI+
Pushing of Walls by Connected Perpendicular Walls (displaced walls) Entire site 11
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: 6 cases of such pushes were observed in Mamshit ruins.

Interpretation: A strong seismic event pushed the perpendicular wall. Hence, the seismic motions came along an axis parallel to the pushed wall. In the case of Mamshit this was along a N-S direction. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)		 VII+
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).

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)'s Seismic Characterization

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.

Discontinuous Deformation Analysis by Kamai and Hatzor (2005)

Figures

Figures

  • Fig. 5 - Damaged Arch
    Figure 5

    The damaged arch at Mamshit

    1. The arch is embedded in a very heterogenic wall

    2. The Keystone has slid 4 cm. downwards while the rest of the arch remained intact.


    Kamai and Hatzor (2005)
    of Mamshit from Kamai and Hatzor (2005)
  • Fig. 6 - Numerical Model
    Figure 6

    The final mesh configuration for the embedded arch in Mamshit. The uniform masonry wall rests on two blocks: the lower is fixed, and the overlying block can be subjected to time-dependant displacements. The height of the wall above the arch is h.

    Kamai and Hatzor (2005)
    from Kamai and Hatzor (2005)
  • Fig. 11 - Optimal (Final)
    Figure 11

    The result of the dynamic block system response under an earthquake with A = 0.5 g and f = 1 Hz. The accumulating downwards displacement of the keystone is 3.11 cm.

    Kamai and Hatzor (2005)
    Model Simulation from Kamai and Hatzor (2005)

Discussion

Kamai and Hatzor (2005) performed Discontinuous Deformation Analysis (DDA) on a model (Fig. 6) for a dropped keystone in an arch near the Eastern Church in Mampsis. The optimal (final) model simulation (Fig. 11), using a sinusoidal input with an amplitude of 0.5 g and a frequency of 1 Hz., produced 3.11 cm. of displacement vs. 4 cm. measured in the field. The conclusion was that the keystone dropped due an earthquake with a PGA of ~0.5 g and a center frequency of ~1 Hz.. 0.5 g translates to an Intensity of 8.2 using Equation 2 of Wald et al (1999). In their modeling, Kamai and Hatzor (2005) found that low frequencies (e.g. 0.5 Hz.) resulted in strong fluctuations and 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.

Kamai and Hatzor (2007) reiterated the same study at Mampsis noting that keystone displacement only occurred in the frequency range of 1.0 - 1.5 Hz. and that seismic amplification might have been at play at the higher parts of the structure (i.e. the "Sky-scraper effect" mentioned by Korzhenkov), thus amplifying bedrock PGA by as much as 2.5. This led to a bracket of PGA values for the dropped keystone between 0.2 and 0.5 g. These PGA values convert to Intensities of 6.7 - 8.2 using Equation 2 of Wald et al (1999).
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 and Lab derived properties

Model was run in qk.mode. An unusually low model value of Young's Modulus for the wall (1 Mpa) was explained as reasonable when one considers the heterogeneity of the wall where spaces between the wall blocks are filled with soft filling materials.

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
Lab Measurements of original stones from Mampsis
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

Second Earthquake - 5th -7th centuries CE ?

Intensity Estimate from EAE Chart

  • from Upper parts of buildings (repaired and built in the Byzantine Period)
  • Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE) chart
    Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

    Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
    of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
Effect Location Image(s) Description Intensity
Tilting of Walls S of West Church
Figure 2b

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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: 50 cases of tilting have been found on 145° to 185° trending walls, out of which 47 are tilted WSW and only 3 cases are tilted ENE (Fig. 12 c). In contrast, 50° to 100° trending walls revealed only 14 cases of tilting and with no systematic direction.

Interpretation: The seismic pulses arrived from WSW. - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)		 VI+
Rotation of Wall Fragments around a Vertical Axis (displaced masonry blocks) E of West Church
Figure 2b

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
Figure 2c

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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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).

Statistical observations: Walls trending 60° to 85° reveal 9 cases of counter-clockwise rotation versus just 1 case of clockwise rotation (Fig. 13 c). In contrast, out of 14 cases of rotation in 155° to 180° trending walls, 13 are rotated clockwise, and only 1 counterclockwise.

Interpretation: The seismic shocks arrived from SW, i.e. in the direction of the bisector to the trend of the walls (Fig. 13 d). - Korzhenkov and Mazor (2003)		 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)

Korjenkov and Mazor (2003)'s Seismic Characterization

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.

Notes and Further Reading
References

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. (1988a). The architecture of Mampsis : final report. 1. The Middle and Late Nabatean periods, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Negev, A. (1988b) 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

Mampsis at Nabataea.net

Mampsis at The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites

Mampsis at Pleiades.org

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (1993 v.3)

Main Publication

A. Negev, The Architecture of Mampsis: Final Report 1-2 (Qedem 26-27), Jerusalem 1988.

Other Studies

Robinson, Biblical Researches 12, 616, 622

F. Krause and H. L. Fleischer, Kommentar zu Seetzen's Reisen, Berlin 1859, 403

Musil, Arabia Petraea 2 (Edam), 25-28

Woolley-Lawrence, PEFA 3, 121-128

W. F. Albright, JPOS 4 (1924), 153 n. I

5 (1925), 44-45, n. 70

J. H. Iliffe, QDAP3 (1934), 133

G. E. Kirk, PEQ 70 (1938), 216-221,236-239

S. Applebaum, IEJ6(1956), 262-263

A. Negev, Israel Numismatic Journal3 (1965-1966), 27-31

id., CNI 18/4 (1966), 17-23; id., IEJ 16 (1966), 145-148

17 (1967), 46-55, 121-123

19 (1969), 89-106

21 (1971), 110-129

24 (1974), 153-159

id., Ariel15 (1966), 79-86

id., BTS 90 (1967), 6-17

id., Raggi Zeitschriftfiir Kunstgeschichte 7 (1967), 67-87

id., ILN 6737 (1968), 32-33

6738 (1968), 25-27

id., RB 75 (1968), 407-413

80 (1973), 364-383;81 (1974), 397-420

93 (1976), 545-557

id., PEQ 101 (1969), 5-14

id., Archaeology 24 (1971), 166-171

id., Jahrbuchfiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 21 (1971), 115-120

id., Antike Welt 3/4 (1972), 13-28

13 (1982), 2-33

id., Journal of Jewish Studies 25 (1974), 337-342

id. (with R. Sivan), Rei Cretariae Fautorum, Acta 17-18 (1977), 109-131

id., Coins of the Decapolis and the Provincia Arabia (eds. A. Spijkerman and M. Piccirillo), Jerusalem 1978, 32-35, 110-115, 236-239, 274-277

id., House and City Planning in Arid Lands (ed. G. Golani), London 1980, 3-32

id., The Greek Inscriptions from the Negev, Jerusalem 1981, 69-72

id., MdB 19 (1981), 33-36

id., Tempel, Kirchen und Cisternen, Stuttgart 1983,97-126, 130-152, 168-180

id., Recherches Archeologiques en Israi!/210-223

id., Nabatean Archaeology Today, New York 1986

id., BAR 14j6 (1988), 38-39

id., Aram 2 (1990), 337-365

M.G. Jarret, IEJ 19 (1969), 215-224

J. C. Mann, ibid., 211-214

A. Lemaire, LA 82 (1975), 15-23

R. Rosenthal, IEJ 26 (1976), 96-103

id., Israel Numismatic Journal4 (1980), 39-54

D. Chen, LA 31 (1981), 235-244

J. Patrich, I£134 (1984), 39-46; id., The Formation of Nabatean Art, Jerusalem 1990

R. Wenning, Die Nabatiier: Denkiiler und Geschichte, Gottingen 1987, 145-152.

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (2008)

Main Publications

T. Erickson-Gini, Mampsis: A Nabataean Settlement in the Central Negev Highlands in the Light of the Ceramic and Architectural Evidence Found in Archaeological Excavations during 1993– 1994 (M.A. thesis), Tel Aviv 1999

id., Crisis and Renewal: Settlement in the Negev in the 3rd and 4th Centuries CE, with an Emphasis on the Finds from the New Excavations in Mampsis, Oboda and Mesad ‘En Hazeva (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem (in prep.)

Studies

S. Dar, JQR 83 (1992), 204–207 (Review)

A. Negev, ABD, 4, New York 1992, 490–492

id., BA 56 (1993), 141–142

id., Early Christianity in Context: Monuments and Documents (E. Testa Fest.

SBF Collection Maior 38

eds. F. Manns & E. Alliata), Jerusalem 1993, 241–264

id., Eretz Magazine 8/30 (1993), 35–58

id., OEANE, 3, New York 1997, 312–314

id., Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans (ed. G. Markoe), London 2003, 101–105

S. Israeli, ESI 12 (1993), 101–106

L. Y. Rahmani, ‘Atiqot 22 (1993), 149–150

P. Figueras, Aram 6 (1994), 285

id., LA 46 (1996), 265–284

S. Margalit, LA 45 (1995), 357–400; J. P. Oleson, SHAJ 5 (1995), 707–719

T. Erickson-Gini, ESI 15 (1996), 108–110

19 (1997), 91*–92*

A. Kloner, Aram 8 (1996), 125–126

id., BAIAS 16 (1998), 7–32

R. Rubin, ZDPV 112 (1996), 49–60

id., Journal of Historical Geography 23 (1997), 267–283

Mediterranean Historical Review 1998, 56–74

A. E. Killebrew, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 3/1–2 (1999), 17–32

S. G. Schmid, Die Feinkeramik der Nabatär: Typologie, Chronologie und kulturhistorische Hintergründe (Petra-Ez Zantur, Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 2/1, Terra Archäologica 4), Mainz am Rhein 2000

R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Michmanim 16 (2002), 33*–38*

id., The Nabateans in the Negev (Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum Catalog 22

ed. R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom), Haifa 2003, 23*–29*

A. M. Korjenkov & E. Mazor, Jahrbuch des DAI Archäologischer Anzeiger 2003/2, 51–82

J. Magness, The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Settlement in Palestine, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 188–190

E. Netzer et al., Nabatäische Architektur: Insbesondere Gräber und Tempel (Sonderbände der Antiken Welt

Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie), Mainz am Rhein 2003, 141–152.

Wikipedia page for Mampsis

  • from Wikipedia - click link to open new tab


Surveys
Photos

Description Photo
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Front View Long Shot
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Front View Long Shot

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Rear View Long Shot
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Rear View Long Shot

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Front View Closeup
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Front View Closeup

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Orientation Az = 174°
Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Orientation Az = 174°

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Arch of Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Corner Crack of Voussoir
Arch of Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Corner Crack of Voussoir

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Arch of Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Corner Crack of Voussoir - another side
Arch of Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Corner Crack of Voussoir - another side

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Arch of Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Closeup on Spalled Voussoir
Arch of Dropped Keystone of Mamshit
Closeup on Spalled Voussoir

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Cracked Lintel in Mamshit
Orientation not recorded
Long Shot
Cracked Lintel in Mamshit
Orientation not recorded
Long Shot

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023