| Transliterated Name | Source | Name |
|---|---|---|
| Urn Tomb | ||
| al-Mahkamah | Arabic | الءماهكاماه |
Figure 2
Jones (2021) argues that al-Zantur I Spatromisch II ceramics, rather than dating from 363 CE - 419 CE, should date to at least a century later. If true, this would negate archaeoseismic evidence for an earthquake reported in 419 CE (i.e. the Monaxius and Plinta Quake) at ez-Zantur and other sites in Petra such as in a structure outside the Urn Tomb, and in Structure I of the NEPP Project. Jones (2021) suggests instead that the causitive earthquake was more likely the late 6th century CE Inscription At Areopolis Quake. Jones (2021) provides a discussion below:
Within Petra, the 418/419 earthquake has been suggested as the cause for the destruction of three structures:At the Urn Tomb, a 363 earthquake destruction has been suggested for a cave below the tomb (Zayadine 1974: 138) as well as House II, which was partially rebuilt afterwards and by the 6th century was being `used as a quarry' (Zeitler 1993: 256-57). Taking this quarrying as evidence for a 5th century abandonment of House II, Kolb (2000: 230; 2007: 154-55) suggests a second destruction in the 418/419 earthquake, primarily based on analogy to al-Zantur I. As only a preliminary report has appeared for House II, it is not possible to evaluate the archaeological evidence for this attribution, but a 5th century abandonment of House II may instead be related to the modification of the Urn Tomb for use as a church in 446 (Bikai 2002: 271).
- al-Zantur I, specifically the end of Bauphase Spatromisch II
- one of the structures outside of the Urn Tomb, House II
- North-Eastern Petra Project (NEPP) Structure I
| Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description/Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Destruction (Collapsed Walls) | House II | Within the Urn Tomb complex, earlier interpretations had proposed earthquake destruction in multiple loci, including damage attributed to a 363 event in a cave below the tomb and in House II. House II was then partly rebuilt, and by the 6th century it was reportedly being “used as a quarry” (Zeitler 1993:256–257, as discussed by Jones 2021). Kolb’s proposal of a second destruction in 419 relied largely on analogy with al-Zantur I, but Jones notes that the archaeological evidence for House II cannot be independently evaluated because only a preliminary report has appeared. Jones further raises an alternative historical explanation for a 5th-century shift in House II’s use: it may relate to the modification of the Urn Tomb for use as a church in 446 (Bikai 2002:271, as summarized by Jones 2021), rather than requiring a discrete 419 earthquake destruction horizon. |
Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)| Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description/Comments | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Destruction (Collapsed Walls) | House II | Within the Urn Tomb complex, earlier interpretations had proposed earthquake destruction in multiple loci, including damage attributed to a 363 event in a cave below the tomb and in House II. House II was then partly rebuilt, and by the 6th century it was reportedly being “used as a quarry” (Zeitler 1993:256–257, as discussed by Jones 2021). Kolb’s proposal of a second destruction in 419 relied largely on analogy with al-Zantur I, but Jones notes that the archaeological evidence for House II cannot be independently evaluated because only a preliminary report has appeared. Jones further raises an alternative historical explanation for a 5th-century shift in House II’s use: it may relate to the modification of the Urn Tomb for use as a church in 446 (Bikai 2002:271, as summarized by Jones 2021), rather than requiring a discrete 419 earthquake destruction horizon. | VIII+ |
